Sumati Dayal v. CIT

214 ITR 801Supreme Court of India1995#12 most cited

What is Sumati Dayal v. CIT authority for?

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

1,967

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,518 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sumati Dayal v CIT · Section 68 · human probabilities · genuineness of transaction · true nature of transaction · accommodation entry · bogus capital gains · penny stock · look behind apparent form · preponderance of probability · colourable device · unexplained loans

Also reported as

80 Taxmann 89125 CTR 124

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 142(1)Section 115BBESection 69CSection 69A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

price riggingcolourable devicepreponderance of probabilitybogus ltcgpenny stocksection 10(38)entry operatoraddition under section 68addition u/s 68genuineness of the transactionaccommodation entryshare application money

Judgments citing Sumati Dayal v. CIT

Kiran Infertility Centre Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 629/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mitra, DR
Section 194CSection 201(1)

…the entire surrogacy procedure adopted by the assessee with the so called NGO and its authorised person as it is evident from the perusal of the case file in the light of human probabilities after removing all blinkers as held in Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) [214 ITR 801] (SC) and CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) [82 ITR 540] (SC). We thus conclude that so far as the application of 194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) is concerned, the assessee’s all other arguments regarding taxability of the surrogate mothers also deserve to be rejected since its payee himself had admitted that it had not maintained any accounts of the paymen…

JCIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Prasandi Builders Pvt. Ltd., Meerut

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4647/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 50CSection 68

…High Court in Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254(Gau). In order to be able to unravel the sinister designs of evasive and manipulative assessees, the Apex Court went by the ratio and standards enunciated in the cases of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT Vs. Mohankala (2007) 291 ITR 278(SC). It would thus be amply clear, on a careful reading of the judgment as a whole, that the Apex Court did not spell out any fresh test or any new mode or manner of verification of share capital u/s 68 of the Act. It is most noteworthy that in a way, the Apex Court in the said judgment stood by the m…

Shri. Dinesh B Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed partly

ITA 357/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Ms. Morvi ChaturvediFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhele
Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 251

…s from supplier to assessee or any other form of evidence of delivery, even though payment was made through cheques and purchases are evidenced by suppliers bills, the purchases are liable to be disallowed in toto. 6.6 Reliance is also placed on Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801 SC) and Durga Prasad More ((1971) 82 ITR 540 SC) to state that the apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying th…

Kirtiprada Fashions Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. ITO, Ward -1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Sept 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Malpani, FCAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.95/SRT/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kritiprada Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Block No.41-42, Plot No.1, B/h Ward-1(1)(3), Surat. Garden Vareli, Vill. Vakaneda, Kadodara, Surat-394327. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCK6111E (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ramesh Malpani, FCA Revenue by : Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 05/08/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 09/09/2021 आदेश / O R…

DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Midas Golden Distilleries Private Limited, Kancheepuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 3372/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3368, 3369, 3370, 3371 & 3372/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)

…register, the appellant’s contention that there could not be any excess production is untenable. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More, (1971) 82 ITR 540 and Sumathi Dayal vs. CIT, (1995) 214 ITR 801. 6. The ld.AR for the assessee on the other hand strongly supporting order of the ld.CIT(A) submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly appraised the facts in light of various evidences filed by the assessee including reconciliation of purchase and consumption of secondary raw materials like empty bottles, 21 I.TA. Nos. 3368 to 3372/Chny/2018 caps, l…

DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Midas Golden Distilleries Private Limited, Kancheepuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 3371/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3368, 3369, 3370, 3371 & 3372/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)

…register, the appellant’s contention that there could not be any excess production is untenable. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More, (1971) 82 ITR 540 and Sumathi Dayal vs. CIT, (1995) 214 ITR 801. 6. The ld.AR for the assessee on the other hand strongly supporting order of the ld.CIT(A) submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly appraised the facts in light of various evidences filed by the assessee including reconciliation of purchase and consumption of secondary raw materials like empty bottles, 21 I.TA. Nos. 3368 to 3372/Chny/2018 caps, l…

DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Midas Golden Distilleries Private Limited, Kancheepuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 3370/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3368, 3369, 3370, 3371 & 3372/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)

…register, the appellant’s contention that there could not be any excess production is untenable. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More, (1971) 82 ITR 540 and Sumathi Dayal vs. CIT, (1995) 214 ITR 801. 6. The ld.AR for the assessee on the other hand strongly supporting order of the ld.CIT(A) submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly appraised the facts in light of various evidences filed by the assessee including reconciliation of purchase and consumption of secondary raw materials like empty bottles, 21 I.TA. Nos. 3368 to 3372/Chny/2018 caps, l…

DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Midas Golden Distilleries Private Limited, Kancheepuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 3369/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3368, 3369, 3370, 3371 & 3372/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)

…register, the appellant’s contention that there could not be any excess production is untenable. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More, (1971) 82 ITR 540 and Sumathi Dayal vs. CIT, (1995) 214 ITR 801. 6. The ld.AR for the assessee on the other hand strongly supporting order of the ld.CIT(A) submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly appraised the facts in light of various evidences filed by the assessee including reconciliation of purchase and consumption of secondary raw materials like empty bottles, 21 I.TA. Nos. 3368 to 3372/Chny/2018 caps, l…

DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Midas Golden Distilleries Private Limited, Kancheepuram

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 3368/CHNY/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Sept 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 3368, 3369, 3370, 3371 & 3372/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, CITFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)

…register, the appellant’s contention that there could not be any excess production is untenable. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More, (1971) 82 ITR 540 and Sumathi Dayal vs. CIT, (1995) 214 ITR 801. 6. The ld.AR for the assessee on the other hand strongly supporting order of the ld.CIT(A) submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly appraised the facts in light of various evidences filed by the assessee including reconciliation of purchase and consumption of secondary raw materials like empty bottles, 21 I.TA. Nos. 3368 to 3372/Chny/2018 caps, l…

Brash Steels Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(2), Faridabad

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

ITA 6181/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S Brash Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Near Ward-1(2), Neelam Flyover, Sector-20B, Faridabad, Faridabad, Haryana-121002 Haryana-121002 Pan-Aafcb0204R

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Farat Khan, Sr. DR
Section 11USection 133(6)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…cting the various explanations given by the assessee and following the decisions of the Hon’ble 3 Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540, McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 154 ITR 148 and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 802, the AO made addition of Rs.45,80,000/- to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the IT Act being the whole of share capital and share premium. While doing so, the AO further observed that since the addition on account of share premium and share capital has already been made u/s 68 of the Act, no separate addition is being made u/s 56(2)(v…

Asst CIT CC 1 (1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Babubhai V Patel, Navi Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 7470/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India In Various Other Appeals. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Was Correct In Narrowing Down The Scope Of Assessment U/S. 153A In Respect Of Completed Assessments By Holding That Only Undisclosed Income & Undisclosed Assets Detected During The Search Could Be Brought To Tax. 3. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Was Correct In Holding That The Scope Of Section 153A Is Limited To Assessing Only Search Related Income, Thereby Denying Revenue, The 2 Shri Babubhai V. Patel

Section 131(1)(d)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…n the guise of share application money, unsecured loans, bogus billing etc. The company listed at Sr. No. 8 above is also a Kolkata based company which is identified as entry provider by the DDIT(Inv), Kolkata. 3.10 In the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "in view of section 68, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the…

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 714/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax M/S Hemadari Machine Tools Central Circle -1 (4), Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Podar Centre, 85 Room No. 902, 9Th Floor, Parel Post Office Lane, Off Pratishtha Bhavan, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Parel, Old Cgo Bldg, (Annexe), Mumbai – 400 012 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh, D.R
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…is always not possible to have clinching evidence to establish such surreptitious activities, the A.O relied on the principles of the preponderance of human probability as was emphasised by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC). As regards the retraction of Shri Kirit kumar Dharshibhai Suba of his averments that were earlier made in his statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act, dated 11.01.2018 and 12.01.2018, wherein he had so retracted by filing an „affidavit‟, dated 03.04.2018, and had stated that as his statement in the course of the survey proceedings was recorde…

Jagmohan Kaur Bajwa Legal Heir of Lt.Jaskiran Singh Bajwa, Chandigarh vs. ITO, W-3(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Legal heir of the deceased assessee is allowed

ITA 962/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manveet Singh Sehgal, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 69A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी आर.एल. नेगी, "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI N.K. SAINI, VP & SHRI R.L. NEGI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 962/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Jagmohan Kaur Bajwa The ITO बनाम Legal heir Lt. Jaskiran Singh Bajwa Ward 3(1), Chandigarh H.No. 3077, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ACRPB9826E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Shri Aman Parti, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Rev…

Modern Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 17(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 7624/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Modern Overseas Pvt. Ltd., vs. Income-tax Officer, 11027-A, Motia Khan, Ward 17(1), New Delhi. New Delhi PAN : AAACM8982G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 05/07/2021 Date of order : 23 /07/2021 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M. Aggrieved by the order dated 16/10/2017 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, New Delhi (…

Sh.Didar Singh, Phagwara vs. Income Tax Officer, Phagwara

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

ITA 13/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 69

…n is enclosed herewith. This clearly shows that Mr. Sulkhan Ram is a man having considerable wealth in his name and action for his benami deeds must be taken against him. Ld Ar rerlied upon the decision in the matter of 82 ITR 540 - CIT Vs Durga Parsad More , 214 ITR 801 — SumatiDval Vs. CIT , 306 ITR 414 — Som Nath Maini Vs. CIT(A) 6 11. The Ld. AR had submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has submitted to the Assessing Officer that the assessee was merely a name lenders for the purchase of the property as is clear from the affidavit given by the seller namely Sh. Ram Lakhan S…

Smt. Sabreen, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(4), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed and Stay Application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 498/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 144Section 38

…in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi in I.T.A. No.130/2020, under similar facts and circumstances, has dealt with the issue of abnormal rise in price and after considering the case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801, [which has been relied on by learned CIT(A)], has I.T.A. No.498/Lkw/2019 Assessment Year:2014-15 4 dismissed the theory of preponderance and has relied on the theory of evidence and has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. It was submitted that various benches of the Tribunal including the Lucknow Bench, under similar facts and circumstances, h…

Mr Jitesh Banwari Bhargav, Mumbai vs. ITO 24 (2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7908/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7908/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Jitesh Banwari Bhargav Ito-24(2)(2) बनाम/ Room No.514, 5Th Floor B/501, Pratik, Jp Road Opp. Dhake Colony, D.N.Nagar, Piramal Chambers Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053 Parel, Mumbai - 400012 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Afvpb-3415-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Girish Dave-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri S.S.Iyengar – Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 16/04/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 12/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Iyengar – Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…e did not tender any cogent evidence to explain as to how the shares of an unknown company worth Rs.5/- had jumped to Rs.485/- in no time. Finally, the assessee’s appeal was not admitted. The ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal V/s CIT (214 ITR 801) as well as in Kanwar Natwar Singh was also noted while adjudicating the issue. 5.3 It was further observed by Ld. CIT(A), in para-7.4, that the scrip dealt with by the assessee was identified as penny stock because the share prices were not based on business results but the same were inflated by insider’s trading solely to generate bogus capital…

Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

ITA 6702/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 5330/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year: 2007-08 ITA No. 5332/Del/2016:Asstt. Year: 2009-10 ITA No. 5333/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year: 2010-11 ITA No. 5334/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year: 2011-12 ITA No. 5335/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year: 2012-13 ACIT, Vs Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra, Central Circle-14, A-29, Friends Colony, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110065 (APPELLANTT (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAJPK2441E With CO No. 342/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year: 2009-10 CO No. 343/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year: 2010-11 CO…

Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

ITA 6701/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 5330/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year: 2007-08 ITA No. 5332/Del/2016:Asstt. Year: 2009-10 ITA No. 5333/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year: 2010-11 ITA No. 5334/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year: 2011-12 ITA No. 5335/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year: 2012-13 ACIT, Vs Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra, Central Circle-14, A-29, Friends Colony, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110065 (APPELLANTT (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAJPK2441E With CO No. 342/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year: 2009-10 CO No. 343/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year: 2010-11 CO…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra, New Delhi

ITA 5334/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 5330/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year: 2007-08 ITA No. 5332/Del/2016:Asstt. Year: 2009-10 ITA No. 5333/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year: 2010-11 ITA No. 5334/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year: 2011-12 ITA No. 5335/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year: 2012-13 ACIT, Vs Sh. Parminder Singh Kalra, Central Circle-14, A-29, Friends Colony, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110065 (APPELLANTT (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAJPK2441E With CO No. 342/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year: 2009-10 CO No. 343/Del/2016 :Asstt. Year: 2010-11 CO…