Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 81 (3.11 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi ??? ... vs Shri Puneet Sabharwal 2/6080, Dev ... on 3 December, 2010

Seema Devi Bansal, New Delhi vs Assessee on 29 June, 2012

Similarly in 10 ITA No. 342/Del/2012 the case of CIT vs. Puneet Sabharwal (supra) the AO solely relying upon the report of the DVO had made addition. There was admittedly no evidence or material in the possession of the AO to come to the conclusion that assessee had paid extra consideration over and above what was stated in the sale deed. The Hon'ble High Court was pleased to hold that the primary burden of proof to prove understatement or concealment of income is on the revenue and it is only when such burden the discharged that it would be permissible to rely upon the valuation given by the DVO. It was further held that the opinion of the valuation officer, per se, was an opinion and could not be relied upon without the books of accounts being rejected.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Inderpreet Kaur Sahota, New Delhi vs Department Of Income Tax

In "CIT v. Puneet Sabharwal" (supra), the facts are exactly similar to those present here. Therein, the addition was made u/s 69 B of the Act. 6 ITA Nos. 2412&3651(Del)2010 The addition was based solely on the report of the DVO. The matter was decided in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble High Court, observing that the AO had solely relied on the report of the DVO, apart from which, there was no evidence to conclude that the assessee had paid extra consideration over and above what was stated in the sale deed and so, the addition was not justified.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Babu Manoharan vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 June, 2019

In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Puneet Sabharwal, reported in (2011) 338 ITR 0485, the High Court of Delhi found that there was no material with the Assessing Officer to come to the conclusion that the assessee has paid extra consideration for purchase of properties over and above what has been stated in the sale deed and addition under Section 69B, solely on the basis of the valuation report, cannot be sustained.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Acit (Central) Ii, Bhopal vs M/S Signature Colonisers P Ltd., Bhopal on 8 January, 2021

The Division Bench in the case of Puneet Sabharwal (supra) had also placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese (supra) as also on another decision of a Division Bench of thisCourt in CIT v. Smt. Sraj Devi(2010) 328 ITR 604/(2011) 197 Taxman 173 (Delhi) (Maq.) wherein this court held that the primary burden was discharged that reliance could be placed on the valuation report of the DVO. There are several other decisions of this court in the same vein.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 70 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

The Acit (Central) Ii, Bhopal vs M/S Virasha Infrastructure, Bhopal on 13 April, 2021

The Division Bench in the case of Puneet Sabharwal (supra) had also placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese (supra) as also on another decision of a Division Bench of thisCourt in CIT v. Smt. Sraj Devi(2010) 328 ITR 604/(2011) 197 Taxman 173 (Delhi) (Maq.) wherein this court held that the primary burden was discharged that reliance could be placed on the valuation report of the DVO. There are several other decisions of this court in the same vein.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Acit ,Central-1, Indore vs Prakash Asphalting & Toll Of Highways ... on 10 February, 2023

The Division Bench in the case of Puneet Sabharwal (supra) had also placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese (supra) as also on another decision of a Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Suraj Devi 120101328 ITR 604/(20111 197 Taxman 173 (Delhi) (Mag.) wherein this Court held that the primary burden of proof with regard to concealment of income was on the revenue and it was only when the said burden was discharged that reliance could be placed on the valuation report of the DVO. There are several other decisions of this Court in the same vein.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 62 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lord Buddha Educational Society, ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 27 March, 2023

The Division Bench in the case of Puneet Sabharwal (supra) had also placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese (supra) as also on another decision of a Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Smt. Suraj Devi [2010] 328 ITR 604/[2011] 197 Taxman 173 (Delhi) (Mag.) wherein this Court held that the primary burden of proof with regard to concealment of income was on the revenue and it was 37 ITA Nos.188-193/RPR/2019 IT(SS)A No.16&17/RPR/19 & CO Nos.5-8/RPR/2022 only when the said burden was discharged that reliance could be placed on the valuation report of the DVO. There are several other decisions of this Court in the same vein.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur Cites 47 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next