How many judgments cite Yuvraj v. Union of India?

81 judgments on BharatTax cite Yuvraj v. Union of India (315 ITR 84), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Yuvraj v. Union of India come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 10(23C), Section 11.

Yuvraj v. Union of India

315 ITR 84High Court2009#1403 most cited

What is Yuvraj v. Union of India authority for?

Reassessment under Section 148 is valid and does not constitute a mere change of opinion if the original assessment order demonstrates no application of mind to a specific issue, such as the assessability of capital gains or casual income. In such cases, the Assessing Officer is justified in issuing a notice under Section 148 to address the unexamined income escapement.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Yuvraj v. Union of India · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening of assessment · mere change of opinion · no application of mind · escapement of income · reason to believe · capital gains · sale of right to purchase plot · validity of reassessment notice

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 10(23C)Section 11 Section 11(4A)Section 12

Issues it is cited on

section 147(a)mere change of opinion kelvinator change of opinion section 292b tangible material reason to believe borrowed satisfaction escapement of income section 292 reopening of assessment section 29

Judgments citing Yuvraj v. Union of India

Jagdish U. Thackersay, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Circle) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5045/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 54F

…ills Ltd. v. ITO and other (236 ITR 34), R.K. Malhotra ITO v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai [1997] 109 ITR 537 (SC), CIT v. P.V.S. Beedies (P.) Ltd. [1999] 237 ITR 13 (SC), ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC), Yuvraj v. Union of India [315 ITR 84] (SC) and Ankit Financial Services Ltd. v. DCIT [2017] 78 taxmann.com 58 (Gujarat). 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given infra. 8 Shri Jagdish U. We find that the assessee had filed before the AO a written submission dated 29.11.2010 containing inter alia a d…

Neel Builders Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 18(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 6336/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: For RevenueFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. Dr

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

…DR relied on the following decisions :- 10 ITA.No.6336/Del./2019 1. Yoqendrakumar Gupta Vs ITO (51 taxmann.com 383) (SC)/r20141 227 Taxman 374 (SC) 2. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO And Others 236 ITR 3. Yuvrai v. Union of India Bombay High Court r20091 315 ITR 84 (Bombay)/[2009] 225 CTR 283 (Bombay) 4. ACIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd [2007] 161 Taxman 316 (SC)/[2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC)/[2007]210 CTR 30 (SC) 5. Devi Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs ITO Bombay High Court 2017-TIQL-92-HC- MUM- IT 6. Acorus Unitech Wireless (P.) Ltd. Vs ACIT Delhi High Court [2014] 43 taxmann.com 62 (Delhi)/[2014] 223 Taxman…

Shri Arvindbhai Lallubhai Lakhankiya, Surat vs. The ACIT, Circle-9, Surat

ITA 962/AHD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Oct 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Court Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.962/Ahd/2016; "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 Shri Arvindbhai Lallubhai V Asst. Commissioner Of Lakhankiya, B-78, Hans Society, S Income Tax, Circle-9, Surat. Varchha Road, Surat. . [Pan: Aadpl 3819 P] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Ashwin Parekh – Ar राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 50C(3)

…ogendra Kumar Gupta Vs ITO (51 taxmann.com 383 SC), (ii) R.K Malhotra ITO Vs Kashturbhai Lalbhai (107 ITR 537 SC), (iii) CIT Vs PVS Beedies (P) Ltd (103 Taxman 294 SC), (iv) ACIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker (P) Ltd 161 Taxman 316 SC and (v) Yuvraj Vs UOI ( 315 ITR 84 SC). 13. We have considered the submissions of both the representatives and gone through the order of the tax authorities below. We have also deliberated on various case laws relied by the parties. There is no dispute that during the initial assessment proceedings under section 143(3) the A.O. examined the issue of investment in three plots made b…

Vodafone India Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3327/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shriramlal Negi, Jm Vodafone India Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Income Peninsula Corporate Park, Tax-8, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Room No. 611, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Road, Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin- 400020. Pan: Aaach 5332 B Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 35ASection 37

…ct has been rightly invoked since after considering Explanation to Section 263 of the Act, the order was passed without making enquiries which should have been made. 13. Reliance was placed by the ld.DR in the case of Yuvraj Vs Union of India and Anr. (2009) 315 ITR 84 (Bom). Wherein Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that where an issue as to whether income is to be treated as Capital Gain or Casual income is not decided, the same cannot be considered as a change of opinion and it cannot be said that the AO has applied his mind on the relevant issue. On similar lines, in the present case since the AO has not ex…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Niit Smartserve Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 5173/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowlaand Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2005-06] The Dy.C.I.T Vs. Niit Smartserve Ltd Circle – 18(2) 8, Balaji Estate New Delhi Guru Ravidas Marg New Delhi Pan: Aabcn 4598 E & Co No. 217/Del/2018 (In Ita No.5173/Del/2015) [Assessment Year: 2005-06] Niit Smartserve Ltd Vs. The Dcit 8, Balaji Estate Circle – 18(2) Guru Ravidas Marg New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcn 4598 E [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 32

…sessing Officer. It is the say of the ld. DR that no specific query was raised by the Assessing Officer in relation to business development and marketing development services. 12. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in 315 ITR 84 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that the points which have not been discussed/decided by the Assessing Officer do not tantamount to change of opinion. 13. Referring to Explanation (1) to section 147 of the Act, the ld. DR stated that mere production of books of account before the Assessing Officer will not amount to disclosure within firs…

Goel Wax (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-11(4), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2075/DEL/2018[2008-809]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2020AY 2008-809

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S GOEL WAX (P) LTD., Vs. ITO, WARD 11(4), C/O RAJ KUMAR & ASSOCIATES, NEW DELHI CAs, L-7A, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-2, NEW DELHI – 49 (PAN: AAACG0121F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Raj Kumar, CA Department by : Sh. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr. DR. ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-35, New Delhi on 01.12.2017 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09 on the following grounds:- 1. That under the facts and c…

Jai Pal, Panipat vs. ITO Ward 2, Panipat

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2750/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. & Ms. Mansi Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 JAI PAL, Vs. ITO, WARD-2, H.NO. 2198, E-BLOCK, PANIPAT ANSAL SUSHANT CITY, PANIPAT HARYANA (PAN: ASCPS2095M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. & Ms. Mansi Jain, CA Department by : Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR. ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Karnal on 23.01.2019 in relation to the assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the or…

Apc Air Systems P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4715/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Mrs. Sonia Rani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2008-09 APC AIR SYSTEMS P. LTD., Vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), 1/7236, EAST GORAKH PARK, NEW DELHI BEHIND HANUMAN MANDIR, SHAHDARA, NEW DELHI – 110 032 (PAN: AAECA7472P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Mrs. Sonia Rani, CA Department by : Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR. ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-I, New Delhi on 08.05.2018 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09 on the following grounds:- 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) err…

Giggle Infotech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1284/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Ostwal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S GIGGLE INFOTECH PVT. Vs. ITO, WARD 10(1), LTD., NEW DELHI C/O D. OSTWAL & ASSOCIATES, 310, COMPETENT HOUSE, F-14, MIDDLE CIRCLE, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI – 110 001 (PAN: AACCG6898F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Deepak Ostwal, FCA Department by : Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr.DR.. ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-35, New Delhi on 09.11.2017 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09 on the follo…

Tara Alloys Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 16(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 5407/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Sh. Nippun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2007-08 TARA ALLOYS LTD., Vs. ITO, WARD 16(1), 102, HARSHA HOUSE, NEW DELHI KARAMPURA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NEW DELHI – 110 015 (PAN: AAACT0545N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Nippun Mittal, CA Department by : Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR. ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-16, New Delhi on 30.05.2018 in relation to the assessment year 2007-08 on the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of th…

Heat Flown Electricals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3692/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. PranshuFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 HEAT FLOWN ELECTRICALS PVT. Vs. ITO, WARD 11(2), LTD., NEW DELHI 207, ALLIED HOUSE, 2, OLD ROHTAK ROAD, INDERLOK, NEW DELHI – 35 (PAN: AABCH0771R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Pranshu Singhal, CA Department by : Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR. ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-4, New Delhi on 29.03.2019 in relation to the assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:- 1.…

Neelam Arora, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-36(4), New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the respective assesses are allowed

ITA 2689/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhui.T.A. No. 2689/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Neelam Arora, Vs. Ito, Ward-36(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Adv. New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi – 85 (Pan: Afkpa9328J) (Assessee) (Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…seen whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. 2.1 Yuvraj v. Union of India Bombay High Court [20091 315 ITR 84 (Bombay)/[2009] 225 CTR 283 (Bombay) Points not decided while passing assessment order under section 143(3) not a case of change of opinion. Assessment reopened validly. 3. Devi Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs ITO Bombay High Court 2017-TIQL-92-HC-MUM- IT The likelihood of a different view when materials exist of forming a reasonable belief of escaped inc…

Blue Chip Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 5(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1061/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhui.T.A. No. 1061/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Blue Chip Developers (P) Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Cas New Delhi L-7A (Lgf), South Extension, Part-2, New Delhi – 49 (Pan: Aabcb4432B) (Assessee) (Respondent Assessee By : Shri Raj Kumar, Ca & Sh. Sumit Goel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CA & Sh. Sumit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 68Section 69

…be seen whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. 2. Yuvraj v. Union of India Bombay High Court [20091 315 ITR 84 (Bombay)/[2009] 225 CTR 283 (Bombay) Points not decided while passing assessment order under section 143(3) not a case of change of opinion. Assessment reopened validly. 3. Devi Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs ITO Bombay High Court 2017-TIQL-92-HC-MUM- IT The likelihood of a different view when materials exist of forming a reasonable belief of escaped inc…

The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. Ltu, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2551/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2551&2129/Mum/2012 नििाारण वर्ा/Asstt. Year:2006-07 The Shipping Corporation Of Additional Commissioner India Ltd. Vs. Of Income Tax Ltu Shipping House, 10Th Floor, 245, 29Th Floor, World Trade Madam Cama Road, Nariman Centre, Colaba, Mumbai- Point, Mumbai-400021 400006 Pan: Aaa Ct1 524 F Assistant Commissioner Of The Shipping Corporation Income Tax Ltu Of India Ltd. Centre-I, 28Th Floor, World Trade Shipping House, 10Th Centre, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai- Floor, 245, Madam Cama 400005 Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Pan: Aaa Ct1 524 F

For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234D

…there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. Bombay High Court in the case of Yuvraj v. Union of India reported in 315 ITR 84 has observed as under: Points not decided while passing assessment order under section 143(3) not a case of change of opinion. Assessment reopened validly. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Dy. CIT reported in [2012] 20 taxmann.com 5 (SC)/[2012] 206 Taxman 33 (SC)(MAG)/[2012] 340ITR 64 (SC)/[2012] 247 CTR 316 (…

Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2129/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234D

Anurag, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1023/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhui.T.A. No. 1023/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Anurag, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), E-26, Shastri Nagar, Ghaziabad Meerut Uttar Padesh Pin: 250002 (Pan: Aawpa7602C) (Assessee) (Respondent Assessee By : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234B

Umesh Kumar Tyagi, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 2(1), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2978/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 56

…be seen whether there was prima facie some material on the basis of which the department could reopen the case. The sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. 2. Yuvraj v. Union of India Bombay High Court [20091 315 ITR 84 (Bombay)/r20091 225 CTR 283 (Bombay) Points not decided while passing assessment order under section 143(3) not a case of change of opinion. Assessment reopened validly. 3. Devi Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs ITO Bombay High Court 2017-TIQL-92-HC-MUM- II The likelihood of a different view when materials exist of forming a reasonable belief of escaped in…

Dharmender Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 65(5), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2728/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, CA & Sh. Sumit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ekta Vishnoi, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE :SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2008-09 DHARMENDER KUMAR Vs. ITO, WARD 65(5), C/O RAJ KUMAR & ASSOCIATES,. NEW DELHI L-7A(LGF), SOUTH EXTENSION PART-II, NEW DELHI (PAN: ASGPK3927N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Raj Kumar, CA & Sh. Sumit Goel, CA Department by : Ms. Ekta Vishnoi, Sr. DR. ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-21, New Delhi on 28.03.2018 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09 on the following grounds:- 1. That under the facts…

Ramdev Mundhra, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 55(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1722/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69

…earch carried out in case of another person, came to know that loan transaction of the assessee with a financial company was bogus as the said assessee. He also relied on the following decisions for the above proposition:- i) Yuvraj vs. Union of India (2009) 315 ITR 84 (Bom); ii) ACIT vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P) Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC); iii) Devi Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO, 2017-TIOL-92-HC-MUM-IT; iv) Pranawa Leafin (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 33 taxmann.com 454 (Bombay); v) Acorus Unitech Wireless (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT (2014) 362 ITR 417 (Del); vi) Amit Polyprints (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2018) 94 taxmann.c…

Shriya Devi Mundhra, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 55(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1523/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68Section 69