ACIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF

348 ITR 561Supreme Court of India2012#4200 most cited

What is ACIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF authority for?

Section 271AAA penalty deletion can be based on the Apex Court's decision in ACIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF (2012) 348 ITR 561, particularly when there was no specific question put to the assessee about the manner of earning undisclosed income.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF · 348 ITR 561 · Section 271AAA · deletion of penalty · penalty u/s 271AAA · undisclosed income · manner of earning income · search and seizure

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 148Section 133(6)Section 140A(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 271 AAA

Issues it is cited on

section 140a(1)section 271aaadeletion of penaltysection 271aapenalty under section 271(1)(c)section 271asection 274sundry creditorsappeal before cit(a)section 271(1)levy of penaltysection 271

Judgments citing ACIT v. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF

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)

…[2004] 266 ITR 175/136 Taxman 537 (Mad.) (para 6.3), GebilalKanhaialal (HUF) v. AM. CIT270 ITR 523/120051 143 Tasman 42 (Rai) 10 ITANO. 192/JPR/2025 SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI VS ITO, WARD 6(4), JAIPUR (para 6.3), Axsit. CIT. GehilalKanhaialal HUF 20121 348 ITR 561/210 Taxman 244/25 taxmann.com 214 (SC) (para 6.3), CIT v. Kanhaiyalal 2008] 299 ITR 19 (Raj.) (para 6.3), CIT v. Radha Kishan Goel [20051 278 ITR 454 (All) (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]…

ACIT-CC-1, Chandigarh vs. M/S Bajwa Developers Ltd., Kharar

ITA 344/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

For Appellant: Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 154Section 271Section 271ASection 274

…h of ITAT in the case of Sh. Satish Goyal in ITYA No.636/Chd/2016, wherein the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court have been followed for deletion of penalty u/s 271AAA. iv). The judgment of Apex Court in the case of ACIT Vs Gebital Kanhaialal HUF, as reported in 348 ITR 561. 10. The Ld. Counsel also referred to the statement of Sh. Jarnail Singh Bajwa, as recorded during search and argued that no specific question was put to the assessee for declaration of the manner of earning the 'undisclosed income' and, thus, it was stressed before us that the CIT (A) had wrongly confirmed the penalty of Rs. 12,51,641/-. 11. On…

ACIT, CC-1, Chandigarh vs. M/S Bajwa Developers Ltd., Kharar

ITA 343/CHANDI/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

For Appellant: Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 154Section 271Section 271ASection 274

…h of ITAT in the case of Sh. Satish Goyal in ITYA No.636/Chd/2016, wherein the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court have been followed for deletion of penalty u/s 271AAA. iv). The judgment of Apex Court in the case of ACIT Vs Gebital Kanhaialal HUF, as reported in 348 ITR 561. 10. The Ld. Counsel also referred to the statement of Sh. Jarnail Singh Bajwa, as recorded during search and argued that no specific question was put to the assessee for declaration of the manner of earning the 'undisclosed income' and, thus, it was stressed before us that the CIT (A) had wrongly confirmed the penalty of Rs. 12,51,641/-. 11. On…

M/S Bajwa Developers Ltd., Kharar vs. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

ITA 1529/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: The Cit(A)(Central), Gurgaon. The Ld. Cit(A) Vide Order, Dated 26.04.2019 Sustained The Penalty Of Rs. 1,58,68,413/-, Against That Order, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The 2

For Appellant: Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 154Section 271Section 271ASection 274

…h of ITAT in the case of Sh. Satish Goyal in ITYA No.636/Chd/2016, wherein the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court have been followed for deletion of penalty u/s 271AAA. iv). The judgment of Apex Court in the case of ACIT Vs Gebital Kanhaialal HUF, as reported in 348 ITR 561. 10. The Ld. Counsel also referred to the statement of Sh. Jarnail Singh Bajwa, as recorded during search and argued that no specific question was put to the assessee for declaration of the manner of earning the 'undisclosed income' and, thus, it was stressed before us that the CIT (A) had wrongly confirmed the penalty of Rs. 12,51,641/-. 11. On…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9 vs. Amul Gabrani

The appeal is allowed and the questions raised are

ITA/1251/2018HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271A

…ITA 1251/2018 Page 1 of 10 $~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1251/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr. SC alongwith Mr. Parth Semiwal, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Jr. SCs. with Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Manav Goyal, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Ms. Divya Verma and Mr. Bhanukaran Singh Jodha, Advs. versus AMUL GABRANI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sandeep Chilana, Ms. Anjali Jain, and Ms. Kannopriya Gupta, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR…

Income Tax Officer-19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mukeshkumar Somatmalji Doshi, Mumbai

ITA 4459/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Mukeshkumar Somatmalji Income Tax Officer Doshi, Ward 19(2)(2) 63/A, 1St Khumbharwada Lane, Room No.503, Bhandari Street, Vs. Piramal Chamber, Near Goel Deval, Lalgaug, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abqpd5578B

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…involved in appeals no. 833 to 836 of 2005 in the negative and in favour of the assessee.” 18.1 At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gebilal Kanhaialal, HUF, [2012] 348 ITR 561 (SC) wherein, it has been held that the only condition which was required to be fulfilled for getting the immunity, after the search proceedings got over, was that the assessee had to pay the tax together with interest in respect of such undisclosed income up to the date of payment. Clause Mukeshkumar Somatmalji Doshi; A.Y. 09-10 (2) did not pres…

Income Tax Officer, Kautaliya Bhavan vs. Rashesh Shirishkumar Bhuta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the learned Assessing Officer for 025

ITA 4370/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, DR
Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…involved in appeals no. 833 to 836 of 2005 in the negative and in favour of the assessee.” 18.1 At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gebilal Kanhaialal, HUF, [2012] 348 ITR 561 (SC) wherein, it has been held that the only condition which was required to be fulfilled for getting the immunity, after the search proceedings got over, was that the assessee had to pay the tax together with interest in respect of such undisclosed income up to the date of payment. Clause (2) did not prescribe the time limit within which the ass…

Income Tax Officer, Kautaliya Bhavan vs. Rashesh Shirishkumar Bhuta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the learned Assessing Officer for 025

ITA 4368/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meshram, DR
Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…involved in appeals no. 833 to 836 of 2005 in the negative and in favour of the assessee.” 18.1 At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gebilal Kanhaialal, HUF, [2012] 348 ITR 561 (SC) wherein, it has been held that the only condition which was required to be fulfilled for getting the immunity, after the search proceedings got over, was that the assessee had to pay the tax together with interest in respect of such undisclosed income up to the date of payment. Clause (2) did not prescribe the time limit within which the ass…

Beni Prasad Lahoti, Howrah vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 306/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…it Dayabhai Patel Vs. ACIT. Copy of this decision has been placed on the record. The Hon’ble Court while construing the meaning of Explanation 5 has put reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Gebilal Kanbhaialal (HUF), 348 ITR 561 (SC). According to this decision, the Explanation 5 is deeming provision. It provides where in the course of search under section 132, the assessee is found to be owner of unaccounted asset and he claims that such assets have been acquired by him by utilizing whole or part of his income from any previous year, which has ended before the date of s…

Beni Prasad Lahoti, Howrah vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 302/KOL/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…it Dayabhai Patel Vs. ACIT. Copy of this decision has been placed on the record. The Hon’ble Court while construing the meaning of Explanation 5 has put reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Gebilal Kanbhaialal (HUF), 348 ITR 561 (SC). According to this decision, the Explanation 5 is deeming provision. It provides where in the course of search under section 132, the assessee is found to be owner of unaccounted asset and he claims that such assets have been acquired by him by utilizing whole or part of his income from any previous year, which has ended before the date of s…

Sanjay Manakchand Kotecha, Jalgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 435/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.435 & 436/Pun/2016 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

For Appellant: None (Shri Bhupendra Shah)For Respondent: Shri M. Jasnani
Section 132Section 69

…of CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah, 299 ITR 305 (Guj.) and the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Radha Kishan Goel, 278 ITR 454 (All.) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) ACIT vs. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF, 348 ITR 561 (SC) and (ii) MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 358 ITR 593 (SC) held that since the assessee did not satisfy in such proceedings as to how an assessee derived undisclosed income and under what head it fell in, it cannot be said that the he had fulfilled requirements of section 271AA of the Act vide para 14, 15 and 16 held as under :- “14. In construing…

Sanjay Manakchand Kotecha, Jalgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 436/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.435 & 436/Pun/2016 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

For Appellant: None (Shri Bhupendra Shah)For Respondent: Shri M. Jasnani
Section 132Section 69

…of CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah, 299 ITR 305 (Guj.) and the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Radha Kishan Goel, 278 ITR 454 (All.) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) ACIT vs. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF, 348 ITR 561 (SC) and (ii) MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 358 ITR 593 (SC) held that since the assessee did not satisfy in such proceedings as to how an assessee derived undisclosed income and under what head it fell in, it cannot be said that the he had fulfilled requirements of section 271AA of the Act vide para 14, 15 and 16 held as under :- “14. In construing…

Ashok Vijaykumar Kotecha, Jalgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1493/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 127Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No. Name of Appellant Name of Respondent Asst. No. Year 1-3 1492/PUN/2015 Ashok Vijaykumar ACIT, Central Circle- 2006-07 1493/PUN/2015 Kotecha, 1, Nashik. 2007-08 1494/PUN/2015 4, Teacher’s Colony, 2012-13 Ring Road, Opp. JDDC Bank, Jalgaon- 425001. PAN : ABMPK4173D Assessee by : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date of hearing : 17.03.2022 Date of pronouncement : 27.04.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeals f…

Ashok Vijaykumar Kotecha, Jalgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1494/PUN/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 127Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No. Name of Appellant Name of Respondent Asst. No. Year 1-3 1492/PUN/2015 Ashok Vijaykumar ACIT, Central Circle- 2006-07 1493/PUN/2015 Kotecha, 1, Nashik. 2007-08 1494/PUN/2015 4, Teacher’s Colony, 2012-13 Ring Road, Opp. JDDC Bank, Jalgaon- 425001. PAN : ABMPK4173D Assessee by : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date of hearing : 17.03.2022 Date of pronouncement : 27.04.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeals f…

Ashok Vijaykumar Kotecha, Jalgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1492/PUN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 127Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No. Name of Appellant Name of Respondent Asst. No. Year 1-3 1492/PUN/2015 Ashok Vijaykumar ACIT, Central Circle- 2006-07 1493/PUN/2015 Kotecha, 1, Nashik. 2007-08 1494/PUN/2015 4, Teacher’s Colony, 2012-13 Ring Road, Opp. JDDC Bank, Jalgaon- 425001. PAN : ABMPK4173D Assessee by : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date of hearing : 17.03.2022 Date of pronouncement : 27.04.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeals f…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Amandeep Singh Sran, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld AO is allowed and CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2672/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. Acit, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Arora, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. ACIT, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AUVPS5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi PAN: AUVPS5370E CO No. 53/Del/2018 (In ITA No. 2672/Del/2016) (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. DCIT, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West Central Circle-29, PAN: AUVPS5370E New Delhi (Appellant) (Res…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Harmender Singh Sran, New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal of the ld AO is allowed and CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2671/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. Acit, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi Pan: Auvps5370E

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Arora, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. ACIT, B-53, B-1, Community Centre, Central Circle-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AUVPS5370E (Appellant) (Respondent) DCIT, Vs. Amandeep Singh Saran, Central Circle-29, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West New Delhi PAN: AUVPS5370E CO No. 53/Del/2018 (In ITA No. 2672/Del/2016) (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Amandeep Singh Saran, Vs. DCIT, 7/73, Punjabi Bagh West Central Circle-29, PAN: AUVPS5370E New Delhi (Appellant) (Res…

Smt. Shobha Sardana, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4978/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Shobha Sardana, Vs. Dcit, C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, D- Central Circle-I, 28, South Extension, Part-1, Faridabad New Delhi. Pan :Abaps9735M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Advocates Respondent By Sh. S.S. Rana, Cit(Dr)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271A

…Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case relied upon by the ld. CIT DR cited as Pr.CIT vs. Smt. Ritu Singal - (2018) 92 taxmann.com 224 (Delhi) after discussing the decisions relied upon by the ld. AR rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in ACIT vs. Gebilal Kanhaialal 348 ITR 561 (SC) and Mak Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT 358 ITR 539 (SC), Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah - 299 ITR 305 (Guj.), Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel - 278 ITR 454 (All.), Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mothers Pride Education Personnel (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No.3372 (Delhi of 2011 dated 12.10.2012, reversed…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Abag Hi- Tech Education Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 472/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Amit Singhania, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Senior DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…i in a case relied upon by the ld. CIT DR cited as Pr.CIT vs. Smt. Ritu Singal – (2018) 92 taxmann.com 224 (Delhi) after discussing the decisions relied upon by the ld. AR rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in ACIT vs. 11 ITA No.472/Del./2016 Gebilal Kanhaialal 348 ITR 561 (SC) and Mak Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT 358 ITR 539 (SC), Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah – 299 ITR 305 (Guj.), Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel - 278 ITR 454 (All.), Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Mothers Pride Education Personnel (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No.3372 (Delhi of 2011 dated 12.10.2012, re…

S. Avtar Singh Kochar, Rohtak vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2969/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charyavtar Singh Kochar, Vs. Dcit, C/O. S. K. Bansal, Ca, Central Circle-25, 101, First Floor, Kochar Market, New Delhi Jhajjar Road, Rohtak Pan: Aeopk4447F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 271Section 271ASection 274(2)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Avtar Singh Kochar, Vs. DCIT, C/o. S. K. Bansal, CA, Central Circle-25, 101, First Floor, Kochar Market, New Delhi Jhajjar Road, Rohtak PAN: AEOPK4447F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S. K. Bansal, CA Revenue by: Shri S. S. Rana, CIT DR Date of Hearing 28/02/2019 Date of pronouncement 25/03/2019 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-29, New Delhi dated 03.03.2015 for the Assessm…