Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 435 (4.55 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Kabul Chawla on 28 August, 2015

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Swastik Exports & Imports Pvt. Ltd on 9 September, 2021

He emphasises that the ITAT has erred in deleting the additions made by the AO in the assessments framed under Section 153A of the Act without appreciating the fact that the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Kabul Chawla (supra) had not been accepted by the department and the Special Leave Petition preferred by the department had been dismissed due to low tax effect and not on merit. He submits that finality on the impugned issue of law has not been attained till date as SLPs are pending before the Apex Court impugning the same issue in the case of CIT V. M/s Continental Warehousing Corporation Ltd. 235 Taxmann 568 (Bombay High Court) as well as in other cases.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Manmohan - Full Document

Neeraj Bharadwaj vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 14 July, 2025

35. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Kabul Chawla [CIT v. Kabul Chawla, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11555 : (2016) 380 ITR 573] and the Gujarat High Court in Saumya Construction [CIT v. Saumya Construction (P) Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 9976 : (2016) 387 ITR 529] and the decisions of the other High Courts taking the view that no addition can be made in respect of the completed assessments in absence of any incriminating material."
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -7, Delhi vs Naveen Kumar Gupta on 20 November, 2024

61. The assumption that provisions of Section 153C of the Act precludes any proceeding under Section 147 of the Act by virtue of the non obstante clause, is unpersuasive. The scheme of Sections 153C of the Act indicates that the said provision was enacted to simplify the procedure, while maintaining the necessary safeguards, for assessment / reassessment in cases where assets belonging to the assessee or books of account or documents, which contain information pertaining to the assessee are found pursuant to a search conducted under Section 132 of the Act or requisition made under Section 132A of the Act, in respect of a person other than the assessee. This is subject to the same having a bearing on the determination of income of the assessee. The AO is neither require to record reasons for his belief that the income of the assessee for the concerned assessment year has escaped assessment nor does he require to seek further approvals as required under Section 148 of the Act. However, he must be satisfied that the assets seized or requisitioned or the documents, books of account or other material transmitted by the AO of the searched person belongs to or contains information, which has a bearing on the determination of the income of the assessee. The reassessment must be predicated on material held to be incriminating and the income assessed / reassessed must be relatable to the material found as held by this Court in Commissioner of Income Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ITA No.401/2012 Page 52 of 56 By:DUSHYANT RAWAL Tax v. Kabul Chawla9 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-3 v. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd.4.
Delhi High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

M/S. Lairy Distributors Pvt. Ltd., New ... vs Dcit, New Delhi on 27 January, 2016

As the ld. CIT-DR and the ld. AR are agreed that assessment or re assessment has to be made u/s 153C r.w.s 143(3) of the Act as per provisions and procedure laid down by section 153A of the Act and obviously the provisions of section 153A and 153C of the Act have been interpreted by various Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla after referring to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. 117 Chetan Dass Lachman Dass [supra] and the decision of the same Hon'ble High Court in the case of Madugula Venu Vs. CIT reported in 215 Taxmann 298, as relied by the ld. CIT-DR, categorically held as follows:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 85 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Vijay Kumar Kataria, New Delhi vs Assessee on 17 November, 2015

50. Ground No.6 is against the addition of Rs.9,00,100/- in respect of investment in shares. The figure taken by the AO is a mistake as the total amount is Rs.9,00,000/- and not Rs.9,00,100/-. This includes an opening balance of 81,00,100/- and investments during the year of Rs.9 lac. These investments were made through banking channel and the bank account was an official bank account in the knowledge of the department. The addition is not based on any seized material. All the investments are disclosed in the balance sheet of the assessee. This addition has to be deleted by applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble 25 ITA Nos.5473 to 5477/Del/2010 High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra). This ground is, thus, allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Dharampal Premchand Ltd on 21 August, 2017

He pointed out that although an appeal by the Revenue against the said decision in Kabul Chawla is pending before the Supreme Court, there is no stay of the said judgment and, therefore, as far as this Court is concerned, the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla (supra) is still good law. That decision explicitly holds that there has to be incriminating material to justify the assumption to jurisdiction under Section 153A of the Act qua each of the AYs for which assessment is sought to be reopened. Mr Aggarwal submitted that, in the present case, even de hors this question, the ITAT has analysed the material seized and in fact found it to be not incriminating even for FY 2010-11. That being the position, the further question as to whether such material could constitute incriminating material with respect to other AYs simply did not arise.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Divya Jain, New Delhi vs Assessee on 9 October, 2015

13.1 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and precedent, we are of the considered view that the present issue involved in ground no. 2 in the cross objection is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision dated 28.8.2015 in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla passed in ITA No. 707, 709 and 713/2014. Respectfully, following the above precedent, we quash the assessment made u/s. 153C and decide 23 ITA NO. 4315/Del/2011 & CO No. 355/Del/2011 the issue raised in ground no. 2 in favour of the assessee and accordingly, this ground is allowed. In the Result, the Cross Objection is partly allowed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Command Detective & Securities Pvt. ... vs Assessee on 9 October, 2015

12.1 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and precedent, we are of the considered view that the present issue involved in ground no. 3 in the cross objection is squarely covered by the 19 ITA NOS.4129-4134/Del/2012 & CO NOS. 338-343/DEL/2012 decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision dated 28.8.2015 in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla passed in ITA No. 707, 709 and 713/2014. Respectfully, following the above precedent, we quash the assessment made u/s. 153C and decide the issue in dispute in favour of the assessee and accordingly, the cross objection is allowed on this ground.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next