SC Declines to Interfere with HC Judgment, Dismisses Petition, Condoning Delay and Disposing Pending Applications.Revision u/s 264 in favor of assessee - Additions based on 26AS statement - undisclosed income - As per HC No grounds made out for interference in the order of the CIT passed in revision - HELD THAT:- Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.... ... ... Title: Supreme Court Judgment - 2023 (8) TMI 690 - SC Order

Judges: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Summary: The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition after hearing the petitioner's counsel and declined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. Delay was condoned, and pending applications were disposed of. Revision u/s 264 in favor of assessee - Additions based on 26AS statement - undisclosed income - As per HC No grounds made out for interference in the order of the CIT passed in revision - HELD THAT:- Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. AMRESH KUMAR Versus THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANCHI & ORS.
Income Tax
2023 (8) TMI 690 - SC Order - [2023] 459 ITR 364 (SC)
SUPREME COURT - SC
Dated:- 11-8-2023
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) DIARY NO. 11378/2023 - -
Income Tax
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA And HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN For the Petitioner : Mr. V. K. Shukla, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv. Ms. Maitri Goal, Adv. Mr. V. Kandha Prabhu, Adv. Ms. Divya, Adv. Mr. Sachin Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Vedhagiri Chalka, Adv. Mr. Akshat Srivastava, AOR ORDER UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following Delay condoned. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orders