271(1)(c) 7. Shourva Towers (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

359 ITR 523High Court2013#13118 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also reported as

213 Taxmann 2030 Taxmann.com 10

Sections most often in play

Section 139 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 153A Section 250 Section 251 Section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing 271(1)(c) 7. Shourva Towers (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru” V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…para 6.3), CIT v. Abdul Rashi 201.31 40 taxmann.com 244 (Chattisgarh) (para 6.3), SMJ. Housing v. CI7[2013] 357 ITR 698/38 tasmann.com 203 (Mad) (para 6.3), CIT Vegetable Products Lad [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC) (para 6.3) and Shourya Towers (P) Ladv. Dy CIT[20131 359 ITR 523/213 Taxman 20 (Mag 30 taxmann.com.10 (Delhi) (para 7). Saurabh M. Soparkar, Sr. Counsel and Mrs. Swati Soparkar, Adv for the Appellant P.G. Desai and Sudhir M. Mehta, Advs., for the Respondent The Copy of judgment is placed along with these submissions and marked hereto as Annexure-"A". Further Reliance is placed upon Shri Mahesh T Pandya Vs. ITO…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SAVIOUR BUILDERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4818/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And & Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Shashwat Bajpai and Shri Sharad Agarwal, Advocates

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI BENCH DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH ’G’: NEW DELHI BENCH : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT AND PRESIDENT AND AND AND , JUDICIAL MEMBER MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE , JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No 4818/Del/2014 ITA ITA No No 4818/D…

BABITA KHURANA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 4707/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 274Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.Nos.4707/Del./2018 Assessment Year 2010-2011 Smt. Babita Khurana, The DCIT, B-7/100, Safdarjung vs. Central Circle, Enclave Extn., New Delhi. Noida. PAN AJEPK0089L (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Sanjay Kumar Garg & Shri Akarsh Garg, For Assessee : Advocates. For Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 26.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 08.03.2019 ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Learned CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur, Dated 25th April, 2018, for the assessment ye…

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2045/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: 1. the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law & facts of the case in sustaining the pen

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 4

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.2044 & 2045/Del/2014 Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/s. Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Spazedge, Sector -47, Sohna Central Circle-II, Faridabad Road, Gurgaon PAN :AACCK8088R (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 2008-09 DCIT, Vs. M/s. Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-II, Faridabad Spazedge, Sector -47, Sohna Road, Gurgaon PAN :AACCK8088R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rakesh Arora, CA Department by Shri S.S. Rana, CIT(DR) Date o…

M/S. SPAZE TOWERS PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2044/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: 1. the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law & facts of the case in sustaining the pen

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 4

DCIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. SPAZE TOWER PVT. LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2558/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: 1. the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law & facts of the case in sustaining the pen

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 4

SANJEEV KUMAR AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2871/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R

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

…rala High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.J. Prasad (2008) 220 CTR 169 (Kerala), Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Meeradevi (2012) 253 CTR 559 (Del.), Judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Shourya Towers (P.) Ltd., vs. DCIT (2013) 359 ITR 523 (Del.) and Decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal vs. CIT (2012) 211 Taxman 178 (P&H) (HC). 17 ITA.No.2871/Del./2018 Shri Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act provides that “if the A.O. or…

MANGLA MODI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 20(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1706/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Smt. Mangla Modi Ito-20(2)(2) A-103, Highway Land, Mumbai Vs. New Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 Pan No. Aahpm4596L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Satish R. Modi, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Arju Garodia, Dr Date Of Hearing : 05/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2017

For Appellant: Mr. Satish R. Modi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia, DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…statements recorded under the provisions of section 132(4), it has been held in Bhagirath Aggarwal vs. ITO (2013) 351 ITR 146 (Del), Bhanuvijaysingh M. Vaghela vs. ITO, (2013) 353 ITR 146 (Guj); Shourya Smt. Mangla Modi 9 Towers P. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT, (2013) 359 ITR 523 (Del) that once there was a clear admission, voluntarily made, on the part of the assessee, that would constitute a good piece of evidence for the Revenue. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. O. Abdul Razak (2013) 350 ITR 71 (Ker) have held that a statement made under oath deemed and permitted to be used in evi…