CIT v. Chanchal Katiyal

173 Taxmann 71High Court#10296 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 69C Section 145(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147

Issues it is cited on

penalty u/s 271(1)(c)furnishing inaccurate particulars of income concealment of income furnishing inaccurate particulars section 271(1)unexplained expenditure levy of penalty section 69c section 271 section 271(1)(c)section 27 section 133(6)

Judgments citing CIT v. Chanchal Katiyal

INCOME TAX OFFICER 19.1.1, PIRAMAL CHAMBER LAL BAUG vs. A J DIAM, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in the above terms

ITA 3845/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhanito-19(1)(1), Mumbai A. J. Diam Room No. 501, Piramal Chamber, Vs. 304, 3Rd Floor, Deccan Vikas Chs Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012. Ltd. 584/1/584, Vithalbhai Patel Road, Kothachiwadi, Mumbai- 400 004 Pan: Aaofa4830G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITO-19(1)(1), Mumbai A. J. Diam Room No. 501, Piramal Chamber, Vs. 304, 3rd Floor, Deccan Vikas CHS Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012. Ltd. 584/1/584, Vithalbhai Patel Road, Kothachiwadi, Mumbai- 400 004 PAN: AAOFA4830G (Appellant) (Respondent) Department Represented by : Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. DR Assessee Represented by : Shri D. B. Shah, Ld. AR Date of conclusion of Hearing : 01.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025 O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. Th…

ITO 19(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ANITA DINESH DHOKAR, MUMBAI

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid CBDT circular, the present appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2457/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer 19(1)(1), Anita Dinesh Dhokar Mumbai 501, Fifth Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Vs. Mumbai - 400012 (PAN: AACPD9237E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee : Ms. Ridhisha Jain, CA Revenue : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Fa…

INCOME TAX OFFICER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

ITA 870/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 298

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 PAN NO. AADFT 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Nishit Gandhi a/w Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue by : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 18/06/2025 Date of pronouncement : 27/06/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM…

INCOME TAX OFFICIER- 23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TISYA JEWELS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed

ITA 869/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, CIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 298

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER, PAREL vs. CHETAN PRAVIN CHITALIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2101/MUM/2025[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025

Section 271(1)(c)Section 690

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI 'C' BENCH\nBEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT AND\nSHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2100 & 2101/MUM/2025\n Assessment Years: (2009-10 & 2010-11)\n(Physical Hearing)\nVs.\nACIT,\nCircle - 23(1),\nMumbai\nChetan Pravin Chitalia,\n1904, 19th Floor, Island City\nCenter, GD Ambedkar Marg,\nBombay Reality, Dadar West,\nMaharashtra - 400014\nस्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAAAC1264F\n(Appellant)\n(Respondent)\nAppellant by\nRespondent by\nShri Rajendra Joshi, Sr. DR\nShri Jitendra Singh a/w Ms. Shivali\nMhatre, AR\nDate of Hea…

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, PIRAMAL CHAMBER vs. CHETAN PRAVIN CHITALIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2100/MUM/2025[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)Section 690

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI ‘C’ BENCH BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.2100 & 2101/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: (2009-10 & 2010-11) (Physical Hearing) ACIT, Vs. Chetan Pravin Chitalia, 1904, 19th Floor, Island City Circle – 23(1), Mumbai Center, GD Ambedkar Marg, Bombay Reality, Dadar West, Maharashtra - 400014 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAAAC1264F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Rajendra Joshi, Sr. DR Respondent by Shri Jitendra Singh a/w Ms. Shivali Mhatre, AR Date of Hearing 14/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 16/05/…

ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ANIL KISHANCHAND BHATIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the R

ITA 720/MUM/2025[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009 Acit-23(1), Mumbai Anil Kishanchand Bhatia Room No. 511, 5Th Floor, D2, 67/68, Green Field Chs, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Near Majas Depot. Jvlr Road Lower Parel. Mumbai-400093 Mumbai-400012 Pan No. Aaapb 9588 J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 13/03/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009 ACIT-23(1), Mumbai Anil Kishanchand Bhatia Room No. 511, 5th Floor, D2, 67/68, Green Field CHS, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Near Majas Depot. JVLR Road Lower Parel. Mumbai-400093 Mumbai-400012 PAN NO. AAAPB 9588 J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None : Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia Sr. DR Revenue by : 13/03/2025 Date of Hearing : 13/03/2025 Date of pronouncement ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order date…

VINOD RATAN PATIL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 3, KALYAN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4246/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.4246/MUM/2018 (A.Y: 2011-12) Vinod Ratan Patil v. CIT (A) – 1 Shanti Niwas, Katai Gaon Room No. 29,A-Wing, 6th Floor Ashar I.T. Park, Road No. 16Z Kalyan Shil Road Wagle Industrial Estate Dombivili (E) - 421201 Thane, Mumbai - 400604 PAN: AKWPP4159M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : None Department Represented by : Shri. Pankaj Kumar Date of Hearing : 24.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 10.02.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMA…

A.V.K. VISWANADHA RAJU,,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 146/HYD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2004-05 Avk Viswanadha Raju, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 6(2), Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri V. Raghavendra RaoFor Respondent: Smt. M. Narmada

Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2004-05 AVK Viswanadha Raju, vs. Income-tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 6(2), Hyderabad PAN – ABLPA 4748 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri V. Raghavendra Rao Revenue by : Smt. M. Narmada Date of hearing 21-12-2017 Date of pronouncement 24-01-2018 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) – 9, Hyderabad, dated 13/11/2015 for the AY 2004-05, whereby he confirme…

M/S TWENTY FIRST CENTURY SECURITIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-4(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 202/KOL/2014[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…r, the appellant did not furnish any explanation before the AO. Reasons for not doing so could not be explained by the A.R of the appellant. For that reason alone, penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)( c) is upheld in view of the case of CIT Vs. Chanchal Katiyal (All) 173 Taxmann 71. Appeal is dismissed.” 9. Before us the assessee contends that the case of the assessee is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd reported in 322 ITR 158(SC) and reiterated the submissions as made before the CIT-A. The Ld. DR submits that the assessee has wrongly claimed an amo…