Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.02 seconds)
Documents citing Brij Bhushan Singal, New Delhi vs Acit, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi on 7 April, 2019

Smt. Aarti Singal, Chandigarh vs Dcit, Cc-1, Chandigarh on 7 February, 2020

(x) Even on merit, the LTCG earned by the Assessee could not be charged to tax u/s 68 - see para 44 of the order for abated years (at page 1351 ofPB-5C) The holdings of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Brij Bhushan Singal & Ors Vs. ACIT (supra) are equally applicable to the strikingly similar facts of the present case. Thus the present case is fully covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble ITAT in the said case. Kindly note that in the present case, in making the impugned additions in the hands of the Assessees herein, the AO has primarily relied upon the statement of Sri RK Kedia & Manish Arora and the documents seized from his premises in course of search action in his case on 13.06.2014. With categorical reference to the said Sri R.K. Kedia, the hard/soft data seized from his premises and the statements of Sri R.K. Kedia & his employee Sri Manish Arora recorded in course of his search on 13.06.2014 and his subsequent retraction and re-retraction, the Hon'ble ITAT has given a specific finding that no reliance can be placed on the statement of Sri R.K. Kedia and the documents seized from his premises unless the Assessee is granted an opportunity of cross examination of the said person - further not allowing an opportunity of cross examination of the said person despite specific request by the Assessee is fatal to the Assessment warranting deletion of addition made on the said basis.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 179 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Ito Ward-18(3), Delhi vs Nitin Johari , Delhi on 22 January, 2025

4.2.30 It is held that no incriminating material was seized from premises of the appellant during the course of search nor any adverse statement on oath of the appellant recorded. The addition has been made on the basis of statements on oath of other persons recorded in another search. In view of above decisions, it is held that in the absence of any incriminating material. found from premises of the appellant, the only legal recourse available to the department was to proceed in terms of Section 153C of the Act in respect of incriminating statement on oath of Sh. R K Kedia, Sh. Manish Arora as well as other persons. No cross examination has been allowed to the appellant. Moreover, facts of the case are similar to the case of Brij Bhushan Singal vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1415 to 1417/De1l20 18 where such additions have. been 18 ITA No.1243/DEL/2022 deleted. Hence, addition of Rs.2,21,95,652/- (Rs.2,09,39,295 + Rs. 12,56,357) in A Y 2011-12 is hereby deleted and Ground No.2 of appeal is allowed."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bcl Securities Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs Acit Circle-4(1), New Delhi on 8 October, 2021

Moreover it is laid down by the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Brij Bhushan (supra) that the theory of "preponderance of probability' is applied to weigh the evidences of either side and draw a conclusion in favour of a party which has more favourable factors in his side and the conclusions have to be drawn based on certain admitted facts and materials and not based on presumption of facts that might go against assessee. Once nothing has been proved against the assessee with aid of any direct material, then nothing can be implicated against the assessee. In light of the same as in the appellant's case nothing has been proved against it with aid of any direct material, the theory of "preponderance of probability' cannot be applied in the appellant's case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 40 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Brace Iron & Steel P.Ltd, New Delhi vs Addl.Cit, Special Range-2,, New Delhi on 3 August, 2021

and conjectures. For the above proposition, he relied upon the decision of Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Brij Bhushan Singal and Ors. Vs., ACIT, Central Circle-3 vide Order Dated 07.12.2018 - ITAT Delhi. He accordingly submitted that the case at hand is already covered by the various decisions of the jurisdictional High Court of Delhi and the jurisdictional Delhi Tribunal that have dismissed Departmental contentions that SCBL transactions are a paper transaction when the same is a purely baseless allegation that has been made on surmises and conjectures. He also relied upon the following decisions :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 50 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next