Ashok Kumar Gupta v. CIT

287 ITR 376High Court2006#12559 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 140A(1)Section 271 AAASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

Issues it is cited on

section 140a(1)section 271aaadeletion of penaltysection 271aasection 271asundry creditorsappeal before cit(a)section 274levy of penaltysection 271(1)section 271section 154

Judgments citing Ashok Kumar Gupta v. CIT

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

…he assesse has complied with the conditions as prescribed in clause (iii) of section 271 AAA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was against the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Gupta v CIT [2006] 287 ITR 376 in which the Hon'ble High Court has held that to claim immunity from levy of penalty in terms of the provisions of Explanation 5 to section 271(1) (c) of the Act, the tax on the surrendered income along with the interest is required to be paid immediately and in any case before the due date of filing of the return. 2.4 Since these are cross appe…

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

…he assesse has complied with the conditions as prescribed in clause (iii) of section 271 AAA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was against the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Gupta v CIT [2006] 287 ITR 376 in which the Hon'ble High Court has held that to claim immunity from levy of penalty in terms of the provisions of Explanation 5 to section 271(1) (c) of the Act, the tax on the surrendered income along with the interest is required to be paid immediately and in any case before the due date of filing of the return. 2.4 Since these are cross appe…

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

…he assesse has complied with the conditions as prescribed in clause (iii) of section 271 AAA(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was against the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Gupta v CIT [2006] 287 ITR 376 in which the Hon'ble High Court has held that to claim immunity from levy of penalty in terms of the provisions of Explanation 5 to section 271(1) (c) of the Act, the tax on the surrendered income along with the interest is required to be paid immediately and in any case before the due date of filing of the return. 2.4 Since these are cross appe…

Amitabha Sanyal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-58(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

ITA 359/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Nov 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amitabha Sanyal, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 254(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…nt by the assessee in the original return was not bona fide or due to any inadvertence or mistake on his part, but the revised return was filed only after the search action. The levy of penalty was valid. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA V COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, [2006] 287 ITR 376 (P&H). Penalty-Concealment of Income Search and seizure-Effect of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) Surrender of income found during search No filing of return in respect of such income and no payment of tax-Levy of penalty-Valid-Income-tax Act, 1961, s. 271(1)(c) would have protected the assessee. KAMAL CHAND JAIN v INCOME TAX OFFICER (2005) 27…

S.Sathyanarayanan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 756/CHNY/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

…ailed to fulfill the requirement of the explanation (5) to Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act and levy of penalty is valid as held by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the cases of Surender Paul vs. CIT, (2006) 287 ITR 223 and Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. CIT, 287 ITR 376. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.754/CHNY/2015, for assessment year 2000-2001 is dismissed. ITA No.755/Chny/2015, for Assessment Year 2001-2012 8. Since, the facts in the present appeal is identical to the facts in ITA No.754/Chny/2015, for assessment year 2000-2001 for the reasons mentioned therein, we dismiss the appeal…

S.Sathyanarayanan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 755/CHNY/2015[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

…ailed to fulfill the requirement of the explanation (5) to Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act and levy of penalty is valid as held by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the cases of Surender Paul vs. CIT, (2006) 287 ITR 223 and Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. CIT, 287 ITR 376. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.754/CHNY/2015, for assessment year 2000-2001 is dismissed. ITA No.755/Chny/2015, for Assessment Year 2001-2012 8. Since, the facts in the present appeal is identical to the facts in ITA No.754/Chny/2015, for assessment year 2000-2001 for the reasons mentioned therein, we dismiss the appeal…

S.Sathyanarayanan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 754/CHNY/2015[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2019AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao]

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271

…ailed to fulfill the requirement of the explanation (5) to Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act and levy of penalty is valid as held by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the cases of Surender Paul vs. CIT, (2006) 287 ITR 223 and Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. CIT, 287 ITR 376. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.754/CHNY/2015, for assessment year 2000-2001 is dismissed. ITA No.755/Chny/2015, for Assessment Year 2001-2012 8. Since, the facts in the present appeal is identical to the facts in ITA No.754/Chny/2015, for assessment year 2000-2001 for the reasons mentioned therein, we dismiss the appeal…

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)

…that they have made payment of taxes in installments by 12/12/2014, as they have made full payment on undisclosed income, thus no penalty is levied, is devoid of any merit. He further relied upon the decision of the honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court in 287 ITR 376 wherein it has been held that immunity from penalty is to be availed of the assessee and the tax on the surrendered income along with the interest is required to be paid immediately and in any case, before the due date of filing of return. Therefore he confirmed the penalty levied by the learned AO as in the present case the due taxes along with…

Ashok Kumar Gupta v. CIT (287 ITR 376) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax