The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal which urged error in disallowing interest and making addition in a completed assessment without incriminating material seized during search.
The appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~47
THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -CENTRAL -3
..... Appellant
Through : Sh. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate. versus
UPPAL CHADHA HI-TECH DEVELOPERS (P) LTD.
..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Ananya Kapoor and Sh. Salil Kapoor, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
O R D E R % 20.03.2018
The Revenue’s appeal urges that the Tribunal fell into error in disallowing of interest and making addition in completed assessment of the assessee/respondent. Both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal in the present case were of the opinion that in the absence of any incriminating material seized in the course of search operations, the Assessing Officer (AO) could not have brought to tax the amounts that were already disclosed and part of the record. The lower appellate authorities relied upon Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del). No question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
MARCH 20, 2018/ajk
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul ChawlaReferred¶13
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -Central -3
Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers (P) Ltd.
S. Ravindra Bhat
A. K. Chawla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
