CIT vs. LATA JAIN

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

transferred for such rates. 8. These arguments are certainly attractive but the language employed by Section 69B is the first stumbling block which Mr. Sabharwal has to overcome. The section is in the following terms: "SECTION 69B - AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS, ETC., NOT FULLYDISCLOSED INBOOKS OFACCOUNT Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments or isfound

CIT vs. LATA JAIN

transferred for such rates. 8. These arguments are certainly attractive but the language employed by Section 69B is the first stumbling block which Mr. Sabharwal has to overcome. The section is in the following terms: "SECTION 69B - AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS, ETC., NOT FULLYDISCLOSED INBOOKS OFACCOUNT Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments or isfound

CIT vs. DINESH J AIN

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

transferred for such rates. 8. These arguments are certainly attractive but the language employed by Section 69B is the first stumbling block which Mi". Sabharwal has to overcome. The section is in the foUowing terms: "SECTION 69B - AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS, ETC., NOT FULLY DISCLOSED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments or isfound

CIT vs. DINESH JAIN

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

transferred for such rates. 8. These arguments are certainly attractive but the ·language employed by Section 69B is the first stumbling block which Mr. Sabharwal has to overcome. The section is in the following terms: "SECTION 69B - AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS, ETC, NOT FULLY DISCLOSED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments

CIT vs. DINESH JAIN

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

transferred for such rates. 8. These arguments are certainly attractive but the language employed by Section 69B is the first stumbling block which Mr. Sabharwal has to overcome. The section is in the following terms: “SECTION 69B - AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS, ETC., NOT FULLY DISCLOSED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments

CIT vs. DINESH JAIN

transferred for such rates. 8. These arguments are certainly attractive but the ·language employed by Section 69B is the first stumbling block which Mr. Sabharwal has to overcome. The section is in the following terms: "SECTION 69B - AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS, ETC, NOT FULLY DISCLOSED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments

CIT vs. DINESH JAIN

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

transferred for such rates. 8. These arguments are cet1ainly attractive but the language employed by Section 69B is the first stumbling block which Mr. Sabharwal has to overcome. The section is in the following terms: "SECTION 69B - AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS, ETC, NOT FULLY DISCLOSED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments

CIT vs. DINESH JAIN

transferred for such rates. 8. These arguments are cet1ainly attractive but the language employed by Section 69B is the first stumbling block which Mr. Sabharwal has to overcome. The section is in the following terms: "SECTION 69B - AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS, ETC, NOT FULLY DISCLOSED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments

CIT vs. LATA JAIN

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

transferred for such rates. · 8. These· arguments are cettainly attractive but the language employed by Section 69B is the first stumbling block which Mr. Sabharwal has to overcome . .The section is in the following terms: "SECTION 69B - AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS, ETC, NOT FULLY DISCLOSED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments or isfound

CIT vs. LATA JAIN

transferred for such rates. · 8. These· arguments are cettainly attractive but the language employed by Section 69B is the first stumbling block which Mr. Sabharwal has to overcome . .The section is in the following terms: "SECTION 69B - AMOUNT OF INVESTMENTS, ETC, NOT FULLY DISCLOSED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT Where in any financial year the assessee has made investments or isfound

CIT vs. DINESH JAIN HUF

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 69B on the ground that there was no evidence to show any understatement or suppression of the sale consideration/purchase consideration and therefore, no addition can be made on the basis of the estimated market value of the properties. The Tribunal held as follows : “21. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record

CIT vs. DINESH JAIN HUF

Section 69B on the ground that there was no evidence to show any understatement or suppression of the sale consideration/purchase consideration and therefore, no addition can be made on the basis of the estimated market value of the properties. The Tribunal held as follows : “21. We have heard both the parties and gone through the material available on record

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. HI-ENERGY REALTORS PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

price as part of the exchange. Per reasoning above, I hold that, there being no surplus in value of land transferred to the appellant, and there being no basis or evidences to invoke the provisions of section 69B

ACIT, CC-14, DELHI vs. MAYFAIR RESORTS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

price paid for the property; (d) Section 69B does not permit an inference to be drawn from the circumstances surrounding the transaction that the purchaser of the property must have paid more than what was actually recorded in this books of account, because such an inference could be very subjective and could lead to the taxation of notional or fictitious

ACIT, CC-15, NEW DELHI vs. YASH PAL MENDIRATTA, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

price paid for the property; (d) Section 69B does not permit an inference to be drawn from the circumstances surrounding the transaction that the purchaser of the property must have paid more than what was actually recorded in this books of account, because such an inference could be very subjective and could lead to the taxation of notional or fictitious

ACIT, CIRCLE CC 15, NEW DELHI vs. ALKA MENDIRATTA , DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

price paid for the property; (d) Section 69B does not permit an inference to be drawn from the circumstances surrounding the transaction that the purchaser of the property must have paid more than what was actually recorded in this books of account, because such an inference could be very subjective and could lead to the taxation of notional or fictitious

VIJAY AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 48(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

price as claimed by the purchaser assessee-company. The Assessing Officer had not been able to establish that anything more than what had been admitted to have been paid and received had passed hands in order to invoke provisions of section 69B. As nothing had been proved to show that any other amount than admitted had been paid

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ASSOCIATE TECHNO PLASTICS P. LTD

The appeal is dismissed and the question of law is answered in favour of the

transferred 12,70,000 shares of HCL to 62 different persons at prices varying between Rs.18.91 to Rs.6.02, between May, 1988 to November, 1988. The Assessing Officer taking into consideration the market price on different dates when the sale transactions were entered 2013:DHC:6002-DB ITA Nos. 20/2000 & 95/2002 Page 4 of 28 into and made an addition