How many judgments cite CIT v. Arkay Saree Museum?

30 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Arkay Saree Museum (187 ITR 147), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Arkay Saree Museum come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 133A, Section 148, Section 151, Section 270A.

CIT v. Arkay Saree Museum

187 ITR 147High Court1991#3872 most cited

What is CIT v. Arkay Saree Museum authority for?

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied merely on the basis of additions made to income on an estimated basis; the revenue must prove the ingredients of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Arkay Saree Museum · section 271(1)(c) · penalty · estimated addition · concealment of income · inaccurate particulars

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 133A Section 148 Section 151 Section 270A Section 41(1)Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

section 135a section 2(40)self occupied property within four years section 135 approval under section 151 penalty under section 270a infrastructure facility section 131(1a)section 41(1)section 22(1)live link

Judgments citing CIT v. Arkay Saree Museum

Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 76/RJT/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

…ITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15) Pankaj C Lodhiya आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोटन्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/.ITA No.76 to 80/RJT/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 to 2012-13 AND आयकर अपीलसं/.ITA No. 81/RJT/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 PAN: AAMPL 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2 Rajko…

M/S. Manish Metal, Mumbai vs. Incometax Officer Ward 19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3289/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. D/R

Section 271(1)(c)

…y because the profit has been estimated and the assessee chose not to litigate further, would not amount to concealment of income or filing of inaccurate particulars. 5.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Aarkey Saree Museum reported in [1991] 187 ITR 147 (Bombay), had the occasion to consider the similar situation and held as under:- “5. The Tribunal cancelled the imposition of penalty after recording a finding that the allegation of concealment of income was not proved. The Tribunal rightly recorded in para 8 of its judgement that merely because certain additions were made in the trading account…

M/S. Manish Metal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3288/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. D/R

Section 271(1)(c)

M/S. Manish Metal, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3287/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. D/R

Section 271(1)(c)

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat vs. M/S. D.Khushalbhai Jewellers, Surat

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 493/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

…lahabad Tribunal in Vishwa Nath Agarwal Vs ACIT (2001) 71 TTJ 668 (All. Trib), Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in Dilip Shroff Vs CIT & Anr. (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC)/161 Taxman 218 (SC) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court decision in CIT Vs Aarkay Saree Museum (1991) 187 ITR 147 (Bom). 6. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of assessee held that the Assessing Officer not disputed the quantity of undisclosed stock declared in the return of income. However, the valuation of said stock was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. The assessee valued its stock by average price method which was continuously followe…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir 1(3), Surat vs. M/S. D.Khushalbhai Jewellers, Surat

In the result, grounds raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 265/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69B

Navalben Jawhar Dedhia, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai

In the result, the issue raised by the assessee in its appeal pertaining to the assessment year 2010-2011 is allowed

ITA 2797/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Navalben Jawahar Dedhia, The Asstt. Commissioner Of (Legal Heir Of The Late Shri Income Tax, Jawahar D Dedhia), Central Circle -23, S.V. Road, Andheri (West), Vs. Room No. 409, 4Th Floor, Mumbai - 400058 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabpd2382B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mayank Thosar (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/07/2019

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Thosar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh

Section 143Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)

…sed on presumption and surmises, therefore, the assessee is not liable for penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) in respect of addition of Rs. 5,09,000/-. The Ld. counsel relied on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Aarkay Saree Museum 187 ITR 147, decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Smt. Usha Ashok Kumar Shah vs. DCIT ITA No. 2766/Mum/2014 to substantiate the contention of the assessee. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that since the ITAT has deleted the penalty confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A), there is no need to adjudicate the said ground sepa…

Rajesh D. Dedhia, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2711/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Shri G. Manjunatha, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2711/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Rajesh D. Dedhia बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-23, Room No. 409, 4Th Floor, C-308, Shreenath Darshan, Vs. Off, 30 Tp. Road, Borivali Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. (W), Mumbai-400092 Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abhpd1165B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajat Mittal ( Dr) Assessee By: Shri B.V. Jhaveri (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 09.02.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2010- 11 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. The Commissioner (Appeals) Erred In Confirming Penalty Under Section 27I(L)(C) Of Rs.20,78,458/- Invoking Explanation-5 A To Section 271(1) (C) Of The It. Act 1961, 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate That The Income Of Rs,71,53F28Q/- Is Added To The Income Of (He Assessee On Estimation Of Gross Profile At 26.40% Of The Goods Sold

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal ( DR)

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 27I

….20% doesn’t amount to concealment of income. Therefore, in the said circumstances, the penalty is not leviable in view of law settled in Smt. Usha Ashokkumar Shah Vs. DCIT in ITA. No. 2766/M/2014 & CIT Vs. ITA. No.2711/M/15 A.Y.2010-11 Aarkay Saree Museum (187 ITR 147). On the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has refuted the said contention. The factual position is not in dispute which has been discussed above. The assessee filed original return of income on 24.09.2010 u/s 139(1) of the Act. A search and seizure action was carried out on 09.10.2010. The original return of income filed u/s 1…

Rajesh D Dedhia ( HUF), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2617/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri, ARFor Respondent: Shri Love Kumar, DR

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

…o penalty could be levied upon the assessee u/s 271(1)(c). In Smt. Usha Ashok Kumar Shah vs. DCIT (ITA No. 2766/Mum/2014) for the A.Y. 2003-04 ; Anant Shelters Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 7473/Mum/2011) for the A.Y. 2007-08; CIT vs. Aarkay Saree Museum (1991) 187 ITR 147 (Bom) and CIT vs. Modi Industrial Corporation (2010) 195 taxman 68 (P&H) the imposition of penalty as per Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) was not the issue. 7.4 For clarity the provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) are extracted as under: 6 “Explanation 5A.— Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or afte…

Thakkar Popatlal Velji Sales Ltd., Panvel vs. DCIT, Central Circle 25, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5795/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2006-07 M/S Thakkar Popatlal Velji Acit, Sales Ltd. Central Circle-25, 4Th Floor, बनाम/ Office No.2, Neel Presidency, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Opp. Telephone Exchange, Dr. M. K. Road, Panvel, Raigad, Mumbai-400020 Maharashtra-410206 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabct7939D "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Manish Sanghvi Shri B.D. Naik-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 25/08/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R Per Joginder Singh () The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The By The Impugned Order Dated 20/06/2013 Of The Ld. First Appellate Authority

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…nalty will sustain, wherein, the addition was on estimate basis. In our view, mere addition on estimate basis does not conclusively establish the concealment. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Devandas Perumal & Co. 140 ITR 943 (Bom.), CIT vs Aarkay Saree Museum 187 ITR 147(Bom), Laxminarain Ramavatar vs ITO (31 TTJ 478)(JP), ITO vs Dr. K.V.R. Krishnaji (40 taxman 222) (Hyd), National Textiles vs CIT 249 ITR 125 (Guj.), CIT vs P.K. Narayanan (238 ITR 905) (Ker.), supports our view. 2.3. It is an accepted principle of law that if there is difference of opinion on a particular issue, then it cannot be a case of concea…