Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.32 seconds)Section 43CA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 69 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 55A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 50C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Cit vs Sadhna Gupta on 6 March, 2013
Applying the ratio of Sadhna Gupta (supra) and Rohtas Projects Ltd. (supra) to the
facts of the present case, we hold that the Ld. AO had correctly applied the
provisions of law while framing the assessment, whereas the Ld. CIT(A) erred in
invoking section 69 to confirm the addition. We find no justification to sustain the
impugned appellate order, which is accordingly quashed.
Consequently, as the order passed under section 154 is entirely dependent upon
the order under section 143(3), and the latter has been quashed, the rectification
order under section 154 also fails and is hereby set aside. The Ld. DR has not cited
any contrary judicial precedent to rebut the submissions of the Ld. AR. So, both
the appeals of the assessee are succeeded.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi ??? ... vs Shri Puneet Sabharwal 2/6080, Dev ... on 3 December, 2010
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 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.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Suraj Devi on 13 August, 2010
In
this regard, it is relevant to state that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in the
case of Smt. Amiya Bala Paul (supra) that reference to DVO, other than for the purpose of
section 55A and section 269L was illegal. It was held by the Apex Court that the Assessing
Officer cannot refer the matter to the Valuation Cell for estimating the cost of construction
of the house property for the purpose of assessment. Since the Departmental Valuer could
not be called upon by the Assessing Officer to estimate the cost of construction of the
property, the report, if any, submitted by the Departmental Valuer cannot be relied upon
by the Assessing Officer in estimating the cost of construction as the said report, in view
of the above decision of the Apex Court, cannot be said to be a valid report.
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Ravi Shree Narayan Transport 70 ... on 26 June, 2019
One such case being the case of CIT v. Vinod Singhal (IT Appeal
No.482/2010 decided on 05.05.2010) where, again, reliance was placed on the very same
decision of the Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese (supra) and also on a decision of this Court
in CIT v. Smt. Shakuntala Devi [2009] 316 ITR 46. It was observed that there must be a
finding that the assessee had received an amount over and above the consideration stated
in the sale deed and for this the primary burden was cast on the revenue. It is only when
this burden is discharged by the revenue that it would be permissible to rely upon the value
as given in the valuation report of the DVO."