Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Narendra N. Thacker

82 Taxmann.com 64Reported decision2017#16215 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 132BSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234CSection 115BBESection 131

Issues it is cited on

advance taxsection 234bsection 234section 131unexplained moneyundisclosed incomesection 132section 139section 69asection 153section 13section 153a

Judgments citing Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Narendra N. Thacker

SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), , KOLKATA

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

ITA 791/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm It(Ss)A No. 50/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sanjay Kumar Gupta Jamuria Hat, Jamuria Thana Acit, Cc 2(1) More, Bypass Road, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Vs. Jamurai, Burdwan, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal-713336 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aczpg4735H Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Sonam Bajoria, Ars Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan &For Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM IT(SS)A No. 50/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Sanjay Kumar Gupta Jamuria Hat, Jamuria Thana ACIT, CC 2(1) More, Bypass Road, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Vs. Jamurai, Burdwan, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal-713336 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. ACZPG4735H Assessee by : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan & Ms. Sonam Bajoria, ARs Revenue by : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR Date of hearing: 13.08.2025 Date of pronouncement: 11.11.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by t…

KAPOOR INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MEHRAULI vs. CPC, BENGALURU(CURRENTLY ASSESSED WITH DCIT, CC-01, NEW DELHI), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4498/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2025AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalkapoor Industries Limited Vs Cpc, Bengluru 29A-2/1, Desu Road, Mehrauli Delhi-110030 Pan-Aaeck6613N Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Pavan Ved, Adv., Shri Mohit Gupta, Ca, Shri Mirza Baig, Ca & Shri Sarthak, Ca Respondent By Adjournment By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.10.2025

Section 132Section 132BSection 143(1)Section 234Section 250

…ITA No. 4498/Del/2025 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kapoor Industries Limited vs CPC, Bengluru 29A-2/1, Desu Road, Mehrauli Delhi-110030 PAN-AAECK6613N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Pavan Ved, Adv., Shri Mohit Gupta, CA, Shri Mirza Baig, CA and Shri Sarthak, CA Respondent by Adjournment by CIT DR Date of Hearing 15.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.10.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : This appeal is preferred by the captioned assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Inco…

KUSHAL NARAYAN PATEL ,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O, WARD 26(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 4910/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kushal Narayan Patel, Ito Ward-26(2)(1), A/102, Sagar Garden, Chs Ltd. Kautilya Bhavan, G Block Bkc, Lbs Marg, Mulund West, S.O. Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai. Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400080. Pan No. Atdpp 3478 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Mr. Pravin Chavan, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 156Section 220Section 234BSection 234C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kushal Narayan Patel, ITO Ward-26(2)(1), A/102, Sagar Garden, Chs Ltd. Kautilya Bhavan, G Block BKC, LBS Marg, Mulund West, S.O. Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai. Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400080. PAN NO. ATDPP 3478 R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Bharat Kumar Revenue by : Mr. Pravin Chavan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04/11/2024 : 22/11/2024 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the asses…

SUSHIL BANSAL ,DELHI vs. ACIT , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 300/DEL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 143Section 234Section 234BSection 271Section 69Section 69A

…our understanding of law the cash seized by the department should have been adjusted with self assessment tax payable with the return of income in accordance with section 132 B of the Act. A similar view was taken by the coordinate Bench Kolkata Tribunal in 82 Taxmann.com 64. The communication of the assessee with the department mentioned elsewhere clearly suggest that the assessee was not asking to adjust the seized cash towards advance tax but was praying the adjustment towards self assessment tax. On these peculiar facts of the case we do not find any merit in charging the interest u/s. 234B of the Act the A…

SUSHIL BANSAL,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2748/DEL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharma

Section 132Section 143Section 234Section 234BSection 271Section 69Section 69A

…our understanding of law the cash seized by the department should have been adjusted with self assessment tax payable with the return of income in accordance with section 132 B of the Act. A similar view was taken by the coordinate Bench Kolkata Tribunal in 82 Taxmann.com 64. The communication of the assessee with the department mentioned elsewhere clearly suggest that the assessee was not asking to adjust the seized cash towards advance tax but was praying the adjustment towards self assessment tax. On these peculiar facts of the case we do not find any merit in charging the interest u/s. 234B of the Act the A…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SAJJAN SINGH, RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6640/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Shri Sajjan Singh, Central Circle-17, F-180, C-Scheme, Room No. 103, First Floor, Subhash Nagar, Jaipur, Hall No. 1,Ara Centre, E-2, Pan:Apfps5687B Jhandewalan, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kr Tulisiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 132bSection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 234B

…carefully considered the rival contentions and the facts have already been stated above. The above issue has been discussed at ACIT Vs. Shri Sajjan Singh, ITA No. 6640/Del/12016 & CO No. 50/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) length by the coordinate bench in 82 Taxmann.com 64 in ACIT Vs. Narender N Thacker as under:- “4. The brief facts of this issue is that the search and seizure operation was conducted on Thacker Group on 27.7.2006 and it was seen that the four brothers Sri Dinesh N Thacker, Sri Vinod N Thacker, Sri Narendra N Thacker and Sri Mahendra N Thacker were doing separate business. The activities rela…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax v. Narendra N. Thacker (82 Taxmann.com 64) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax