CIT v. Arun Kapoor

334 ITR 351High Court2011#14043 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 132B Section 143(3)Section 144 Section 153A Section 234B Section 234C Section 69B

Issues it is cited on

interest u/s 234b advance tax block period section 234b section 234 section 131 section 153 assistant commissioner section 153a undisclosed income section 132 section 15

Judgments citing CIT v. Arun Kapoor

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

…1989 and reminder dated September 12, 1989 for adjustment out of the seized amount towards advance tax liability in respect of the assessment year in question, i.e., 1990-91. 5. In CIT v. Arun Kapoor-I. T. A. No. 149 of 2003, decided on July 22, 2010, [2011] 334 ITR 351 (P&H), this court had occasion to consider a similar issue where it has been held that the assessee is entitled to adjustment of seized amount towards advance tax liability from the date of making the application in that regard. In the present case, the assessee had made request for adjustment of the advance tax liability of Rs. 3,14,312 against…

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 521/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, \nvk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21\n\nSunil Kumar Agarwal\n395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside\nSanganeri Gate, Jaipur\ncuke\nVs.\nACIT,\nCentral Circle-2,\nJaipur\nLFkk;h y s[kk l a-@thvkb Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M\nvihykFkhZ@Appellant i zR;Fkh Z@Respondent\n\nvk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16\

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

…t "existing liability" shall not include advance tax. In the present case, the search was conducted post this date. The AO, therefore, rightly declined to treat seized cash as advance tax. Judicial precedents cited by the assessee, such as CIT v. Arun Kapoor (334 ITR 351), pertain to pre-amendment law and are inapplicable to the present fact pattern. 3. Interest under Sections 234B and 234C is Mandatory and Automatic It is a settled legal position that interest under Sections 234B and 234C is compensatory in nature and mandatory, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in: CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala (252 ITR 1), CIT…

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 513/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

Rahul Agarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-46(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7956/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 132(4)Section 132BSection 154Section 260ASection 271

…e in Income Tax Appeal No. 36 of 2004 CIT v. Ashok Kumar [2012] 20 taxmann.com 6 Rahul Agarwal 432/(2011] 334 ITR 355 (Punj. & Har.) wherein it was recorded as under (page 357): "In CIT Vs. Arun Kapoor, I.T.A. No. 149 of 2003 decided on July 27 2010— [2011] 334 ITR 351 (P&H), this court had occasion to consider similar issue where it has been held that the assessee is entitled to adjustment of seized amount towards advance tax liability from the date of making the application in that regard. In the present case, the assessee had made request for adjustment of the advance tax liability of Rs. 3,14,312/- against…

Sh. Mahender Kumar Valecha, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6333/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraa.Y. 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 69

…rding the adjustment of cash found and seized during search amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- towards payment of Advance Tax Liability which was not allowed. 9.1 On this issue of adjustment of seized cash, the jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Arun Kapoor (2011) 334 ITR 351 (P&H), the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the action of adjustment of seized cash. In another decision of jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Ashok Kumar (2011) 334 ITR 355 (P&H), it was held as under at para 5 that is-reproduced: “In CIT vs. Arun Kapoor, IT Appeal No. 149 of 2003 decided on 27 July, 2.010, this court had occasion to consider sim…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. Sh. Sushil Kumar Gupta, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 612/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. V. Rajakumar &For Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 132(4)Section 132BSection 210Section 245

…appear to be the case. After considering the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the assessee had requested for adjustment of seized cash before the tax authorities. He relied decision of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Arun Kapoor (2011) 334 ITR 351 (P&H), upheld the action of adjustment of seized cash. In another decision of jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Ashok Kumar (2011) 334 ITR 355 (P&H), it was held as under at para 5 that is reproduced: “In CIT vs. Arun Kapoor, IT Appeal No. 149 of 2003 decided on 27 July, 2010, this court had occasion to consider similar issue where it has been…

N Venkatanathan, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 10, Mumbai

In the result these appeals by the assessee stand allowed

ITA 7378/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri. Neomi LakhpatiaFor Respondent: Shri. Kailash Kanojiya

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234Section 234B

…nt of Income tax on 2 March, 2012 ITA No. 3458/Mum/2011 2 CIT vs Garg Rice and genral Mills, Kharar ITA No. 81 of 2005 (P&H HC) 3 Nitin M. Jadia vs. ACIT 107 Taxman 203 (Mum.) (Mag.) 4 Ashok Kumar (2011) 334 ITR 355 (Punj. & Har.) 5. CIT v. Arun Kapoor [2011] 334 ITR 351 (Punj. & Har.) 6 CIT vs K K Marketing [2005] 278 ITF 596 (Delhi) 7 Ramjilal Jagannath vs ACIT [2000] 241 ITR 758 (MP) 8 Nikka Mal Babu Ram vs ACIT [2010] 41 SOT 407 (Chd.) 5.1 Thus it was argued that the interest u/s. 234B cannot be charged up to 19.03.2013 i.e. passing of the order of the interest u/s. 234B requires to be restricted till the da…