Sargam Cinema v. CIT

328 ITR 513Supreme Court of India2010#558 most cited

What is Sargam Cinema v. CIT authority for?

For an Assessing Officer to make a valid reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer for the estimation of the cost of construction, the books of accounts must first be rejected under Section 145(3) of the Income-tax Act.

172

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sargam Cinema · CIT v Sargam Cinema · Section 145(3) · Section 142A · DVO reference · cost of construction estimation · rejection of books of accounts · Assessing Officer powers · valuation · assessment procedure · 328 ITR 513

Also reported as

197 Taxmann 203

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 69BSection 292CSection 115BBESection 132(4)Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 142asection 131(1)(d)section 38surrender of incomesection 55asection 150mat creditsection 69baccumulated profitssection 158bdsection 131(1)retracted statement

Judgments citing Sargam Cinema v. CIT

ZETA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3449/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)

…t leading to the best judgement assessment. To support the above view, the reliance is placed on the following authorities:  CIT Vs Pashupati Nath Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd. (Allahabad High Court) ITA No.165 of 2010 dated 04.05.2017  Sargam Cinema vs CIT 328 ITR 513(SC);  PCIT vs R.G. Buildwell Engineers Ltd (2018) 259 Taxman 371 (Del) approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in (2018) 259 Taxman 370 (SC) 17. On the other hand Ld. DR submitted that assessee has not substantiated the above claim of expenditures before the Assessing Officer and Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the statements made by the assess…

M/S SINGLA BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS LIMITED,RUPNAGAR, PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 487/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

…rence to DVO was invalid. The books of accounts were duly audited by independent auditor without any adverse remarks. No recourse to Sec.142A could be done by Ld. AO without first rejecting the books as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sargam Cinema (328 ITR 513). Similar was the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ambience Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (25 Taxmann.com 210). It was contended that when the reference to DVO was invalid, the assessment order was time-barred as per the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bajrang Textiles (294 ITR 561). Similar was…

M/S CREDO ASSETS PVT. LTD.,RUPNAGAR PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 482/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

…rence to DVO was invalid. The books of accounts were duly audited by independent auditor without any adverse remarks. No recourse to Sec.142A could be done by Ld. AO without first rejecting the books as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sargam Cinema (328 ITR 513). Similar was the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ambience Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (25 Taxmann.com 210). It was contended that when the reference to DVO was invalid, the assessment order was time-barred as per the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bajrang Textiles (294 ITR 561). Similar was…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAMA SHANKAR KHEMKA, GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1005/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…315 of Paper Book) v) ITA No. 176/204 dated 25.4.2014 (Del) CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd. vi) 237 ITR 570 (SC) CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan vi) vii) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT vii) viii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) ix) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT x) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera xi) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi xii) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal 44THAT SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPICION CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS TO MAKE FOR ADDITION 41 Khemka Group i) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC)…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, THIRD FLOOR vs. RAJESH RANI KHEMKA , GANESH BAZAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1004/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…315 of Paper Book) v) ITA No. 176/204 dated 25.4.2014 (Del) CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd. vi) 237 ITR 570 (SC) CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan vi) vii) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT vii) viii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) ix) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT x) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera xi) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi xii) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal 44THAT SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPICION CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS TO MAKE FOR ADDITION 41 Khemka Group i) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC)…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-6, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. PAYAL KHEMKA , K

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1000/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…315 of Paper Book) v) ITA No. 176/204 dated 25.4.2014 (Del) CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd. vi) 237 ITR 570 (SC) CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan vi) vii) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT vii) viii) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) ix) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT x) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera xi) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi xii) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. Bajrang Lal Bansal 44THAT SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND SUSPICION CANNOT BE MADE A BASIS TO MAKE FOR ADDITION 41 Khemka Group i) 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC)…

M/S CREDO ASSETS PVT. LTD.,RUPNAGAR PUNJAB vs. DCIT/ACIT(CEN)-1 CHD, CHANDIGARH

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 484/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

…rence to DVO was invalid. The books of accounts were duly audited by independent auditor without any adverse remarks. No recourse to Sec.142A could be done by Ld. AO without first rejecting the books as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sargam Cinema (328 ITR 513). Similar was the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ambience Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (25 Taxmann.com 210). It was contended that when the reference to DVO was invalid, the assessment order was time-barred as per the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bajrang Textiles (294 ITR 561). Similar was…

DCIT,CC-7(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TIME TECHNOPLAST LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6858/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarita No.6858/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2018-19) Deputy Commissioner Of V/S. Time Technoplast Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle – बनाम 2Nd Floor, 55, Corporate 7(2) Avenue, Saki Vihar Road, Room No. 637, Aaykar Andheri East, Mumbai – Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400072, Maharashtra – 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaact3858L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT DR)
Section 115JSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 69CSection 801CSection 80I

…rejected by him u/s 145 of the Act. It is a well decided judicial principle that the valuation of assets cannot be doubted by the AO without first rejecting books of accounts of the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sargam Cinemas v. CIT ([2010] 328 ITR 513) had held that the assessing authority cannot doubt valuation of assets without first rejecting the books of account. 11.5 Further, the AO did not even doubt the quantitative details of the machinery recorded by the assessee. He has merely doubted on the valuation of machinery, that too without providing any basis as to how the AO had arrived at…

DEEPSONS (INDIA) PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandradeepsons (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 31St Floor, Community Income Tax, Centre, Wazirpur Industrial Circle 7(1), Area, Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaacd3267B Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. S. K. Gupta, Ca Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal

Section 115BSection 68

…below contrary to the settled position of law, made the addition accordingly, relied on following judicial precedents: i).CIT VsPashupatiNath Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd. (Allahabad High Court) ITA No. 165 of 2010 dated 04.05.2017. ii) Sargam Cinema vs CIT 328 ITR 513(SC). iii) Vikram Plastics & Others [239 ITR 161] (Guj). iv) CIT VsRajni Kant Dave 281 ITR 6 (All);. v) VatikaLandbasePvt Ltd 383 IT 320 dated 26.02.2016 (Del);. vi) PCIT vs R.G. Buildwell Engineers Ltd (2018) 259 Taxman 371 (Del) approved by Hon'ble Apex Court in (2018) 259 Taxman 370 (SC); vii)Yunus Haji Ibrahim Fazalwalavs ITO 2016 (2) TMI 1204…

LSL TOOLS (P) LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CC-1, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5644/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…237 ITR 570 (SC) CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan (extracted at page 282 of Paper Book) b) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT (extracted at pages 282-283 of Paper Book) c) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. NareshKhattar (HUF) (extracted at page 283 of Paper Book) d) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT e) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera f) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO g) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi h) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. BajrangLal Bansal 20. Ld. AR further submitted that lack of enquiry by the Assessing officer from Sh. Kashif MK Traders by issuing notice u/s 133(6) or 131 of the…

LSL TOOLS (P) LTD,GURUGRAM vs. ACIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 5643/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 234CSection 40A(2)(b)

…237 ITR 570 (SC) CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan (extracted at page 282 of Paper Book) b) 107 ITR 938 (SC) Roshan Di Hatt vs. CIT (extracted at pages 282-283 of Paper Book) c) 261 ITR 664 (Del) CIT vs. NareshKhattar (HUF) (extracted at page 283 of Paper Book) d) 328 ITR 513 (SC) Sargam Cinema vs. CIT e) 328 ITR 516 (Del) CIT vs. Naveen Gera f) 131 ITR 597 (SC) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO g) 316 ITR 46 (Del.) CIT vs. Shakuntala Devi h) 335 ITR 572 (Del.) CIT vs. BajrangLal Bansal 20. Ld. AR further submitted that lack of enquiry by the Assessing officer from Sh. Kashif MK Traders by issuing notice u/s 133(6) or 131 of the…

DCIT EXEMPTION , GHAZIABAD vs. SAHYOG JAN KALYAN SAMITI , KANPUR

In the result, ITA No.2839/Del/2018 is partly allowed

ITA 2839/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer M/S Sahyog Jan (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Ward-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No.2839/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Sahyog Jan Income Tax (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Circle-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Advocate Ashish Jaiswal, Department By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Three Separate Orders As Detailed Below For Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since, Some Of The Issues Involved Ita No.2839/Del/2018

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69

…ad not invoked the provisions of section 145(3) before making reference to DVO. It is further submitted by the Ld. Sr. DR that the Ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema vs. ACIT reported in [2010] 328 ITR 513 (SC). The Ld. Sr. DR drew our attention to page-3 of the Assessment Order wherein in para 6, the AO in categorical terms observed that in terms of the order sheet dated 16.01.2014 the books of accounts were rejected and provisions of section 143(3) were invoked and assessee was further asked to show cause as to why the matter should not be sent t…

DCIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. SAHYOG JAN KALYAN SAMITI, KANPUR

In the result, ITA No.2839/Del/2018 is partly allowed

ITA 6248/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer M/S Sahyog Jan (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Ward-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No.2839/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Sahyog Jan Income Tax (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Circle-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Advocate Ashish Jaiswal, Department By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Three Separate Orders As Detailed Below For Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since, Some Of The Issues Involved Ita No.2839/Del/2018

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69

…ad not invoked the provisions of section 145(3) before making reference to DVO. It is further submitted by the Ld. Sr. DR that the Ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema vs. ACIT reported in [2010] 328 ITR 513 (SC). The Ld. Sr. DR drew our attention to page-3 of the Assessment Order wherein in para 6, the AO in categorical terms observed that in terms of the order sheet dated 16.01.2014 the books of accounts were rejected and provisions of section 143(3) were invoked and assessee was further asked to show cause as to why the matter should not be sent t…

ITO (E), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. SAHYOG JAN KALYAN SAMITI, KANPUR

In the result, ITA No.2839/Del/2018 is partly allowed

ITA 6247/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer M/S Sahyog Jan (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Ward-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No.2839/Del/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Sahyog Jan Income Tax (Exemption), Kalyan Samiti, Circle-Ghaziabad. Vs. 122/619, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur. Pan-Aabas0743G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Advocate Ashish Jaiswal, Department By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Are Three Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Three Separate Orders As Detailed Below For Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since, Some Of The Issues Involved Ita No.2839/Del/2018

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69

…ad not invoked the provisions of section 145(3) before making reference to DVO. It is further submitted by the Ld. Sr. DR that the Ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema vs. ACIT reported in [2010] 328 ITR 513 (SC). The Ld. Sr. DR drew our attention to page-3 of the Assessment Order wherein in para 6, the AO in categorical terms observed that in terms of the order sheet dated 16.01.2014 the books of accounts were rejected and provisions of section 143(3) were invoked and assessee was further asked to show cause as to why the matter should not be sent t…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, KANPUR., KANPUR vs. M/S. SUSHRUT INSTITUTE OF PLASTIC SURGERY PRIVATE LIMITED, LUCKNOW

The appeal of the Department stands dismissed whereas the Cross Objection of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 30/LKW/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 The Acit V. M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic Central Circle 2 Surgery Private Limited Kanpur 29, Shahmeena Road Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.15/Lkw/2023 [Arising Out Of Ita No.30/Lkw/2023] Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S Sushrut Institute Of Plastic V. The Acit Surgery Private Limited Central Circle 2 29, Shahmeena Road Kanpur Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaics2582G (Cross - Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69Section 69A

….6,92,900/- on the basis of DVO report without considering the additional ground that when the books of accounts were not rejected by the AO then he could not have referred the valuation to DVO thus violating the ratio of judgment in the case of Sangam Cinema 328 ITR 513 (SC). 2. Whether under facts and circumstances of the case the fact of the appellant is covered by the jurisdicition High Court decision in case of CIT-II, Lucknow vs M/s Lucknow Public Educational Society ITA No. 136 of 2007 vide order dated 17.03.2011 answered the following question:-"Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal Lucknow erred in Law in holding…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. R K S BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS , LUDHIANA

Appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 817/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.815/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2.आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.816/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.817/Chandi/2024 3. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit-Central Circle-2 M/S Rks Builders & Promoters बनाम/ Ludhiana. #1189, Near Aarti Chowk Vs. Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana – 141 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aatfr-5642-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Co No.2/Chandi/2025 (In Ita No.815/Chandi/2024) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Co No.3/Chandi/2025 (In Ita No.816/Chandi/2024) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.649/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.648/Chandi/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 127Section 132Section 153CSection 292C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.815/CHANDI/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2.आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.816/CHANDI/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.817/CHANDI/2024 3. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) DCIT-Central Circle-2 M/s RKS Builders and Promoters बनाम/ Ludhiana. #1189, Near Aarti Chowk Vs. Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana – 141 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AATFR-5642-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4.…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 , LUDHIANA vs. R K S BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS , LUDHIANA

Appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 816/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.815/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2.आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.816/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.817/Chandi/2024 3. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit-Central Circle-2 M/S Rks Builders & Promoters बनाम/ Ludhiana. #1189, Near Aarti Chowk Vs. Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana – 141 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aatfr-5642-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Co No.2/Chandi/2025 (In Ita No.815/Chandi/2024) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Co No.3/Chandi/2025 (In Ita No.816/Chandi/2024) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.649/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.648/Chandi/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 127Section 132Section 153CSection 292C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.815/CHANDI/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2.आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.816/CHANDI/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.817/CHANDI/2024 3. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) DCIT-Central Circle-2 M/s RKS Builders and Promoters बनाम/ Ludhiana. #1189, Near Aarti Chowk Vs. Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana – 141 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AATFR-5642-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4.…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. R K S BUILDERS AND PROMOTERS, LUDHIANA

Appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 815/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.815/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2.आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.816/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.817/Chandi/2024 3. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit-Central Circle-2 M/S Rks Builders & Promoters बनाम/ Ludhiana. #1189, Near Aarti Chowk Vs. Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana – 141 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aatfr-5642-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Co No.2/Chandi/2025 (In Ita No.815/Chandi/2024) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Co No.3/Chandi/2025 (In Ita No.816/Chandi/2024) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.649/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.648/Chandi/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 127Section 132Section 153CSection 292C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.815/CHANDI/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2.आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.816/CHANDI/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.817/CHANDI/2024 3. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) DCIT-Central Circle-2 M/s RKS Builders and Promoters बनाम/ Ludhiana. #1189, Near Aarti Chowk Vs. Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana – 141 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AATFR-5642-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4.…

RKS BUILDERS PROMOTERS, 1189, NEAR AARTI CHOWK, KRISHNA NAGAR, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA, PUNJAB vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 (JURISDICTIONAL AO), LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

Appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 649/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.815/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2.आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.816/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.817/Chandi/2024 3. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit-Central Circle-2 M/S Rks Builders & Promoters बनाम/ Ludhiana. #1189, Near Aarti Chowk Vs. Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana – 141 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aatfr-5642-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Co No.2/Chandi/2025 (In Ita No.815/Chandi/2024) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Co No.3/Chandi/2025 (In Ita No.816/Chandi/2024) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.649/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.648/Chandi/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 127Section 132Section 153CSection 292C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.815/CHANDI/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2.आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.816/CHANDI/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.817/CHANDI/2024 3. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) DCIT-Central Circle-2 M/s RKS Builders and Promoters बनाम/ Ludhiana. #1189, Near Aarti Chowk Vs. Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana – 141 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AATFR-5642-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4.…

RKS BUILDERS PROMOTERS 1189, NEAR AARTI CHOWK, KRISHNA NAGAR, LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA , PUNJAB

Appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 648/CHANDI/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.815/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2.आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.816/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.817/Chandi/2024 3. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit-Central Circle-2 M/S Rks Builders & Promoters बनाम/ Ludhiana. #1189, Near Aarti Chowk Vs. Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana – 141 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aatfr-5642-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Co No.2/Chandi/2025 (In Ita No.815/Chandi/2024) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Co No.3/Chandi/2025 (In Ita No.816/Chandi/2024) (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.649/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.648/Chandi/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 127Section 132Section 153CSection 292C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.815/CHANDI/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2.आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.816/CHANDI/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.817/CHANDI/2024 3. (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) DCIT-Central Circle-2 M/s RKS Builders and Promoters बनाम/ Ludhiana. #1189, Near Aarti Chowk Vs. Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana – 141 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AATFR-5642-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4.…

Showing 1–20 of 172 · Page 1 of 9

...
Sargam Cinema v. CIT (328 ITR 513) — Cited in 172 Judgments | BharatTax