19 Shri Umesh Saboo, Jaipur. (4) Padamchand Pungliya v. ACIT ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur 446/

181 ITD 261Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#19601 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 132 Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 271 Section 271AAB(1)(c)Section 274

Judgments citing 19 Shri Umesh Saboo, Jaipur. (4) Padamchand Pungliya v. ACIT ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur 446/

Umesh Saboo, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1009/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT D/R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271ASection 274

…of a specific finding as to how the same qualify as an undisclosed income so defined u/s 271AAB of the Act. Hence, penalty levied thereon is liable to be set-aside. 19 Shri Umesh Saboo, Jaipur. (4) Padamchand Pungliya Vs. ACIT ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur 446/181 ITD 261 (Jp.Tr) The Hon'ble Tribunal held that penalty u/s 271AAB is not mandatory, but the Assessing Officer has discretion to take a decision and the same should be based on judicious decision of the Assessing Officer.Further, the statement recorded u/s 132(4) itself would not either constitute an incriminating material or undisclosed income in the abs…

Umesh Saboo, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1008/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT D/R

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271ASection 274Section 68

…for levy of penalty in abSence of a specific finding as to how the same qualify as an undisclosed income so defined u/s 271AAB of the Act. Hence, penalty levied thereon is liable to be set-aside. (4) Padamchand Pungliya Vs. ACIT ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur 446/181 ITD 261 (Jp.Tr) The Hon'ble Tribunal held that penalty u/s 271AAB is not mandatory, but the Assessing Officer has discretion to take a decision and the same should be based on judicious decision of the Assessing Officer.Further, the statement recorded u/s 132(4) itself would not either constitute an incriminating material or undisclosed income in the abs…

Kaveri Infra Project Pvt Ltd, Warangal vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 512/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 512/Hyd/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/s. Kaveri Infra Projects Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Private Limited, Income Tax, Hanamkonda, Central Circle-1(3), Warangal Hyderabad [PAN No. AAFCK5942D] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri K.C. Devdas, AR रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 06/11/2023…

Sri Raja Reddy Nalla, Warangal vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 519/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Sri K.P.R.R. Murthy

Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 271ASection 69

…Ltd. – order dt.23.05.2008 of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench. 9. CIT Vs. Akhilesh Yadav & Dimple Yadav – 379 ITR 177 of Allahabad High Court. 10. PCIT Vs. M/s. Radha Krishna Vihar – order dt.13.02.2017 of Andhra Pradesh High Court. 11. Padan Chand Pungliya Vs. ACIT – 181 ITD 261 of ITAT Jaipur Bench. 12. CIT Vs. Harjeev Aggarwal – 241 Taxman 199 of Supreme Court. 13. CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son – 352 ITR 480 of Supreme Court. 14. CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Son – 300 ITR 157 of Madras High Court. 15. CIT Vs. Ramdas Motor Transport – 238 ITR 177 of Andhra Pradesh High Court. 16. PCIT Vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd – 39…