CIT v. Dinesh Talwar

265 ITR 344High Court2004#12568 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 245HSection 271(1)(C)

Judgments citing CIT v. Dinesh Talwar

ANTHONYMUTHU UDAYAR XAVIER,SIVAGANGA vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARAIKUDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1943/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:1943/Chny/2024 धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15 Anthonymuthu Udayar Xavier, Income Tax Officer, 78 Mgr Salai, Vs. Ward-1 Soodamanipuram, Karaikudi. Karaikudi, Sivaganga – 630 002. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaapx-3145-R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit. सुिवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

…omplete such proceedings to gather all relevant evidences before initiating the prosecution. The Apex Court has laid down that if penalty for concealment fails then the prosecution initiated on same material/basis must also fail (M/s K.C. Builders Ltd v. CIT [265 ITR 344]). Therefore, it is advisable to initiate prosecution under section 276C(1) only after confirmation of concealment penalty by the ITAT. xx xx xx xx" 22. The said guideline was based on a judgment of K.C. Builders v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2004] 186 CTR 721/265 ITR 562/135 Taxman 461 (SC)/(2004) 2 SCC 731, wherein this Court laid do…

VIJAY KRISHNASWAMI @ KRISHNASWAMI VIJAYAKUMAR vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION)

Crl.A. No.-003777-003779 - 2025Supreme Court28 Aug 2025

Bench: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.Ii), Egmore, Chennai, For The Offence Under Section 276C(1)2 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (In Short “It Act”) For Assessment Year 2017- 1 High Court Of Judicature At Madras. 2 Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax, Etc. 1 Digitally Signed By Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2025.08.28 20:56:48 Ist Reason: Signature Not Verified

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 245Section 245CSection 245D(4)Section 276C(1)Section 279(1)Section 482

…ceedings to gather all relevant evidences before initiating the prosecution. The Apex Court has laid down that if penalty for concealment fails then the prosecution initiated on same material/basis must also fail (M/s K.C. Builders Ltd Vs CIT [265 ITR 344]). Therefore, it is advisable to initiate prosecution under section 276C(1) only after confirmation of concealment penalty by the ITAT. xx xx xx xx” 22. The said guideline was based on a judgment of ‘M/s K.C. Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT’9, wherein this Court laid down that if penalty for concealment fails, the initiation of the prosecution on t…

USHABEN AMBALAL OZA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(15), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the impugned

ITA 2028/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 250Section 50C

…may vary from State to State and, therefore, it is just and proper to place reliance on local PWD rates rather than Central PWD rates in order to arrive at valuation of renovation and construction of house property. In the case of CIT v. Dinesh Talwar [2004] 265 ITR 344, the High Court observed as under : "The Tribunal has valued the property adopting the rate of PWD. What should be the value of the construction, is basically a question of fact and that depends upon the material used, the location and the quality of construction. Therefore, straightaway, applying the PWD rate or CPWD rate is not justified in ca…

ITO, BANGALORE vs. SRI. J.S. UMASHANKAR GOWRISHANKAR, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1519/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)

…l has taken a consistent view that when the property is situated in the state PWD jurisdiction then the state PWD rates should be applied to ascertain the cost of construction instead of CPWD rates. Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT Vs Dinesh Talwar 265 ITR 344(Raj) has affirmed the decision of the tribunal directing the AO to apply state PWD rate while computing the cost of construction of the building. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of CIT Vs K. Jayakumar(supra). Thus when the property in question comes under the state PWD jurisdiction then the state PWD rates has…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5761/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawal, G.D. Agrawal, Vice & And Ms. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamblems. Suchitra Kamble Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri N.K. Bansal, Senior DRFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Jain and Shri Deepak Tayal, CAs
Section 142ASection 69B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI BENCH DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH ’G’: NEW DELHI BENCH : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT AND AND BEFORE SHRI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT AND AND , JUDICIAL MEMBER MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE , JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No 5761/Del/2015 ITA ITA No No 5761/D…

SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1492/BANG/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Narayana Murthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR-I)
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1490 to 1492/Bang/2015 Assessment years : 2011-12 to 2013-14 Shri C. Shankar Reddy, Advocate, The Deputy Commissioner of Income No. 16, Behind Kapali Tax, Talkies, Central Circle -1(1), Vs. 6th Main Road, Gandhinagar, No. 324, Central Revenue Building, Bangalore. Queens Road, Bangalore – 560 001. PAN: ADFPR 7952L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Narayana Murthy, CA Respondent by : Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR-I) Date of hearing : 09.02.2017 Date of Pronounce…

SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1491/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Narayana Murthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR-I)
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1490 to 1492/Bang/2015 Assessment years : 2011-12 to 2013-14 Shri C. Shankar Reddy, Advocate, The Deputy Commissioner of Income No. 16, Behind Kapali Tax, Talkies, Central Circle -1(1), Vs. 6th Main Road, Gandhinagar, No. 324, Central Revenue Building, Bangalore. Queens Road, Bangalore – 560 001. PAN: ADFPR 7952L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Narayana Murthy, CA Respondent by : Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR-I) Date of hearing : 09.02.2017 Date of Pronounce…

SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1490/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Narayana Murthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR-I)
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1490 to 1492/Bang/2015 Assessment years : 2011-12 to 2013-14 Shri C. Shankar Reddy, Advocate, The Deputy Commissioner of Income No. 16, Behind Kapali Tax, Talkies, Central Circle -1(1), Vs. 6th Main Road, Gandhinagar, No. 324, Central Revenue Building, Bangalore. Queens Road, Bangalore – 560 001. PAN: ADFPR 7952L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Narayana Murthy, CA Respondent by : Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR-I) Date of hearing : 09.02.2017 Date of Pronounce…

CIT v. Dinesh Talwar (265 ITR 344) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax