Smt. Neena Syal v. ACIT

70 ITD 62Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1999#3024 most cited

What is Smt. Neena Syal v. ACIT authority for?

Disallowance of expenses cannot be made if their genuineness is not challenged. For unexplained money, possession of gold jewellery by married ladies up to 500 grams is considered explained.

39

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Smt. Neena Syal v. ACIT · section 69A · unexplained money · jewellery seizure · married ladies · 500 grams · explained income · genuineness of expenses · disallowance

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1) of the Income Tax ActSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 1961Section 250Section 36(2)Section 69ASection 92C(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 142asection 150surrender of incomemat crediteconomic adjustmentaccumulated profitssection 158bdprofit split methodsection 80icshell companysection 142(2a)section 2(22)

Judgments citing Smt. Neena Syal v. ACIT

Sanjeev Aggarwal, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh

ITA 489/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18
Section 127Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, चंडीगढ़ पीठ, चंडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 579/CHD /2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.582 to 584/CHD/ 2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17 & आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 591/CHD /2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Maxport India Pvt. Ltd. C/o Parikshit Aggarwal, Chartered Accountant, H. No. 3035, Sector 27D, Chandigarh- 160019. बनाम Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Centre Circle-1,…

Mohammed Khalid Masud, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-33, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 171/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.171/Kol/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mohammed Khalid Masud……..…..……............…...……………....Appellant 70, Karaya Road, Circus Row Kolkata - 700019. [Pan:Afapm6677G] Vs. Acit, Circle-33, Kolkata…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishak Bansal, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Divakar Chakraborty, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 15, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 21 , 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 389 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Which Is Further Supported By An Affidavit Of The Petitioner Namely Mohammed Khalid Masud. Considering The Submissions Made In The Affidavit, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned.

Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…with law but in no case, remand should be made to enable an assessee to fill in the blanks or lacuna in the case which remains present. What applies to the assessee, would equally apply to the AO. Likewise, in the case of Smt. NeenaSyal vs. Asstt. CIT (1999) 70 ITD 62 (Chd.), the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal has observed that it is not the function of the Tribunal to allow further opportunity to the AO to cover up legal lapses made by him, by restoring the matter back to his file. Therefore, remand/setting aside order could not be made in this case to enable the AO to make up his earlier deficient work by in…

Shri Mohd. Ilyas Ansari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 6174/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleshri Mohd. Ilyas Ansari V. Income Tax Officer - 23(2)(3) Room No. 22, 1St Floor Room No. 110 Building No. 41, Bootwala Manzil Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Navpada, Bandra(E) Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aexpa7459N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsyanFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik
Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

…with law but in no case, remand should be made to enable an assessee to fill in the blanks or lacuna in the case which remains present. What applies to the assessee, would equally apply to the AO. Likewise, in the case of Smt. NeenaSyal vs. Asstt. CIT (1999) 70 ITD 62 (Chd.), the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal has observed that it is not the function of the Tribunal to allow further opportunity to the AO to cover up legal lapses made by him, by restoring the matter back to his file. Therefore, remand/setting aside order could not be made in this case to enable the AO to make up his earlier deficient work by in…

Abhishek Dhanotia, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer- 3(1), Indore

ITA 655/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 1Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 69

…There had to be something more than that. The Tribunal’s finding that the 18 [ITA No.655/Ind/2018] [Abhishek Dhanotia ] Revenue had failed to prove that the total investment of the assessee was Rs. 13 crores was not perverse.” h) Neena Syal v. ACIT [1999] 70 ITD 62 (Chand.) - Held - “In the instant case, even the seized document on the basis of which the impugned addition of Rs.4.83 lakhs had been made, had not been found at the residence of the assessee and the same had not been specifically confronted to the assessee before making the impugned addition. Further, in assessment of V addition of Rs.14.20 lacs…

DCIT 5(1), Indore vs. Shri Mahesh Banasal, Indore

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue and Assessee

ITA 499/IND/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mahesh Bansal, Income Tax 5(1), 44, Manish Bagh, Indore Agrawal Nagar, Indore

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

….CIT (2008) 327 ITR 290 (Guj) e) M/s. Eagle Seeds & Biotech Ltd Vs. ACIT, (2006) 6 ITJ 668 (Indore Bench) f) CIT Vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Del), g) ITO Vs. R.L. Narang (Dr.) (2008) 174 Taxmann 96 (Chandigarh) Smt. Neena Syal Vs. ACrT (1999) 70 ITD 62 (Chd.) h) 4.3 The judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 1D the case of Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC); Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd vs, CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC); Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs, CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC); 11 Mahesh Bansal ITA No.499/2018 & C.O.No.10/Ind/2019 Umacharan Shaw& Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3039/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…arti 254 ITR 261 (Del) (b) CIT vs N. Swamy (Madras High Court) reported in 241 (c) ITR 363. Rajpal Singh Ram Avtar vs. ITO 39 TTJ544 (d) Ghanshyam Dass HasaNand 28 Taxman 219 (Mag) (e) (Mum) Ashok Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT 100 CTR 204 (All) (f) Neena Syal vs. ITO 70 ITD 62 (Chd) (g) ACIT vs. Lakshmi Printing Co. 46 TTJ 177 (Chd) (h) Jai Sharda Rice Mills vs. ITO 36 ITD 254 (Asr) (i) ITO vs. Har Preet Industries 59 ITD 346 (Chd) G) Ramnik Lai & Bros vs. ITO 81 Taxman 26 (All) (Mag) (k) 10. The Ld. AR further submitted that it has likewise been held by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of Aurobindo Sanitary vs…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3038/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…arti 254 ITR 261 (Del) (b) CIT vs N. Swamy (Madras High Court) reported in 241 (c) ITR 363. Rajpal Singh Ram Avtar vs. ITO 39 TTJ544 (d) Ghanshyam Dass HasaNand 28 Taxman 219 (Mag) (e) (Mum) Ashok Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT 100 CTR 204 (All) (f) Neena Syal vs. ITO 70 ITD 62 (Chd) (g) ACIT vs. Lakshmi Printing Co. 46 TTJ 177 (Chd) (h) Jai Sharda Rice Mills vs. ITO 36 ITD 254 (Asr) (i) ITO vs. Har Preet Industries 59 ITD 346 (Chd) G) Ramnik Lai & Bros vs. ITO 81 Taxman 26 (All) (Mag) (k) 10. The Ld. AR further submitted that it has likewise been held by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of Aurobindo Sanitary vs…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3037/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…arti 254 ITR 261 (Del) (b) CIT vs N. Swamy (Madras High Court) reported in 241 (c) ITR 363. Rajpal Singh Ram Avtar vs. ITO 39 TTJ544 (d) Ghanshyam Dass HasaNand 28 Taxman 219 (Mag) (e) (Mum) Ashok Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT 100 CTR 204 (All) (f) Neena Syal vs. ITO 70 ITD 62 (Chd) (g) ACIT vs. Lakshmi Printing Co. 46 TTJ 177 (Chd) (h) Jai Sharda Rice Mills vs. ITO 36 ITD 254 (Asr) (i) ITO vs. Har Preet Industries 59 ITD 346 (Chd) G) Ramnik Lai & Bros vs. ITO 81 Taxman 26 (All) (Mag) (k) 10. The Ld. AR further submitted that it has likewise been held by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of Aurobindo Sanitary vs…

Mr. Jagat Singh, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3036/DEL/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…arti 254 ITR 261 (Del) (b) CIT vs N. Swamy (Madras High Court) reported in 241 (c) ITR 363. Rajpal Singh Ram Avtar vs. ITO 39 TTJ544 (d) Ghanshyam Dass HasaNand 28 Taxman 219 (Mag) (e) (Mum) Ashok Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT 100 CTR 204 (All) (f) Neena Syal vs. ITO 70 ITD 62 (Chd) (g) ACIT vs. Lakshmi Printing Co. 46 TTJ 177 (Chd) (h) Jai Sharda Rice Mills vs. ITO 36 ITD 254 (Asr) (i) ITO vs. Har Preet Industries 59 ITD 346 (Chd) G) Ramnik Lai & Bros vs. ITO 81 Taxman 26 (All) (Mag) (k) 10. The Ld. AR further submitted that it has likewise been held by the Hon’ble Orissa High Court in the case of Aurobindo Sanitary vs…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Namita Devi Kothari, Rajasthan

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 528/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. S.K. Yadav & Sh. O.P. Kant

…of CIT V. Rajesh Kumar reported in 306 ITR 27 (iii) Tribunal Delhi Bench decision in the case of ACIT Vs. Anima Investment Ltd reported in 73 ITD 125 AYs: 2005-06 & 2006-07 (iv) Tribunal Chandigarh Bench decision in the case of Neena Syal Vs. ACIT reported in 70 ITD 62 (v) Tribunal Delhi Bench Third Member decision in the case of Zuari Leasing and Finance Ltd Vs. ITO reported in 115 TTJ 721 16. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The fact that search action on the residential premises of the assessee was carried out on 17/8/2005 is undisputed. We find that during asse…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Namita Devi Kothari, Rajasthan

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 527/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. S.K. Yadav & Sh. O.P. Kant

…of CIT V. Rajesh Kumar reported in 306 ITR 27 (iii) Tribunal Delhi Bench decision in the case of ACIT Vs. Anima Investment Ltd reported in 73 ITD 125 AYs: 2005-06 & 2006-07 (iv) Tribunal Chandigarh Bench decision in the case of Neena Syal Vs. ACIT reported in 70 ITD 62 (v) Tribunal Delhi Bench Third Member decision in the case of Zuari Leasing and Finance Ltd Vs. ITO reported in 115 TTJ 721 16. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The fact that search action on the residential premises of the assessee was carried out on 17/8/2005 is undisputed. We find that during asse…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mukesh Garg, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11 are dismissed while the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3549/DEL/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 Asstt. Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Mukesh Garg, Income Tax, Circle-12, 292, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, New Delhi Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapg2585Q Assessee By : Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…of the assessee and there was no co- relation with other material found either during the course of search or on investigation thereafter. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Ashwani Kumar Vs ITO (1997) 39 ITD 183 (Del) " Neena Syal’s (1999) 70 ITD 62 (Chdd.) " Elite Developers Vs DCIT (2000) 73 ITD 379 (Nag) " ACIT Vs Satyapal Wassan (2007) 295 ITR (AT) 352 (Jabalpur) " Addl. CIT Vs Miss Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) " Saif Ali Khan Mansurali Vs ACIT (2012) 13 ITR (Trib) 204 (Mum) ITA Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 23 Mukesh Garg " D. S. Agencies and Associates & Usha Distributors…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mukesh Garg, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11 are dismissed while the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3546/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 Asstt. Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Mukesh Garg, Income Tax, Circle-12, 292, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, New Delhi Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapg2585Q Assessee By : Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…of the assessee and there was no co- relation with other material found either during the course of search or on investigation thereafter. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Ashwani Kumar Vs ITO (1997) 39 ITD 183 (Del) " Neena Syal’s (1999) 70 ITD 62 (Chdd.) " Elite Developers Vs DCIT (2000) 73 ITD 379 (Nag) " ACIT Vs Satyapal Wassan (2007) 295 ITR (AT) 352 (Jabalpur) " Addl. CIT Vs Miss Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) " Saif Ali Khan Mansurali Vs ACIT (2012) 13 ITR (Trib) 204 (Mum) ITA Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 23 Mukesh Garg " D. S. Agencies and Associates & Usha Distributors…

Mrs. Sunita Beriwala, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5499/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Ms. Sunita Beriwala, C/O- M/S. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Arora & Bansal, Ca, 1401, Tax, Central Circle-2, New Delhi Vikram Tower, 16 , Rajendra Place, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aejpb3096E (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Ms. Sunita Beriwala, 15/10, Room No. 323, 3Rd Floor, Ara Sarvpriya Vihar, New Delhi Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi

Section 132(4)Section 254(2)Section 69B

…asion of Diwali in 1987. Thus, the total possession of gold claimed to be belonging to her is 350.5 gms. We are reminded of the order passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Neena Syal vs. Asstt. CIT (2000) 69 TTJ (Chd) 516 : (1999) 70 ITD 62 (Chd) in which it was held that CBDT Instruction No. F. 288/63/93-IT (Inv.)-II dt. 11th May, 1994 containing guidelines for seizure of jewellery and ornaments in the course of search, was relevant with reference to the deeming provision of s. 69A as well. In this instruction, the possession of gold jewellery by married ladies upto 500 gms. has been…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Sunita Beriwala, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5408/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Ms. Sunita Beriwala, C/O- M/S. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Arora & Bansal, Ca, 1401, Tax, Central Circle-2, New Delhi Vikram Tower, 16 , Rajendra Place, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aejpb3096E (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2007-08 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. Ms. Sunita Beriwala, 15/10, Room No. 323, 3Rd Floor, Ara Sarvpriya Vihar, New Delhi Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi

Section 132(4)Section 254(2)Section 69B

…asion of Diwali in 1987. Thus, the total possession of gold claimed to be belonging to her is 350.5 gms. We are reminded of the order passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Neena Syal vs. Asstt. CIT (2000) 69 TTJ (Chd) 516 : (1999) 70 ITD 62 (Chd) in which it was held that CBDT Instruction No. F. 288/63/93-IT (Inv.)-II dt. 11th May, 1994 containing guidelines for seizure of jewellery and ornaments in the course of search, was relevant with reference to the deeming provision of s. 69A as well. In this instruction, the possession of gold jewellery by married ladies upto 500 gms. has been…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Dlf Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3061/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

…ts of his case and to fill up the omission by giving another innings— Asstt. CIT v. Anima Investment Ltd. [2000] 73 ITD 125 (Delhi) Page 30 of 144 Asstt.CIT v. Arunodoi Apartments (P.)Ltd. [2002] 123 Taxman 48 (Gau.)(Mag.) Smt. Neena Syal v. Asstt.CIT [1999] 70 ITD 62 (Chd.). (7)The Courts have held that appeals are not to be decided for giving ‘one more innings’ to the lower authorities in the appellate jurisdiction. -Rajesh Babubhai Damania v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 5411 (Guj.) -CIT v. Harikishan Jethalal Patel [1987] 168 ITR 4722 (Guj.). Remand not for the benefit of the party seeking it to fill up gaps." 10. It…

Dlf Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2677/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 144Section 146Section 250

…ts of his case and to fill up the omission by giving another innings— Asstt. CIT v. Anima Investment Ltd. [2000] 73 ITD 125 (Delhi) Page 30 of 144 Asstt.CIT v. Arunodoi Apartments (P.)Ltd. [2002] 123 Taxman 48 (Gau.)(Mag.) Smt. Neena Syal v. Asstt.CIT [1999] 70 ITD 62 (Chd.). (7)The Courts have held that appeals are not to be decided for giving ‘one more innings’ to the lower authorities in the appellate jurisdiction. -Rajesh Babubhai Damania v. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 5411 (Guj.) -CIT v. Harikishan Jethalal Patel [1987] 168 ITR 4722 (Guj.). Remand not for the benefit of the party seeking it to fill up gaps." 10. It…

Mahalaxmi Bullions Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 6036/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

…e Zuari Leasing & Finance Ltd. (supra) has also relied upon the judgements cited as Asstt. CIT v. Anima Investment Ltd [2000] 73 ITD 125 (Delhi), Asstt. CIT v. Arunodai Apartments (P.) Ltd [2002] 123 Taxman 48 (Gau.) (Mag.), Smt. Neena Syalv. Asstt. CIT[1999] 70 ITD 62 (Chd.), Rajesh Babubhai Damania v. CIT[2001] 251 ITR 5411 (Guj.) and CIT v. 15 Harikishan Jethalal Patel [1987] 168 ITR 4722 (Guj.) wherein it is held that powers of the Tribunal in the matter of setting aside an assessment are large and wide, but these powers cannot be exercise to allow the A.O. an opportunity to patch up the weak parts of this c…

North Delhi Bullion Traders Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 6033/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

…e Zuari Leasing & Finance Ltd. (supra) has also relied upon the judgements cited as Asstt. CIT v. Anima Investment Ltd [2000] 73 ITD 125 (Delhi), Asstt. CIT v. Arunodai Apartments (P.) Ltd [2002] 123 Taxman 48 (Gau.) (Mag.), Smt. Neena Syalv. Asstt. CIT[1999] 70 ITD 62 (Chd.), Rajesh Babubhai Damania v. CIT[2001] 251 ITR 5411 (Guj.) and CIT v. 15 Harikishan Jethalal Patel [1987] 168 ITR 4722 (Guj.) wherein it is held that powers of the Tribunal in the matter of setting aside an assessment are large and wide, but these powers cannot be exercise to allow the A.O. an opportunity to patch up the weak parts of this c…