1) CIT v. Aarkay Saree Museum

295 CTR 316Reported decision#24280 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Issues it is cited on

penalty u/s 271(1)(c)section 274concealment of incomeincome-tax officerlevy of penaltysection 271(1)section 271(1)(c)section 25section 147section 250section 143(3)india

Judgments citing 1) CIT v. Aarkay Saree Museum

Etesh P. Jain(Karta), Shree Darshan Pipes vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5847/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…the basis of any cogent evidence. The Appellant submits that in the following cases, it has beenheld that no penalty can be levied on estimated addition disallowances: 1) CIT Vs. Aarkay Saree Museum [1991] 187 ITR 147 (Bom.) 2) CII Vs. Juhu Construction Co. [295 CTR 316) (Bombay) 3) CIT Vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd (322 ITR 316) (Delhi) 4) Shiv Lal Tak Vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 373 (Raj) 5) CIT Vs. Metal Products of India, 150 ITR 714 (P&H) 6) Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P&H) Accordingly, the Appellant submit that it has neither concealed its income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of such i…

Etesh Prakash Jain (Karta), Shree Darshan Pipes vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5819/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…the basis of any cogent evidence. The Appellant submits that in the following cases, it has beenheld that no penalty can be levied on estimated addition disallowances: 1) CIT Vs. Aarkay Saree Museum [1991] 187 ITR 147 (Bom.) 2) CII Vs. Juhu Construction Co. [295 CTR 316) (Bombay) 3) CIT Vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd (322 ITR 316) (Delhi) 4) Shiv Lal Tak Vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 373 (Raj) 5) CIT Vs. Metal Products of India, 150 ITR 714 (P&H) 6) Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P&H) Accordingly, the Appellant submit that it has neither concealed its income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of such i…

Etesh Prakash Jain(HUF), Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5734/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh O Rajora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…the basis of any cogent evidence. The Appellant submits that in the following cases, it has beenheld that no penalty can be levied on estimated addition disallowances: 1) CIT Vs. Aarkay Saree Museum [1991] 187 ITR 147 (Bom.) 2) CII Vs. Juhu Construction Co. [295 CTR 316) (Bombay) 3) CIT Vs. Aero Traders (P) Ltd (322 ITR 316) (Delhi) 4) Shiv Lal Tak Vs. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 373 (Raj) 5) CIT Vs. Metal Products of India, 150 ITR 714 (P&H) 6) Harigopal Singh Vs. CIT [2002] 258 ITR 85 (P&H) Accordingly, the Appellant submit that it has neither concealed its income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of such i…

1) CIT v. Aarkay Saree Museum (295 CTR 316) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax