How many judgments cite Sargam Cinema v. CIT?

172 judgments on BharatTax cite Sargam Cinema v. CIT (328 ITR 513), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sargam Cinema v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 132, Section 153A, Section 69B, Section 292C, Section 115BBE.

Sargam Cinema v. CIT

328 ITR 513Supreme Court of India2010#561 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 366,339 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 132 Section 153A Section 69B Section 292C Section 115BBE Section 132(4)Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 142a section 131(1)(d)section 38 surrender of income section 55a section 150 mat credit section 69b accumulated profits section 158bd section 131(1)retracted statement

Judgments citing Sargam Cinema v. CIT

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Na vs. Ari Circle, Navsari

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2867/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2867-2869/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Shri Rajesh Khemchand Tharwani, Tax, Navsari Circle, Room L/H Lt. Shri Khemchandbhai Vs. No./302, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Kungmal Tharwani, Prop. Of K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Gidc, Charpool Police Chowki, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Lunsikui, Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.3135/Ahd/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) Shri Khemchand Kangumal Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tharwani, By L/R Rajesh Tax, Navsari Circle, Room No./302, Vs. Khemchand Tharwani, Prop. Of M/S Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Charpool K.K. Biscuit Bakery, 154-155, Police Chowki, Lunsikui, Gidc, Kabilpore, Navsari-396445 Navsari-396445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalpt 1806 G (Assessee ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Gautam – S. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

…volved in this lis is no longer res-integra. The Assessment, on the basis of DVO's report, cannot be reopened as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Dhairya Construction Co. reported in 328 ITR 555 and in the case of Sargam Cinema reported in 328 ITR 513. Therefore, Let us, first analyze the reasons recorded by the assessing officer. For the sake of clarity, the reasons recorded by the assessing officer are re-produced below: "Form for recording the reasons for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Name and address of the assessee M/s. Shri Khemchand Kungmal Tharwani Prop, o…

Brahamputra Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 4116/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aakash Deep Jainshri N.K. Billaiya.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed, CIT- DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA No. 4115/DEL/2018 [A.Y 2006-07] ITA No. 4116/DEL/2018 [A.Y 2007-08] M/s Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd Vs. The Dy. C.I.T. A-7, Mahipalpur, NH – 8 Circle – 15 Mahipalpur Crossing, Mahipalpur New Delhi. New Delhi PAN: AAACB 8918 K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv Shri Lalit Mohan, CA Department By : Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed, CIT- DR Date of Hearing : 15.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 15.03.2022 ORDER…

Brahamputra Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 4115/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aakash Deep Jainshri N.K. Billaiya.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed, CIT- DR

Sh. Hafizuddin Hazi, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3690/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 150(2)Section 151(2)Section 154

…ejected the books of account before referring the matter to DVO. He submitted that in the absence of rejection of books of account, reference to DVO is invalid in law. For the above proposition, he relied on the following decisions:- (i) SARGAM CINEMA VS. CIT 328 ITR 513 (SC); (ii) CIT VS. BAJRANG LAL BANSAL 335 ITR 572 (DEL); (iii) LUCKNOW PUBLIC EDUCATION SOCIETY (2011) 339ITR 588(ALL); (iv) GOODLUK AUTOMOBILES (P) LTD. VS. ACIT 78 DTR (GUJ.) 104; AND (v) CIT V/S SMT, SURAJ DEVI 64 DTR (DEL) 372; 15. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no adverse material on record to justify the referenc…

ITO (E) -1(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Foundation, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6279/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hon'Ble Itat In Its Own Case In A.Y.2011-12 Which Is Pending For Adjudication."

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 13(3)Section 25

…rities to question the same 4 Virendra v. Appropriate Authority (327 ITR 1 85) (Bom HC) 5 CIT v. Shriram Pistons and Rings Ltd. (181 ITR 230) (Del HC) Proposition II: Reference to DVO cannot be made without rejecting books of accounts. 6 Sargam Cinema v. CIT (328 ITR 513) (SC) 7 Amol Chand Vurshncy Sewa Sansthan v. ACIT (142 ITD 658) (Agra T) Proposition III: Adequate rent is not equivalent to Fair Market rent 8 Commissioner of Gift-Tax v. Indo Traders and Agencies (P.) Ltd, (131 ITR 313) (Mad) 9 Commissioner of Gift-tax v. Nelson & Co. (245 ITR 347) (Mad) Proposition IV: On the facts of the case, provisions of s…

Chandralok Hotels Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

ITA 300/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Chandra Lok Hotels Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaccc 9912 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Rajat Mitra Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/08/2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mitra

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 50OSection 5O

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Chandra Lok Hotels Ltd., Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Hyderabad. Income-tax, Circle – 1(2), Hyderabad. PAN – AACCC 9912 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue by: Shri Rajat Mitra Date of hearing: 19/07/2021 Date of pronouncement: 27/08/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against CIT(A) - 1, Hyderabad’s order dated 30/05/…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Cybercity Builders & Developers Private Limited, Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1554/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.Chandra Sekhar, DR

Section 142ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…he instant appeal: “1.The Ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee. 2.The Ld.CIT(A) erred in relying on the case laws including the Hon'ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Sargam Cinema Vs. :- 2 -: CIT (328 ITR 513) (2010) (SC) which was pronounced prior to 01.10.2014. After the amendment to section 142A of the Act the AO can make a reference to the Valuation Officer even without rejecting the books of account. 3.The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the provisions of section 142A have been amended w.e.f.01.10.2014 and as per sub- section (2) of…

Shri Prince Rai, Damoh vs. Income Tax Officer, Damoh

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

ITA 145/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2009-10 Prince Rai, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward - Damoh Damoh (M.P.) (M.P.) [Pan: Ahlpr 7469N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. H.S. Modh, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Swati Agarwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2021

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…issuing specific finding/s qua each item of valuation being contested by the assessee before him. The second observation/s again pertains to this addition. The assessee has in his second paper-book (PB-II) enclosed the decision in Sargam Cinema v. CIT [2011] 328 ITR 513 (SC), whereby the Apex Court upheld the Tribunal’s order setting aside an addition based on a valuation report by the DVO as the reference to him by the AO was without rejecting the assessee’s books of account, invalidating the reference, so that the same could not be relied upon. This gives rise to various issues, which are therefore being highl…

M/S Fateh Homes Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Chandigarh

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 50/CHANDI/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: The Itat In A Connected Case On The Same Set Of Facts & Circumstances

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148

…second para of the reasons recorded, it was his submission that admittedly some Valuation Report has been relied upon to unsettle the assessee's claim. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sargam Cinema Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 328 ITR 513 (S.C) it was his submission that such an action did not have judicial sanction and it was barred by the AO. 6. Ld. Sr.DR Ms. Meenakshi Vohra sought to intervene that the reason recorded and the formation of the belief is not the Valuation Report but report of the Punjab Vigilance Bureau and thus, decision of the Apex Court may not be attracted…

DCIT (E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Foundation, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4065/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 154Section 25

…harity Commissioner has correctly been accepted by learned CIT(A). In this regard he placed reliance upon the following case laws : • CIT Vs. Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd (181 ITR 230) • Virendra Vs. Appropriate Authority (327 ITR 185) • Sargam Cinema Vs. CIT (328 ITR 513) • Amol Chand Varshney Sewa Sansthan Vs. ACIT (142 ITD 658) • HDFC Bank Ltd. Vs. ACIT (WP No. 462 of 2017) • JRD Tata Trust Vs. DCIT (122 taxmann.com 275) • Commissioner of Gift Tax Vs. Nelson & Co.(245 ITR 347) • DIT Vs. Span Foundation (178 Taxman 436) 22. Upon careful consideration we note that after examining shareholding pattern of the pers…

The ITO, Ward-1, Anand vs. M/S. Devraj Developers, Anand

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1526/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1524 To 1526/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr.DR

Section 142ASection 147

…report was not valid and ITA Nos. 1524 to 1526/Ahd/18 (ITO vs. M/s. Devraj Developers) A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2011-12 - 9 - to be quashed. This decision is taken after considering the ratio of Hon'ble apex Court rendered in the case of Sargam Cinema Vs CIT [2010] 328 ITR 513 (SC) which is heavily relied upon by the Ld. Authorized Representative. Also have considered in details the facts of the present case as emanating from the assessment orders passed by three different Assessing Officers on different dates who made routine additions on ad hoc basis, the detailed report of A.O. in respect of survey conducted in the…

The ITO, Ward-1, Anand vs. M/S. Devraj Developers, Anand

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1525/AHD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1524 To 1526/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr.DR

Section 142ASection 147

The ITO, Ward-1, Anand vs. M/S. Devraj Developers, Anand

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 1524/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1524 To 1526/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr.DR

Section 142ASection 147

Chakkilam Sudhakar, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 669/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Oct 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri K.N.Suresh Babu, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 669/HYD/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Sudhakar Chakkilam, The Income Tax Officer, HYDERABAD Vs Ward-6(1), [PAN: AAUPC0462G] HYDERABAD (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, AR For Revenue : Shri K.N.Suresh Babu, DR Date of Hearing : 13-10-2020 Date of Pronouncement : 21-10-2020 O R D E R PER Smt. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. : This is assessee’s appeal for the AY.2008-09, directed against…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Usha Rani Talla, New Delhi

In the result the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3823/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Nagesh Bahel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Gupta, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 142ASection 48

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3823/Del/2014 A.Y. : 2005-06 DCIT, CIRCLE 25(1), VS. Smt. Usha Rani Talla, NEW DELHI B-5, Near Durga Mandir, Moti Nagar, New Delhi – 110 015 (PAN: AEBRP3546P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND I.T.A. No. 3820/Del/2014 A.Y. : 2009-10 DCIT, CIRCLE 25(1), VS. Urvashi Talla, NEW DELHI B-5, Near Durga Mandir, Moti Nagar, New Delhi – 110 015 (PAN: ADTPT5304J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Department by : Sh. R.K. Gupta, Addl. CIT(DR) Assessee by : Sh. Nagesh Bahel, A…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Urvashi Talla, New Delhi

In the result the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3820/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Nagesh Bahel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Gupta, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 142ASection 48

M/S Hotel Ajuba Residency, Patiala vs. DCIT, Circle, Patiala

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 829/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudershan, JCIT

Section 133ASection 142A(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…oner of Income Tax V/s V T Rajendran 288 ITR 312 (MAD) 3. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Dhariya Construction Company 328 ITR 515 (SC) 4. Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Chohan Resorts 359 ITR 394 (P&H) 5. Sargam Cinema V/s Commissioner of Income Tax 328 ITR 513 (SC) 6. Darshan Buildcon V/s Income Tax Officer 416ITR66(GUJ) 8. In his rival submissions the Ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that since there was the difference between valuation determined by the DVO and as disclosed by the assessee, so there was the escapement of the income to the extent…

M/S. Vishnu Apartments Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5665/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 250

…e have perused the order passed by the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 (supra) wherein identical issue has been decided by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sargam Cinema vs. CIT 328 ITR 513 and the order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Ambience Developers and Infrastructure (P) Ltd. 210 taxman 187. 8. Undisputedly, books of account of the assessee have never been rejected by the lower Revenue authorities. So, it is settled principle of law that without rejecting books of account, AO is not empowered to c…

Asst CIT 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. World Trade Park Ltd, Jaipur

Accordingly, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1665/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1665, 1666 & 1667/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 To 2012-13)

For Respondent: Shri Aseem Thakkar, AR

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Trib) 4. DCIT Vrs. Premsons (2010) 130 TTJ 159 (Mum- Trib) 14. Further he submitted that before making addition none of the books are rejected and in this regard, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema Vrs. CIT (2010) 328 ITR 513(SC). 15. With regard to assessment year 2012-13, he submitted that the addition was made similar to the facts in the assessment year 2011-12. 16. With regard to AY 2010-11, he requested the bench to remit this issue back to CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh, since assessee has given relevant information and submission before CIT(A) that additions were…

M/S Vishnu Apartments Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the

ITA 5309/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri I.P. Bansal &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT, DR

Section 132

…books of account of the assessee are not rejected and the addition has been sustained by the CIT(A) on the basis of the report of the DVO which is on estimate basis. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sargam Cinema vs. CIT, 328 ITR 513, he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has held that an assessing authority cannot refer any matter to the DVO without rejecting the books of account. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ambience Developers and Infrastructure (P) Ltd., 210 taxman 187, he submitted that the…