1) Prem Arora v. DCIT

35 Taxmann.com 594Reported decision2013#11550 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 80lfurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty under section 271(1)(c)appeal before cit(a)section 132(1)furnishing inaccurate particularspenalty u/s 271(1)(c)search assessmentconcealment of incomelevy of penaltysection 271(1)section 139(1)

Judgments citing 1) Prem Arora v. DCIT

Kanhaiyalal Rameshwar Das, Kota vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

ITA 1454/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…u/s 271 (1) (c) of the I. T. Act. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the levy of penalty is not warranted and accordingly, the same is deleted.” The Hon'ble Nagpur Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. PurtiSakharKarkhana [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 594 (Nagpur – Trib) held as under: "search assessments made under section 153A cannot be treated as continuance of normal assessment proceedings whether abated or not and, therefore, it will not be justified to refer to returned income under section 139 for purpose of imposition of penalty under section 271 (1) (c)..... .....where returned inc…

Kanhaiyalal Rameshwar Das, Kota vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

ITA 1453/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Oct 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant Bhatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 154Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…/s 271 (1) (c) of the I. T. Act. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the levy of penalty is not warranted and accordingly, the same is deleted.” The Hon'ble Nagpur Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. Purti Sakhar Karkhana [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 594 (Nagpur – Trib) held as under: "search assessments made under section 153A cannot be treated as continuance of normal assessment proceedings whether abated or not and, therefore, it will not be justified to refer to returned income under section 139 for purpose of imposition of penalty under section 271 (1) (c)..... .....where returned inc…

Bitthal Das Parwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1348/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Him. 2. In This Appeal, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…erence to any of specific seized materials so as to establish charge for which penalty had been levied then penalty order should be set aside" 12 Sh. Bittal Das Parwal vs. ACIT  The Hon'ble Nagpur Tribunal in the case of DCIT v. PurtiSakhar Karkhana [2013/35 Taxmann.com 594 (Nagpur-Trib) held as under "search assessments made under section 153A cannot be treated as continuance of normal assessment proceedings whether abated or not and, therefore, it will not be justified to refer to returned income under section 139 for purpose of imposition of penalty under section 271 (1) (c).…………………….. ….………..where returne…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7249/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) while concluding as hereinabove relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- 1) Prem Arora Vs. DCIT-24 Taxmann.com 260 (Delhi Tribunal) 2) Purti Sakhar Karkhana Vs. DCIT 35 Taxmann.com 594 (Nag. Tri) 3) Vrajlal T. Gala Vs. ACIT 33 Taxmann.com 620 (Mum. Tribunal). 4) M/s Unimark Remedies Ltd. Vs. ACIT dated 26.09.2012 in ITA No. 3817/Mum/2009 5) Smt. Pramila D. Ashtekar Vs. ITO-39 Taxmann.com 103 (Pune) 6) Yogesh Parekh Vs. ACIT ITA No. 6750, 6051/Mum/2008 The CIT(A) on the basis of his aforesaid observations deleted the pena…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7248/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) while concluding as hereinabove relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- 1) Prem Arora Vs. DCIT-24 Taxmann.com 260 (Delhi Tribunal) 2) Purti Sakhar Karkhana Vs. DCIT 35 Taxmann.com 594 (Nag. Tri) 3) Vrajlal T. Gala Vs. ACIT 33 Taxmann.com 620 (Mum. Tribunal). 4) M/s Unimark Remedies Ltd. Vs. ACIT dated 26.09.2012 in ITA No. 3817/Mum/2009 5) Smt. Pramila D. Ashtekar Vs. ITO-39 Taxmann.com 103 (Pune) 6) Yogesh Parekh Vs. ACIT ITA No. 6750, 6051/Mum/2008 The CIT(A) on the basis of his aforesaid observations deleted the pena…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7247/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) while concluding as hereinabove relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- 1) Prem Arora Vs. DCIT-24 Taxmann.com 260 (Delhi Tribunal) 2) Purti Sakhar Karkhana Vs. DCIT 35 Taxmann.com 594 (Nag. Tri) 3) Vrajlal T. Gala Vs. ACIT 33 Taxmann.com 620 (Mum. Tribunal). 4) M/s Unimark Remedies Ltd. Vs. ACIT dated 26.09.2012 in ITA No. 3817/Mum/2009 5) Smt. Pramila D. Ashtekar Vs. ITO-39 Taxmann.com 103 (Pune) 6) Yogesh Parekh Vs. ACIT ITA No. 6750, 6051/Mum/2008 The CIT(A) on the basis of his aforesaid observations deleted the pena…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7246/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) while concluding as hereinabove relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- 1) Prem Arora Vs. DCIT-24 Taxmann.com 260 (Delhi Tribunal) 2) Purti Sakhar Karkhana Vs. DCIT 35 Taxmann.com 594 (Nag. Tri) 3) Vrajlal T. Gala Vs. ACIT 33 Taxmann.com 620 (Mum. Tribunal). 4) M/s Unimark Remedies Ltd. Vs. ACIT dated 26.09.2012 in ITA No. 3817/Mum/2009 5) Smt. Pramila D. Ashtekar Vs. ITO-39 Taxmann.com 103 (Pune) 6) Yogesh Parekh Vs. ACIT ITA No. 6750, 6051/Mum/2008 The CIT(A) on the basis of his aforesaid observations deleted the pena…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7245/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) while concluding as hereinabove relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- 1) Prem Arora Vs. DCIT-24 Taxmann.com 260 (Delhi Tribunal) 2) Purti Sakhar Karkhana Vs. DCIT 35 Taxmann.com 594 (Nag. Tri) 3) Vrajlal T. Gala Vs. ACIT 33 Taxmann.com 620 (Mum. Tribunal). 4) M/s Unimark Remedies Ltd. Vs. ACIT dated 26.09.2012 in ITA No. 3817/Mum/2009 5) Smt. Pramila D. Ashtekar Vs. ITO-39 Taxmann.com 103 (Pune) 6) Yogesh Parekh Vs. ACIT ITA No. 6750, 6051/Mum/2008 The CIT(A) on the basis of his aforesaid observations deleted the pena…

Radha Govind Lashkari, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, it cannot be said to be case of concealment of income and the penalty to this extent stand deleted

ITA 141/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri O.P. Bhateja (Addl.CIT)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 153ASection 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…for alleged interest on alleged advance was only estimated which was also not based on any incriminating material seized in course of search. 5.3 In support, the ld AR relied on the following judicial pronouncements: A) DCIT v. Purti Sakhar Karkhana [2013] 35 Taxmann.com 594 (Nagpur-Trib) held as under: Vs. ACIT Circle-2,Jaipur “Search assessments made under section 153A cannot be treated as continuance of normal assessment proceedings whether abated or not and, therefore, it will not be justified to refer to returned income under section 139 for purpose of imposition of penalty under section 271 (1)©.” “Wher…

1) Prem Arora v. DCIT (35 Taxmann.com 594) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax