ACIT v. Kirit Dahyabhai Patel

121 ITD 159Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#13290 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132 Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 270A Section 271AAB Section 139 Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 271aab(1a)section 270a(9)section 153a(1)(a)section 271aab section 270 section 153a(1)section 270a levy of penalty section 139(1)undisclosed income section 139 section 27

Judgments citing ACIT v. Kirit Dahyabhai Patel

Abirakham Rajasekar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1410/CHNY/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1408, 1409 & 1410/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Rohan Raj, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

…D.R also relied on the case of A.P. Sahgal vs. ACIT [2004] 89 ITD 580 (Delhi), wherein it has been held that filing of revised return will not absolve the assessee from penal action. The Ld. DR also relied on the case of ACIT vs. Kirit Dahyabhai Patel [2009] 121 ITD 159 (Ahmedabad)(TM). 9. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The assessee has filled return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 24.10.2017 disclosing total income of Rs 20,92,900 and for A.Y 2018-19 on 27.09.2018 on total income of Rs 34,80,190. The returns were processed u/s 143(1) on 30.10.2019 and 10.02.…

Abirakham Rajasekar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1409/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1408, 1409 & 1410/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Rohan Raj, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

Abirakham Rajasekar, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1408/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1408, 1409 & 1410/Chny/2023 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Rohan Raj, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 270ASection 271A

Mahesh Alamchandani, L.R. of Late Shri Ashanand Alamchandani, Godhra vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Baroda

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 159/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr.D.R

Section 271(1)(c)

…claiming immunity towards undisclosed income included in S.153A return, in exercise of its wisdom, paused and went on to withdraw the same at a later stage before the Ld.Third Member in the ITAT proceedings in Kirit Dahyabhai Patel vs. ACIT reported in (2009) 121 ITD 159 (TM) which decision was subject matter of appeal before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. Thus, apparently, the Assessee himself while in appeal before Hon’ble High Court, was no longer aggrieved by the proposition that return under s.153A is amenable to penalty provisions under s.271(1)(c) of the Act. To elaborate, the Ld.Third Member clearly reco…

Robin Bipin Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 20, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4270/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Mr. Robin Bipin Mehta Vs. Acit- Cc-20, Mumbai – 3, Deepak, 1St Floor, 401, 400 021 S.V.Road, Vile Parle (West) Mumbai – 400 056 Pan/Gir No. Aabpm8343D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 132(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…on. Thus, return of income was accepted by the AO. Thereafter, AO passed penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c). The penalty so imposed was confirmed by the CIT(A) vide its order dated 31/10/2014 by relying on the decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in Kirit Dahyabhai Patel 121 ITD 159. Against this order of CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. It was argued by learned AR Mr. B.V.Jhaveri that no addition was made to the income declared u/s.153A. Assessee has not concealed any income vis-à-vis the return of income filed u/s.153A. Reliance was placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of B.G.Shirke Co…

Dhanraj Mills P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD)-II Cen RG-7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3830/MUM/2009[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 1987-88

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 68

…dan vs CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC)(Para -3) ii. CIT vs Reliance Petro Product Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) (Para-5). iii. Sheraton Appealers vs. ACIT 256 ITR 20 (Bom) (para-6) iv. CIT vs Kanhaiyalal Sarupaia 299 ITR 19 (Raj.)(Para-11) v. ACIT vs Kirit Dahyabhai Patel 121 ITD 159 (Ahd.)(para-12) vi. CIT vs S.D.V. Chandru 266 ITR 175 (mad.)(Para-12) vii. Ajit B. Zota vs ACIT 40 SOT543 (Mum)(para-12) viii. Mahendra Mittal vs. ACIT 132 ITD 80 (Mum) (para-12) ix. CIT vs Shri Sunil V.Sangoi (ITA Nos. 615 to 619/Mum/2010) (para-12) x. ACIT vs Rupesh Bhalidas Patel 309 ITR (AT) 217 (Ahd) (para- 14) xi. CIT vs Avinash Ch. Gupta 4…

DCIT, CC-I, Kolkata vs. Sheo Kumar Kajaria, Kolkata

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1425/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri S.Dutta, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR

Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)

…e provisions of the Act. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not following the Third Member decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad, Bench “B” , in the case of ACIT, CC-I(3) vs Kirti Dahyabhai Patel, reported in 121 ITD 159 , wherein it was held that the assessee was not entitled to the immunity from penalty for the years for which the due date of filing of return had expired prior to the date of search. 4. That the Department craves leave to add, modify or alter any of the ground (s) of appeal and / or adduce additional evidence at the time of hearing of the case.…