Sarita Aggarwal v. ITO Delhi High Court

373 ITR 586High Court2015#17785 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2024.

Also reported as

231 Taxmann 60056 Taxmann.com 195

Judgments citing Sarita Aggarwal v. ITO Delhi High Court

Udayan Grover, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…apparent was not real. Sumati Dayal Vs CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801(SC)  CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC)  CIT Vs. P. Mohana Kala & others [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC)  CIT Vs. Ms. Mayawati [2011] 338 ITR 563 (Del.)   Sarita Aggarwal Vs. ITO [2015] 373 ITR 586 (Del.) 7.17 Further, in support of circumstantial evidence taking precedence over direct evidence, I would like to place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Collector of Customs Vs. Bhoormul [1974] SCC (2) 544 7.18 Accordingly, after applying the ‘Theory of Human Probabilities’ and placing reliance on the above mentio…

Sudhir Jain HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 25(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals of different assesses are dismissed

ITA 1741/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aagpj6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Adrpj4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (Huf), Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) (Appellants) (Respondents)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…ssessee. It was held that the Tribunal was not justified in deleting addition on account of gifts alleged to have been received by assessee 5. Sarita Aggarwal Vs ITO Delhi High Court 2015 [2015] 56 taxmann.com 195 (Delhi)/[2015] 231 Taxman 600 (Delhi)/[2015] 373 ITR 586 (Delhi)/[2017] 294 CTR 71 (Delhi) Where assessee could not prove genuinenes of gift claimed to have been received from an NRI anc also factum that transaction was out of love and affection, a sine qua non to establish a genuine gift, amount was added to assessee's income under section 68 6. E. Ummer Bava Vs CIT Kerala High Court 2016 [2016] 72 t…

Daya Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 25(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals of different assesses are dismissed

ITA 1740/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aagpj6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Adrpj4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (Huf), Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) (Appellants) (Respondents)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…ssessee. It was held that the Tribunal was not justified in deleting addition on account of gifts alleged to have been received by assessee 5. Sarita Aggarwal Vs ITO Delhi High Court 2015 [2015] 56 taxmann.com 195 (Delhi)/[2015] 231 Taxman 600 (Delhi)/[2015] 373 ITR 586 (Delhi)/[2017] 294 CTR 71 (Delhi) Where assessee could not prove genuinenes of gift claimed to have been received from an NRI anc also factum that transaction was out of love and affection, a sine qua non to establish a genuine gift, amount was added to assessee's income under section 68 6. E. Ummer Bava Vs CIT Kerala High Court 2016 [2016] 72 t…

Sushma Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 25(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals of different assesses are dismissed

ITA 1739/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aagpj6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Adrpj4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (Huf), Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) (Appellants) (Respondents)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…ssessee. It was held that the Tribunal was not justified in deleting addition on account of gifts alleged to have been received by assessee 5. Sarita Aggarwal Vs ITO Delhi High Court 2015 [2015] 56 taxmann.com 195 (Delhi)/[2015] 231 Taxman 600 (Delhi)/[2015] 373 ITR 586 (Delhi)/[2017] 294 CTR 71 (Delhi) Where assessee could not prove genuinenes of gift claimed to have been received from an NRI anc also factum that transaction was out of love and affection, a sine qua non to establish a genuine gift, amount was added to assessee's income under section 68 6. E. Ummer Bava Vs CIT Kerala High Court 2016 [2016] 72 t…

Meenu Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 25(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals of different assesses are dismissed

ITA 1738/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Meenu Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Sushma Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aagpj6675A) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Smt. Daya Jain, Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Adrpj4409L) A N D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Shri Sudhir Jain (Huf), Ito, 158, Rajdhani Enclave, Vs. Ward : 25 (1), Pitampura, New Delhi – 34 New Delhi (Pan: Aalpj5836E) (Appellants) (Respondents)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…ssessee. It was held that the Tribunal was not justified in deleting addition on account of gifts alleged to have been received by assessee 5. Sarita Aggarwal Vs ITO Delhi High Court 2015 [2015] 56 taxmann.com 195 (Delhi)/[2015] 231 Taxman 600 (Delhi)/[2015] 373 ITR 586 (Delhi)/[2017] 294 CTR 71 (Delhi) Where assessee could not prove genuinenes of gift claimed to have been received from an NRI anc also factum that transaction was out of love and affection, a sine qua non to establish a genuine gift, amount was added to assessee's income under section 68 6. E. Ummer Bava Vs CIT Kerala High Court 2016 [2016] 72 t…

Sarita Aggarwal v. ITO Delhi High Court (373 ITR 586) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax