CIT v. Ashok Kumar

334 ITR 355High Court2011#4733 most cited

What is CIT v. Ashok Kumar authority for?

An assessee is entitled to the adjustment of seized cash towards advance tax liability from the date of making the application for such adjustment.

25

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

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ashok Kumar · 334 ITR 355 · seized cash adjustment · advance tax liability · date of application · income tax assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132(4A)Section 153CSection 292CSection 115BBESection 131Section 132
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 153section 153asection 132section 15section 13section 143section 14section 143(3)person

Judgments citing CIT v. Ashok Kumar

Pravinchandra N. Kamdar, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5194/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: Shri H N Singh
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 132BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 234B

….2015 e) CIT vs. Shri Jvotindra B. Mody ITA No. 3741 of2010 dated 21.09.2011 (Bom HC) f) CIT vs Shri Dinesh B. Mody (ITA no. 4718 of2010) dated 21.09.2011 (Born HC) g) CIT vs. Jafferali Kasamlai Rattonsey (ITNo. 2059 of 20 11) (Born HC) h) CIT vs. Ashok Kumar 334 ITR 355 (Puni. & Har. HC) i) M/s Bombay Beeds Centre, Mumbai vs Department of Income ITA No.3458/Mum/2011 dated 2 March, 2012 j) Nitin M Jadia vs. ACIT 107 Taxman 203 (Mum.) k) Sudhakar M. Shetty vs. ACIT 10 DTR 173 (Mumbai)(Trib) Lastly, the ld. AR prayed that in view of the facts and case laws relied upon by the ld. AR that the order of the ld.CIT(A)…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. Sh. Manav Sardana, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 607/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Manav Sardana, Central Circle-1, H.No.69A, Faridabad. Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Pan: Aatps6108A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate & Shri Tarun Kumar, Advocate Department By : Ms Shefali Swaroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2017 Order Per R.S. Syal, Vp: This Appeal By The Revenue Relating To The A.Y. 2010-11 Arises Out Of The Order Passed By The Cit(A) On 24.11.2014. 2. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Is Against Allowing Of Adjustment Of Seized Cash Towards Advance Tax Liability.

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR
Section 154Section 234B

…making the application(s) in that regard. That is how, interest u/ss 234B and 234C was recomputed. The ld. CIT(A) overturned the action of the Assessing Officer by relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Ashok Kumar (2011) 334 ITR 355 (P&H). The Revenue is aggrieved. 4. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, we find that the assessee requested the Income-tax authorities on 07.09.2009 and 10.08.2011 to adjust seized cash of Rs.18 2 lac against the advance tax liability. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the aforenoted c…

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

…Case Laws 1 M/s Bombay Beeds Centre, Mumbai vs Department 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…

Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1182/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 1182/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Vs Acit, M-65, Jagat Ram Park, Laxmi Central Circle-12, Nagar, Delhi New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aexpa2040R Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Ravi Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., &For Respondent: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292C

…l through out the two years and what stops him to conduct the enquiries from the persons whose names were appearing on the papers. Further assessee seeks to rely on the judgment of 7 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs Ashok Kumar 286 ITR 541 (ALL). 1.4 It is submitted that the department has resorted to its last weapon i.e. search against the assessee and then too did not find any unaccounted asset or stock or any investment. Therefore, the returns of income filed by the assessee for the earlier years and for the impugned year are correct and reliable. It is true that the scope of th…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Jadau Jewellers & Mfg (P) Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 502/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT - DR
Section 142Section 144Section 153A

…igh Court further held that section 132B(1) of the Act, thus not prohibit the utilization of amount seized during the course of search towards the advance tax liability. The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of CIT Vs. Ashok Kumar reported in 334 ITR 355 has also held on similar facts that the assessee was entitled to adjustment of seized cash against advance tax liability and therefore, no interest could be charged u/s 234A & 234B in the event of the department no responding to assessee’s request for adjustment of cash seized against advance tax liability. In view of the following judgments, the…