ITO, Ward 28 (5), Delhi vs. Satish Sawhney

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Satish Sawhney, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals (CIT(A)) dated 29.02.2024 for the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee had income from 'House Property', 'Capital Gain's', and other sources. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the assessment was completed on 29.12.2017, determining the total income at Rs.2,77,09,225/- after disallowing expenses of Rs.2,30,36,645/- u/s 57(iii) and Rs.2,10,000/- u/s 37 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who deleted both disallowances. The Revenue appealed to the ITAT, raising issues regarding the disallowances. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing the disallowance u/s 57(iii) of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs. 2,30,36,645/-
• 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing the disallowance u/s 37(1) of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs. 2,10,000/-

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Revenue.

Similar Judgements

• M/s Pasupati Acrylon Limited vs. ACIT, Circle 19(1)

  Delhi bench

• ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi Vs. M/s. Hindustan Thermal Projects Ltd.

• ITA Nos.3880/Mum/2024 & CO No.189/Mum/2024 M/s. Godrej Properties Ltd. Appellant Vs. ACIT – 14(1) (2), Room No. 455, 4th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020. Respondent

  Mumbai bench

• Vindhya Trust vs. DCIT

  Delhi Bench 'A' benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• The Nalleppilly Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. AICT, Circle - 1

  Cochin bench

• Devinder Ajmani Vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-11(1)

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2020-21Allowed