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

373 ITR 9High Court2015#1328 most cited

What is Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT ( authority for?

Additions made for amounts surrendered during a search or survey operation are justified if the assessee fails to provide a satisfactory and bona fide explanation for the surrendered amount or to substantiate its retraction.

86

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Raj Hans Towers · Section 132(4) · Section 133A · surrendered amount · unsatisfactory explanation · bona fide explanation · retraction of statement · additions to income · search assessment · survey assessment

Also reported as

230 Taxmann 567

Sections most often in play

Section 133ASection 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 139Section 148Section 132
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 133(a)abatement of assessmentsection 153b(1)(a)time barred assessmentsection 148(1)section 153(1)(a)retracted statementbona fide mistakestatement under section 132(4)section 90asection 153b(1)section 153(4)

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

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

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

ITA 2648/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…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…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Rajiv Gulati, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed; whereas,

ITA 2726/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal &For Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…& ITA No. 2726/Del/2012 DCIT vs. Rajiv Gulati of admission made by the assessee deserves to be accepted. In support of her contention she relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2015) 373 ITR 9 (Delhi), wherein it was held that where the assessee had not offered any explanation regarding surrendered amount being not bonafide and it was also not borne out from the contention raised by the assessee before the lower authorities, then such a surrendered income needs to be added. Similarly, she relied upon another judgment of Bombay High…

Mr Rajiv Gulati, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed; whereas,

ITA 1762/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal &For Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…& ITA No. 2726/Del/2012 DCIT vs. Rajiv Gulati of admission made by the assessee deserves to be accepted. In support of her contention she relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Raj Hans Towers (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (2015) 373 ITR 9 (Delhi), wherein it was held that where the assessee had not offered any explanation regarding surrendered amount being not bonafide and it was also not borne out from the contention raised by the assessee before the lower authorities, then such a surrendered income needs to be added. Similarly, she relied upon another judgment of Bombay High…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Arn Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1222/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambledcit Vs Amr Infrastructure Ltd. Circle-2(1), Room No. 398D, 2425/11, Beadonpura, C. R. Building Near Gurduwara Road, Karol New Delhi Bagh, New Delhi Aafca8375E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs Arn Infrastructure Ltd. Circle-2(1), 9, Birla House, Arya Samaj New Delhi Road Karol Bagh, New Delhi Aafca6403M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT Vs AMR Infrastructure Ltd. Circle-2(1), Room No. 398D, 2425/11, Beadonpura, C. R. Building Near Gurduwara Road, Karol New Delhi Bagh, New Delhi AAFCA8375E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DCIT Vs ARN Infrastructure Ltd. Circle-2(1), 9, Birla House, Arya Samaj New Delhi Road Karol Bagh, New Delhi AAFCA6403M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv, Sh. Ashwani Taneja, FCA Respondent by Sh. R. C. Dande, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement 30.10.2017 ORDER PER SUCHIT…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Amr Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1206/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambledcit Vs Amr Infrastructure Ltd. Circle-2(1), Room No. 398D, 2425/11, Beadonpura, C. R. Building Near Gurduwara Road, Karol New Delhi Bagh, New Delhi Aafca8375E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit Vs Arn Infrastructure Ltd. Circle-2(1), 9, Birla House, Arya Samaj New Delhi Road Karol Bagh, New Delhi Aafca6403M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER DCIT Vs AMR Infrastructure Ltd. Circle-2(1), Room No. 398D, 2425/11, Beadonpura, C. R. Building Near Gurduwara Road, Karol New Delhi Bagh, New Delhi AAFCA8375E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DCIT Vs ARN Infrastructure Ltd. Circle-2(1), 9, Birla House, Arya Samaj New Delhi Road Karol Bagh, New Delhi AAFCA6403M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv, Sh. Ashwani Taneja, FCA Respondent by Sh. R. C. Dande, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement 30.10.2017 ORDER PER SUCHIT…

Rajender Jain vs. DCIT CC-21, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2231/DEL/2008[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2015AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Ms Suchitra Kamble, Jm Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Bindal &For Respondent: Shri V.R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR
Section 133A

…is of no consequence. It is more 4 so because the surrender made at the time of survey was duly backed by the evidence of undisclosed income found from the possession of the assessee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Raj Hans Towers Pvt. Ltd. VS. CIT (2015) 373 ITR 9 (Delhi) dealt with a situation in which the director of a company made some surrender during the course of survey. That assessee did not retract it immediately or any time before show cause was issued to it. For first time, in reply to show cause notice, the assessee faintly urged that the statement by the director was not voluntary and sought to…