Case LawHigh Court › The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -Cent...

The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -Central -3 v. Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers (P) Ltd

High Court 20 Mar 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · dhcdb
Parties
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -Central -3 v. Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers (P) Ltd
Date of order
20 Mar 2018
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -Central -3 v. Uppal Chadha Hi-Tech Developers (P) Ltd, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

$~47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 320/2018, C.M. APPL.10804/2018 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 R20.03.2018 % 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 MARCH 20, 2018/ajk A. K. CHAWLA, J
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan