Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing Hari Mohan Sharma, Delhi vs Acit, Circle- 63(1), New Delhi on 31 January, 2019

M/S Ginni Goldlimited, New Delhi vs Acit, New Delhi on 15 April, 2021

20. We find an identical issue had come up for before Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hari Mohan Sharma vs ACIT reported in 179 ITD 310. We find the Tribunal after considering various decisions including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the 11 ITA No.673/Del/2015 Commissioner (Appeals) has exceeded his jurisdiction in enhancing the income of the assessee considering the new source of income not at all considered by the Assessing Officer and accordingly set-aside the order of the learned CIT(A). The relevant observations of the Tribunal from para 14 onwards read as under:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prashant Pitti, Delhi vs Acit, Central Circle-4, Delhi on 7 February, 2024

17. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal had occasion to consider "whether enhancement by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 251(1)(a) of the Act is prohibited on issues which have not at all been considered by the Ld. AO during assessment proceedings" in the case of Hari Mohan Sharma vs. ACIT (2019) 179 ITD 310 (Del-Trib) and the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not competent to enhance assessment by taking an income which income was not considered expressly or by necessary implication by Ld. AO during assessment.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Frick India Ltd, vs Dcit Circle-11 (1), on 30 December, 2021

Also, we may herein observe, that the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal i.e. ITAT, Delhi Bench "E" in its order passed in the case of Hari Mohan Sharma (supra) had after exhaustive deliberations concluded, that CIT(A) is not competent to enhance assessment qua an issue that was not considered expressly or by necessary implication by the AO during assessment proceedings. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts read with the settled position of law, we are of a strong conviction that as the enhancement carried out by the CIT(A) qua the issue of dividend striping u/s 94(7) of the Act was never considered by the AO in the course of assessment, therefore, the CIT (A) was not vested with any jurisdiction to have enhanced the income of the assessee company in exercise of the powers vested with him u/s 251(1)(a) of the Act. We, thus, not being able to persuade ourselves to uphold the enhancement of Rs. 1,38,131/- carried out by the CIT(A) qua the issue of dividend striping u/s 94(7) of the Act, vacate the same. The Ground of appeal no. 5 is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - G S Pannu - Full Document

Vascon Engineers Ltd (Successor To ... vs Additional Commissioner Of ... on 22 September, 2022

In any case, the aforesaid decision has been considered while deciding identical issues in cases of Jagdish Narayan Sharma (Supra), B. P. Sheraffudin(Supra) and Hari Mohan Sharma (Supra). Hence, no adverse view can be taken based on the said decision since the Hon'ble Tribunal in several cases decided the issue in favour of assessee after taking into account the findings of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 39 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt Ltd, ... vs Acit, Jaipur on 26 September, 2022

"The present case only issue considered and discussed by the assessing officer is with respect to claim of the assessee u/s 54F of the act which was rejected after inquiry and further claim alternatively made u/s 54 of the act was also rejected relying up on the decision of the Honorable Supreme court. The issue of verification of capital gain was not the issue which was at all dealt with by the assessing officer, or even a question of verification made by ld AO. There was no inquiry made by the ld AO on the issue of capital gain shown by the assessee. The ld AO has not at all considered the issue of sales consideration received by the assessee on sale of house as an issue of dispute before him. Therefore, according to us, ld CIT (A) could not have made enhancement on the issue holding that capital gain shown by the assessee itself is not in accordance with the law and given a finding that no capital gain has accrued to the assessee."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 44 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bimla,Delhi vs Ito Ward-38(5), New Delhi on 26 November, 2024

(i) Hari Mohan Sharma vs. ACIT 179 ITD 310; (ii) CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 ITR 443; (iii) CIT vs. Union Tyres 240 ITR 556; (iv) CIT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. 251 ITR 864; (v) CIT vs. B.P. Sherafudin 399 ITR 524 (Ker); (vi) Nababharat Shiksha Parishad vs. DCIT in ITA No.163/CTK/2015 dated 11 October 2017; (vii) Naresh Sunderlal Chug vs. ITO 171 ITD 116;
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Swatantra Kumar Shukla,Kanpur vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, ... on 24 November, 2025

4. The assessee is aggrieved at the dismissal of his appeal by the ld. CIT(A) and accordingly come before us. Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. (hereinafter referred to as the ld. AR) submitted that the assessee had purchased the shares in the assessment year 2012-13 and held them for three years before selling them in the assessment year 2015-16. He further submitted that the assessee was a person who was dealing regularly in shares. The ld. AR pointed out that there were four judgments rendered by the ITAT in favour of various assessees' who were accused of bogus long term capital gains while trading in the shares of the same company namely M/s Jackson Investments Ltd,. These judgments were order dated 8.09.2023 in the case of Sanjay Madan Raj Shah vs. ACIT-32(3), Mumbai in ITA No. 1502/MUM/2023, order dated 23.08.2019 in the case of Neetu Agarwal vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Siliguri in ITA No. 1812/KOL/2018, order dated 28.02.2019 in the case of Om Prakash Mundra & Ors vs. ITO, Ward-3(4) in ITA No. 2235/KOL/2018 and order dated 12.12.2018 in the case of M/s Anupma Garg vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), New Delhi in ITA No. 5971/DEL/2018. The ld. AR pointed out that in all these cases, sale and purchase of the shares of M/s Jackson Investments Ltd in similar circumstances had been considered by the Hon'ble Tribunal and had been held to be genuine. Therefore, in the case of the assessee, there was no reason to hold that 6 ITA No.575/LKW/2019 Shri Swatantra Kumar Shukla A.Y. 2015-16 the assessee was involved in any manipulated activity. It was submitted that other persons had also invested in the company in the same pattern and no involvement of theirs in rigging had been noticed. Nor was there any evidence against the assessee in this regard. It was submitted that while some investigations had been conducted by the Investigation Wing in respect of the penny stock companies, the ld. AO had not carried out any further verification to determine whether the assessee had manipulated anything while the claiming long term capital gains. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee had not sold shares to any companies as alleged by the ld. Assessing Officer. Rather they had sold their shares on the floor of the stock exchange and were not concerned with who had purchased the said shares. It was further argued that the assessee had not been given adequate opportunity of defending itself as the statement of Sh. Arun Kumar Khemka had been used against him without affording the assessee an opportunity to cross examine Sh. Arun Kumar Khemka. Therefore, it was prayed that the assessment done by the ld. AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) was bad in law.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Sahara India Financial Corp. Ltd.,, ... vs Acit, Lucknow on 16 February, 2023

15. In regard to ITA NO. 2358/Del/2009, for AY 1993-94, it can be observed that there is an additional legal issue, of questioning the reopening being barred by limitation provide u/s 149 of the Act as notice was issued on 02.06.2001 i.e. after expiry of six years from the end of assessment year 1993-94. Since amendment in section 149 restricting the limitation of period for reopening the reassessments to six years, had come into effect from 01.06.2001, which being one of the nature of amendment in procedural laws would be applicable to the case of the assessee for AY 1993-94. Reliance in this regard has been rightly placed by the Sr. Counsel on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in C. B. Richards Ellis Mauritius Ltd. Vs. ADIT 208 Taxmann 322 (del) and Elam Vs. N. Illamathy Vs. ITO 275 Taxman 25 (Mad) and Mon Mohan Kohli Vs. ACIT 441 ITR 207 (Del). Thus on this basis also the reopening for AY 1993-94 is bad in law, which Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next