171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi v. CIT

298 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2008#7840 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 80GGC

Judgments citing 171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi v. CIT

CUARZO,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT,, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 347/JODH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blecuarzo Principal Commissioner Of G-1, G-1-90-93, Sukher Girwa Income Tax Udaipur - 313004 Udaipur - 313001 Pan No. Aahfc 3351 P Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal, Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Udaipur [Hereinafter Referred To As Pcit] Dated 04.03.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2020-21 Challenging Therein Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 263 After The Assessment Having Achieved Finality Under Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 & That The Order In Form 4 Having Already Been Issued For Settlement Of Issues In The Assessment.

Section 263Section 80G

…h has merged into the appellate order. Our view gets 3 Asst. Year: 2020-21 support from the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following cases:  CIT Vs. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 50 (SC)  CIT Vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. (2007) 298 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT Vs. Vam Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 414 ITR 715 (Del.) 6. In the present case, it is pertinent to mention that the PCIT had itself issued Form 4 on 19.02.2025 to the effect of finalization of declaration made by the assessee for the benefit under VSVS Scheme, 2024, and thus, the liability of the assessee gets crystallized and no f…

SHRI. TARSEM GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 157/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 30 ii) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 232 (Mad) CIT vs. Taj Borewells iv) 298 ITR 1 (SC) K.C.C. Software Ltd. vs. DIT (Inv.) v) 141 ITR 67 (Bom) CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 5.4 It was also submitted that where two views are possible and the AO has taken a view with which the Ld. Pr. CIT does not agree, the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by t…

SH. PARSHOTAM GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 30 ii) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 232 (Mad) CIT vs. Taj Borewells iv) 298 ITR 1 (SC) K.C.C. Software Ltd. vs. DIT (Inv.) v) 141 ITR 67 (Bom) CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 5.4 It was also submitted that where two views are possible and the AO has taken a view with which the Ld. Pr. CIT does not agree, the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by t…

PRIYANKA,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 152/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 30 ii) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 232 (Mad) CIT vs. Taj Borewells iv) 298 ITR 1 (SC) K.C.C. Software Ltd. vs. DIT (Inv.) v) 141 ITR 67 (Bom) CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 5.4 It was also submitted that where two views are possible and the AO has taken a view with which the Ld. Pr. CIT does not agree, the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by t…

PRIYA GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 30 ii) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 232 (Mad) CIT vs. Taj Borewells iv) 298 ITR 1 (SC) K.C.C. Software Ltd. vs. DIT (Inv.) v) 141 ITR 67 (Bom) CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 5.4 It was also submitted that where two views are possible and the AO has taken a view with which the Ld. Pr. CIT does not agree, the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by t…

M/S PARDEEP ISPAT(P) LTD.,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 30 ii) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 232 (Mad) CIT vs. Taj Borewells iv) 298 ITR 1 (SC) K.C.C. Software Ltd. vs. DIT (Inv.) v) 141 ITR 67 (Bom) CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 5.4 It was also submitted that where two views are possible and the AO has taken a view with which the Ld. Pr. CIT does not agree, the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by t…

SHRI RAJEEV GOYAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…DCIT Affirmed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 30 ii) 171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi vs. CIT iii) 291 ITR 232 (Mad) CIT vs. Taj Borewells iv) 298 ITR 1 (SC) K.C.C. Software Ltd. vs. DIT (Inv.) v) 141 ITR 67 (Bom) CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 5.4 It was also submitted that where two views are possible and the AO has taken a view with which the Ld. Pr. CIT does not agree, the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by t…

BALWANT SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO,WARD-1(3),, GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1105/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 54Section 54F

…nstrued as a credit in the 'books of the assessee” for the reason that the “bank account" are not the 'books of the assessee". In this regard assessee placed reliance on various decisions which are as follows: i) K.C.C. Software Ltd. and Ors. vs. DIT and Ors. 298 ITR 1 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Mayawati reported in 338 ITR 563 iii) CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom) iv) Shanta Devi vs. CIT 171 ITR 532 (P&H) In view of these submissions, the Ld. AR submitted that the addition made of Rs. 2,49,900/- may be deleted. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) rightly observed that no evidenc…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRE III, vs. PATLIPUTRA INTERNATIONAL TRADING LTD

ITA - 351 / 2009HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 132(1)Section 158B

…has not taken into consideration this date because of the reason that such recovery of money from the bank in exercise of power of search under Section 132 of the Act has been held to be impermissible by the Supreme Court in the case of KCC and Ors., (2008) 298 ITR 1 (SC). All the judgments on which relian is placed by the learned counsel for the assessee only demonstrate that such seizure of money was not proper. While this action of recovery of money may later turn out to be improper, the moot question is as to whether on that ground this date will not be taken into consideration at all for the purpose of com…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL III vs. HARMONY PSYCHIATRY CENTRE PVT LTD

ITA - 339 / 2009HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 132(1)Section 158B

…has not taken into consideration this date because of the reason that such recovery of money from the bank in exercise of power of search under Section 132 of the Act has been held to be impermissible by the Supreme Court in the case of KCC and Ors., (2008) 298 ITR 1 (SC). All the judgments on which relia is placed by the learned counsel for the assessee only demonstrate that such seizure of money was not proper. While this action of recovery of money may later turn out to be improper, the moot question is as to whether on that ground this date will not be taken into consideration at all for the purpose of comp…

COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL III vs. PROFESSIONAL LEASING & CAPITAL SERVICE LTD

ITA - 350 / 2009HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 132(1)Section 158B

…y of money took place. The Tribunal has not taken into consideration this date because of the reason that such recovery of money from the bank in exercise of power of search under Section 132 of the Act has been ![](_page_16_Picture_1.jpeg) and Ors., (2008) 298 ITR 1 (SC). All the judgments on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the assessee only demonstrate that such seizure of money was not proper. While this action of recovery of money may later turn out to be improper, the moot question is as to whether on that ground this date will not be taken into consideration at all for the purpose of c…

COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX CENTRE III vs. KANDLA PETROCHMICALS CORP. LTD

ITA - 336 / 2009HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 132(1)Section 158B

…on 20.9.1996 when the recovery of money took place. The Tribunal has not taken into consideration this date because of the reason that such recovery of money from the bank in exercise of power of search under Section 132 of the Act has been and Ors., (2008) 298 ITR 1 (SC). All the judgments on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the assessee only demonstrate that such seizure of money was not proper. While this action of recovery of money may later turn out to be improper, the moot question is as to whether on that ground this date will not be taken into consideration at all for the purpose of c…

Commissioner of Income-Tax Central III vs. M/s. Shilpi Securities Pvt. Ltd. etc. etc.

ITA-130/2009HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 132(1)Section 158B

…nsideration this date because of the reason that such recovery of money from the bank in exercise of power of search under Section 132 of the Act has been held to be impermissible by the Supreme Court in the case of KCC 2009:DHC:5083-DB and Ors., (2008) 298 ITR 1 (SC). All the judgments on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the assessee only demonstrate that such seizure of money was not proper. While this action of recovery of money may later turn out to be improper, the moot question is as to whether on that ground this date will not be taken into consideration at all for the purpo…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL III vs. SHILPI SECURITIES PVT LTD

ITA - 130 / 2009HC Delhi30 Nov 2009
Section 132(1)Section 158B

…nsideration this date because of the reason that such recovery of money from the bank in exercise of power of search under Section 132 of the Act has been held to be impermissible by the Supreme Court in the case of KCC 2009:DHC:5083-DB and Ors., (2008) 298 ITR 1 (SC). All the judgments on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the assessee only demonstrate that such seizure of money was not proper. While this action of recovery of money may later turn out to be improper, the moot question is as to whether on that ground this date will not be taken into consideration at all for the purpo…

171 ITR 532 (P&H) Shanta Devi v. CIT (298 ITR 1) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax