Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (

Ved Prakash, Haryana vs. ACIT, Bhiwani

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is on this ground is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1409/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 Ita No. 1410/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Ita No. 1411/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Ita No. 1412/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 1413/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ved Parkash, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income S/O Sh. Partap Singh, Tax, Sco 202-203, Office Of Paras Wali Gal, Near Bus Stand, Income Tax, Huda City Centre, Charkhi Dadri, Haryana Bhiwani (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Azyps0463J Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.07.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Rohtak Each Dated 30.12.2016. 2. In Ita No. 1409/Del/2017, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Effective Grounds: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering That The Assessed Income After Giving Appeal Effect Of Order Of Ld. Cit(A) & Hon'Ble Itat Was Wrongly Determined On 03/03/2011 At Rs.1,58,925/- Instead Of Correct Computation At Rs.66,425/-. Even This Issue Has Not Been Considered Though Raised. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) In The Facts Of The Case Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Of Income From School Without

…ing coercion, threat or inducement. Hence, the contentions advanced by the appellant in that regard were dismissed and the conclusion of the Tribunal on that count was affirmed." [Para 9] 6. Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified (SURVEY CASE) 7. PCIT Vs Avinash Kumar S…

Ved Prakash, Haryana vs. ACIT, Bhiwani

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is on this ground is dismissed

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1409/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 Ita No. 1410/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Ita No. 1411/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Ita No. 1412/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Ita No. 1413/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ved Parkash, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income S/O Sh. Partap Singh, Tax, Sco 202-203, Office Of Paras Wali Gal, Near Bus Stand, Income Tax, Huda City Centre, Charkhi Dadri, Haryana Bhiwani (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Azyps0463J Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.07.2019 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Rohtak Each Dated 30.12.2016. 2. In Ita No. 1409/Del/2017, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Effective Grounds: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Without Considering That The Assessed Income After Giving Appeal Effect Of Order Of Ld. Cit(A) & Hon'Ble Itat Was Wrongly Determined On 03/03/2011 At Rs.1,58,925/- Instead Of Correct Computation At Rs.66,425/-. Even This Issue Has Not Been Considered Though Raised. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) In The Facts Of The Case Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Of Income From School Without

…ing coercion, threat or inducement. Hence, the contentions advanced by the appellant in that regard were dismissed and the conclusion of the Tribunal on that count was affirmed." [Para 9] 6. Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified (SURVEY CASE) 7. PCIT Vs Avinash Kumar S…

Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

…rmed.” [Para 9] 7. Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before low…

Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

…rmed.” [Para 9] 7. Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before low…

Surya Processed Food Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

…rmed.” [Para 9] 7. Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before low…

M/S. Marvel Crafts, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

…thdrew the same after two years without any satisfactory 5 explanation, it could not be treated as bona fide and hence, the addition would sustain. Referring to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 373 ITR 9, she submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the assessee has not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding the surrendered amount being not bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, the additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified. She als…

Uma Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Centrl Circle-3, New Delhi

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…(2018) 93 taxmann.com 247 (Del.) xv. Smt. Dayawanti Vs CIT (2017) 390 ITR 496 (Del.) xvi. M/s Pebble Investment and Finance Ltd. Vs ITO (2017-TIOL238- SC-IT) xvii. Greenview Restaurant Vs ACIT (2003) 263 ITR 169 (Gau.) xviii. Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT 373 ITR 9 (Del.) xix. PCIT Vs Avinash Kumar Setia (2017) 81 taxmann.com 476 (Del.) xx. M/s Punjab Sind Dairy Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (2017- TIOL- 83-SC-IT) xxi. CIT Sonal Construction (2012-TIOL-851-HC-DEL-IT) xxii. CIT Vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwala (2011) 331 ITR 510 (Del.) xxiii. Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs CIT (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand) xxiv. Bha…

Ritu Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…(2018) 93 taxmann.com 247 (Del.) xv. Smt. Dayawanti Vs CIT (2017) 390 ITR 496 (Del.) xvi. M/s Pebble Investment and Finance Ltd. Vs ITO (2017-TIOL238- SC-IT) xvii. Greenview Restaurant Vs ACIT (2003) 263 ITR 169 (Gau.) xviii. Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT 373 ITR 9 (Del.) xix. PCIT Vs Avinash Kumar Setia (2017) 81 taxmann.com 476 (Del.) xx. M/s Punjab Sind Dairy Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (2017- TIOL- 83-SC-IT) xxi. CIT Sonal Construction (2012-TIOL-851-HC-DEL-IT) xxii. CIT Vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwala (2011) 331 ITR 510 (Del.) xxiii. Mahabir Prasad Rungta Vs CIT (2014) 43 Taxmann.com 328 (Jharkhand) xxiv. Bha…

M/S. Alert India, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Alert India, Vs. Acit, C-1, Sma Industrial Estate, Circle-19(1), New Delhi G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi Pan :Aaafa4467H (Appellant) (Respondent)

…e distinguishable from the case in hand where the Assessee has waited for 2 years to resile from the declaration earlier made. 15. On the side of Revenue, reliance was placed on the decision in Raj Hans Towers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-V (2015) 373 ITR 9 (Del.) where the Court explained the evidentiary value of a statement under Section 133A of the Act. 16. The Court finds that in the present case, the ITAT erred in relying upon the decision in CIT v. Khader Khan Son (supra), which as noted hereinbefore, is distinguishable on facts. The Court is not satisfied that the retraction made by the Assesse…

Himanshu Kohli, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava

…using coercion, threat or inducement. Hence, the contentions advanced by the appellant in that regard were dismissed and the conclusion of the Tribunal on that count was affirmed.” [Para 9] 6 Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd. v. CIT [56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that were assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified (SURVEY CASE) 7 PCIT v. Avinash Kumar Setia [2017] 81 tax…

Himanshu Kohli, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava

…using coercion, threat or inducement. Hence, the contentions advanced by the appellant in that regard were dismissed and the conclusion of the Tribunal on that count was affirmed.” [Para 9] 6 Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd. v. CIT [56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that were assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified (SURVEY CASE) 7 PCIT v. Avinash Kumar Setia [2017] 81 tax…

Himanshu Kohli, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava

…using coercion, threat or inducement. Hence, the contentions advanced by the appellant in that regard were dismissed and the conclusion of the Tribunal on that count was affirmed.” [Para 9] 6 Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd. v. CIT [56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that were assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not bona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified (SURVEY CASE) 7 PCIT v. Avinash Kumar Setia [2017] 81 tax…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Sajjan Kumar Goel, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2003-04

…R 361 (Delhi). • M/s Pebble Investment and Finance Ltd Vs ITO (2017-TIQL-238- SC-IT). • M/s Pebble Investment and Finance Ltd Vs ITO (2017-TIOL-188-HC- MUM-IT) Bombay High Court confirmed. • Rai Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67. 230 Taxman 567. 373 ITR 9). • PCIT Vs Avinash Kumar Setia T20171 81 taxmann.com 476 (Delhi). • Order of CESTAT dated 08.02.2013 in the case of Sajjan Kumar Goel and Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Customs. 7. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 1,73,980/-. The same was assessed u/s 143(1) on 27.10.2003 at an income of Rs. 1,…

Smt. Ruchi Mittal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the ITA No

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14

…girath Aggarwal v. CIT 351 ITR 143 (Del) iii) Smt. Dayawanti v. CIT 390 ITR 496 (Del) iv) M/s Pebble Investment and Finance Ltd. v. ITO 2017 TIOL 238 (SC) v) M/s Pebble Investment and Finance Ltd. v. ITO 2017 TIOL 188 (Bom) vi) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd. v. CIT 373 ITR 9 (Del) vii) PCIT v. Avinash Kumar Setia 81 taxmann.com 476 (Del) 8. For the sake of convenience, we first adjudicate the issues raised in the ground nos. 2 to 4 in the case of Radha Mittal and Ground nos. 1 to 3 in the case of Ruchie Mittal challenging the addition sustained on account of unexplained jewellery under section 69A of the Income Tax Ac…

Smt. Radha Mital, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the ITA No

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14

…girath Aggarwal v. CIT 351 ITR 143 (Del) iii) Smt. Dayawanti v. CIT 390 ITR 496 (Del) iv) M/s Pebble Investment and Finance Ltd. v. ITO 2017 TIOL 238 (SC) v) M/s Pebble Investment and Finance Ltd. v. ITO 2017 TIOL 188 (Bom) vi) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd. v. CIT 373 ITR 9 (Del) vii) PCIT v. Avinash Kumar Setia 81 taxmann.com 476 (Del) 8. For the sake of convenience, we first adjudicate the issues raised in the ground nos. 2 to 4 in the case of Radha Mittal and Ground nos. 1 to 3 in the case of Ruchie Mittal challenging the addition sustained on account of unexplained jewellery under section 69A of the Income Tax Ac…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…e Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that an addition in assessee’s income relying on statements recorded during search operations cannot be deleted without proving statements to be incorrect. 3. Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) Where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not nona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified. 4. Smt Dayawanti Vs CIT(75 taxmann.com…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…e Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that an addition in assessee’s income relying on statements recorded during search operations cannot be deleted without proving statements to be incorrect. 3. Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) Where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not nona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified. 4. Smt Dayawanti Vs CIT(75 taxmann.com…

Shri Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…e Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that an addition in assessee’s income relying on statements recorded during search operations cannot be deleted without proving statements to be incorrect. 3. Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) Where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not nona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified. 4. Smt Dayawanti Vs CIT(75 taxmann.com…

Shri Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…e Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that an addition in assessee’s income relying on statements recorded during search operations cannot be deleted without proving statements to be incorrect. 3. Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) Where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not nona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified. 4. Smt Dayawanti Vs CIT(75 taxmann.com…

Shri Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…e Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that an addition in assessee’s income relying on statements recorded during search operations cannot be deleted without proving statements to be incorrect. 3. Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT (56 taxmann.com 67, 230 Taxman 567, 373 ITR 9) (Copy Enclosed) Where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where assessee had not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding surrendered amount being not nona fide and it was also not borne out in any contentions raised before lower authorities, additions so made after adjusting expenditure were justified. 4. Smt Dayawanti Vs CIT(75 taxmann.com…