2 Prem Arora v. DCIT

78 DTR 91High Court2012#10748 most cited

What is 2 Prem Arora v. DCIT authority for?

For imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) in search assessments under Section 153A, concealment of income should be assessed with reference to the additional income brought to tax over and above the income returned in response to the Section 153A notice, not the original Section 139 return.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Prem Arora v. DCIT · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 153A · penalty for concealment of income · search assessments · original return under Section 139 · additional income

Sections most often in play

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

section 133(a)section 115jcdeletion of penaltytax collected at sourcesurrender of incomesection 260afurnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty under section 271(1)(c)section 153a(1)furnishing inaccurate particularspenalty u/s 271(1)(c)advance tax

Judgments citing 2 Prem Arora v. DCIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Ta, Jaipur vs. Shri Nath Corporation, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…erest has to be paid. Admittedly when the assessees herein have paid the entire amount with interest, theAssessing Officer ought to have granted them immunity available under Section 271(1)(C ) of the Income TaxAct……………………………………” 8.3Prem Arora vs. DCIT (2012) 78 DTR 91 (Delhi) (Tribunal) wherein, it was held as under: “Section 271(1)(c), read with section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether for purpose of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) resulting as a result of search assessments made under section 153A, original return of incom…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 197/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.) a
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…withinterest has to be paid. Admittedly when the assessees herein have paid the entire amount with interest, theAssessing Officer ought to have granted them immunity available under Section 271(1)(C ) of the Income TaxAct…………..” 8.3Prem Arora vs. DCIT (2012) 78 DTR 91 (Delhi) (Tribunal) wherein, it was held as under: “Section 271(1)(c), read with section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether for purpose of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) resulting as a result of search assessments made under section 153A, original return of incom…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jaipur vs. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 196/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…erest has to be paid. Admittedly when the assessees herein have paid the entire amount with interest, theAssessing Officer ought to have granted them immunity available under Section 271(1)(C ) of the Income TaxAct……………………………………” 8.3Prem Arora vs. DCIT (2012) 78 DTR 91 (Delhi) (Tribunal) wherein, it was held as under: “Section 271(1)(c), read with section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether for purpose of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) resulting as a result of search assessments made under section 153A, original return of incom…

Pooja Upadhyay, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Devang Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…has to be seen is whether there is any concealment in the return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, and not vis-a vis the original return under Section 139”… Finally, the Hon`ble Court confirmed the deletion of penalty. 5.2 Prem Arora vs. DCIT (2012) 78 DTR 91 (Delhi) (Tribunal) (DPB?) wherein, it was held as under: “Section 271(1)(c), read with section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether for purpose of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) resulting as a result of search assessments made under section 153A, original return o…

M/S. Ose Infrastructure Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2013-14 is hereby deleted

ITA 5895/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 174Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…t is complete accepting the revised return, no penalty could be levied. For this proposition, he placed reliance on CIT vs Neeraj Jindal (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Del)(HC); ACIT vs Splendor Landbase Ltd., ITA No.2461/Del/2016 (ITAT Del); and Prem Arora vs DCIT (2017) 78 DTR 91. Lastly, it is contended by the learned AR that during the search no incriminating documents, assets or income was found which resulted in the addition, as such, under Explanation 5A of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, no penalty is leviable. 6. Learned DR heavily relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the case law relied…

M/S. Ose Infrastructure Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2013-14 is hereby deleted

ITA 5894/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 174Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…t is complete accepting the revised return, no penalty could be levied. For this proposition, he placed reliance on CIT vs Neeraj Jindal (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Del)(HC); ACIT vs Splendor Landbase Ltd., ITA No.2461/Del/2016 (ITAT Del); and Prem Arora vs DCIT (2017) 78 DTR 91. Lastly, it is contended by the learned AR that during the search no incriminating documents, assets or income was found which resulted in the addition, as such, under Explanation 5A of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, no penalty is leviable. 6. Learned DR heavily relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the case law relied…

M/S. Ose Infrastructure Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2013-14 is hereby deleted

ITA 5893/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 174Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…t is complete accepting the revised return, no penalty could be levied. For this proposition, he placed reliance on CIT vs Neeraj Jindal (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Del)(HC); ACIT vs Splendor Landbase Ltd., ITA No.2461/Del/2016 (ITAT Del); and Prem Arora vs DCIT (2017) 78 DTR 91. Lastly, it is contended by the learned AR that during the search no incriminating documents, assets or income was found which resulted in the addition, as such, under Explanation 5A of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, no penalty is leviable. 6. Learned DR heavily relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the case law relied…

M/S. Ose Infrastructure Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2013-14 is hereby deleted

ITA 5892/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 174Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…t is complete accepting the revised return, no penalty could be levied. For this proposition, he placed reliance on CIT vs Neeraj Jindal (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Del)(HC); ACIT vs Splendor Landbase Ltd., ITA No.2461/Del/2016 (ITAT Del); and Prem Arora vs DCIT (2017) 78 DTR 91. Lastly, it is contended by the learned AR that during the search no incriminating documents, assets or income was found which resulted in the addition, as such, under Explanation 5A of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, no penalty is leviable. 6. Learned DR heavily relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the case law relied…

M/S. Ose Infrastructure Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the penalty for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2013-14 is hereby deleted

ITA 5891/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 174Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…t is complete accepting the revised return, no penalty could be levied. For this proposition, he placed reliance on CIT vs Neeraj Jindal (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Del)(HC); ACIT vs Splendor Landbase Ltd., ITA No.2461/Del/2016 (ITAT Del); and Prem Arora vs DCIT (2017) 78 DTR 91. Lastly, it is contended by the learned AR that during the search no incriminating documents, assets or income was found which resulted in the addition, as such, under Explanation 5A of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, no penalty is leviable. 6. Learned DR heavily relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the case law relied…

Ramesh Chand Bansal, Beawar vs. DCIT, Ajmer

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 398/JPR/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jun 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR
Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…the purpose of levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c), what has to be seen is whether there is any concealment in the return filed by the assessee under Section 153A, and not vis-a vis the original return under Section 139” 13.2.4 Prem Arora vs. DCIT (2012) 78 DTR 91 (Delhi) (Tribunal) (DPB) wherein , it was held as under: “Section 271(1)(c), read with section 153A, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether for purpose of imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) resulting as a result of search assessments made under section 153A, original return o…

2 Prem Arora v. DCIT (78 DTR 91) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax