Bhushan Lal Sawhney v. DCIT

190 ITD 225Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2021#19648 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(2A)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 92CASection 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

furnishing inaccurate particularspenalty u/s 271(1)(c)concealment of incomelevy of penaltysection 271(1)section 271section 271(1)(c)section 69section 27section 148total incomedocument

Judgments citing Bhushan Lal Sawhney v. DCIT

Kalpana Dilip Mehta As Legal Heir of Dilip D Mehta, Mumbai vs. JCIT 19(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1387/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. C.A. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…on, we are well within our rights to consider all material aspects which were considered while framing the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act." 18. The co-ordinate bench in one of the group cases of Bhushan Lal Sawhney v. Dy. CIT [2021] 127 taxmann.com 64/190 ITD 225 (Delhi -Trib) through his L/H wife Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney ITA Nos. 427 to 432/DEL/2017 & 434 to 439/DEL/2017 had the occasion to consider reference to Swiss authority and reply received by Swiss authority. It would be pertinent to refer to the said observation of the Co-ordinate Bench which reads as under: "Learned Counsel for the Assessee also p…

Kalpana Dilip Mehta As Legal Heir of Dilip Dalpatlal Mehta, Walkeshwar vs. ACIT 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 679/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Kalpana Dilip Mehta As Legal Heir Of Acit 19(1), Dilip Dalpatlal Mehta, Piramal Chambers Vs. 51 Anupam Society, Manav Mandir Mumbai-400012. Road, Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400006. Pan No. Aacpm 4426 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya, CA a/wFor Respondent: 25/03/2025
Section 1Section 143(2)Section 147

…Act." 18. The co-ordinate bench in one of the group cases of ordinate bench in one of the group cases of ordinate bench in one of the group cases of Bhushan Lal Sawhney v. Dy. CIT Bhushan Lal Sawhney v. Dy. CIT [2021] 127 taxmann.com [2021] 127 taxmann.com 64/190 ITD 225 (Delhi 64/190 ITD 225 (Delhi -Trib) through his L/H wife Smt. Sneh through his L/H wife Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhne Lata Sawhney ITA Nos. 427 to 432/DEL/2017 & 434 to y ITA Nos. 427 to 432/DEL/2017 & 434 to 439/DEL/2017 had the occasion to consider reference to 439/DEL/2017 had the occasion to consider reference to 439/DEL/2017 had the occasion to cons…

Smt. Krishna, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-Bhiwadi, Alwar

In the result, both appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 435/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (FCA.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 151(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…of assessment, in notice u/s 274 and also in order levying penalty being of the view that assessee was guilty of concealment as also of furnishing inaccurate of income, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. • Bhushan Lal Sawhney Vs. DCIT (2021) 190 ITD 225 (Del.) (Trib.) Where prior to levy of penalty in case of assessee, AO had not mentioned therein specifically for which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings has been initiated, no penalty could have been levied against assessee. Smt. Krishna vs. ITO In view of above, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) be directed to be deleted. 2. On merit i…

Smt. Krishna, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-Bhiwadi, Alwar

In the result, both appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 434/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (FCA.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 151(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…of assessment, in notice u/s 274 and also in order levying penalty being of the view that assessee was guilty of concealment as also of furnishing inaccurate of income, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. • Bhushan Lal Sawhney Vs. DCIT (2021) 190 ITD 225 (Del.) (Trib.) Where prior to levy of penalty in case of assessee, AO had not mentioned therein specifically for which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings has been initiated, no penalty could have been levied against assessee. Smt. Krishna vs. ITO In view of above, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) be directed to be deleted. 2. On merit i…

Bhushan Lal Sawhney v. DCIT (190 ITD 225) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax