CIT v. Kanhaiyalal

299 ITR 19High Court2008#3306 most cited

What is CIT v. Kanhaiyalal authority for?

A disclosure of additional income during a survey, which is subsequently offered to tax, is the subject of controversy. The case is cited in conjunction with other judgments concerning the disclosure of additional income during survey proceedings.

36

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kanhaiyalal · 2008 · 299 ITR 19 · disclosure of additional income · survey · offer to tax · return filed · section 139(1)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 274Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 133(a)section 271(c)section 276csection 138time barred assessmentsection 115jcsection 276bona fide mistakedeletion of penaltytax collected at sourcesurrender of incomestatement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. Kanhaiyalal

Late Pragnesh Navinbhai Patel (Through Legal Heir Smt. Shraddha Pragnesh Patel., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Cir-1(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 2662/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2662 /Ahd/2017 Asstt.Year : 2009-10 Late Pragnesh Navinbhai Patel Through Dcit, Cent.Cir.1(3) Legal Heir Smt.Shraddha Pragnesh Patel Vs Ahmedabad. 39, Kamalnayan Bungalows Aarohi Club Road, Ahmedabad. Pan : Abbpp 5517 H आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2669, 2670 & 2671/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Shri Tejas Vinubhai Shah Dcit, Cent.Cir.1(3) 48, Alok Bungalow Vs Ahmedabad. Sun-N-Step Club Road Pan : Ahbps 5069 H आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2663 To 2668/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 To 2012-13 Shri Pravinbhai Gordhanbhai Patel Dcit, Cent.Cir.1(3) 8, Sardar Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Ambica Nagar Highway Road Kalol (N.G.) Pan : Afupp 7843 M

For Appellant: Shri A.L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Pathak,Sr.DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…t year, which concealment was revealed by the discovery of certain assets in the assessee's possession during the search conducted under Section 132. Here, it would be beneficial to reproduce the dictum of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Kanhaiyalal [2008] 299 ITR 19, where it held that- "We may consider the things from yet another aspect, viz., that under the set up of IT Act, in whatever eventuality the assessment may have to be made, i.e. whether a regular assessment, or assessment consequent upon escapement of income, or assessment of a block period, but in either case, the assessment has to be, with respe…

Dhanraj Mills P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD)-II Cen RG-7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3830/MUM/2009[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 1987-88

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 68

…even after considering the following cases. i. K.P. Madhusudan vs CIT (2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC)(Para -3) ii. CIT vs Reliance Petro Product Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) (Para-5). iii. Sheraton Appealers vs. ACIT 256 ITR 20 (Bom) (para-6) iv. CIT vs Kanhaiyalal Sarupaia 299 ITR 19 (Raj.)(Para-11) v. ACIT vs Kirit Dahyabhai Patel 121 ITD 159 (Ahd.)(para-12) vi. CIT vs S.D.V. Chandru 266 ITR 175 (mad.)(Para-12) vii. Ajit B. Zota vs ACIT 40 SOT543 (Mum)(para-12) viii. Mahendra Mittal vs. ACIT 132 ITD 80 (Mum) (para-12) ix. CIT vs Shri Sunil V.Sangoi (ITA Nos. 615 to 619/Mum/2010) (para-12) x. ACIT vs Rupesh Bhalidas Patel 309…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Neeraj Jindal

ITA/464/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…as revealed by the discovery of certain assets in the assessee’s possession during the search conducted under Section 132. Here, it would be beneficial to reproduce the dictum of the Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kanhaiyalal, (2008) 299 ITR 19 (Raj), where it held that- “We may consider the things from yet another aspect, viz., that under the set up of IT Act, in whatever eventuality the assessment may have to be made, i.e. whether a regular assessment, or assessment consequent upon escapement of income, or assessment of a block period, but in either case, the ITA 463/2016 &…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Ankur Aggarwal

ITA/465/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…as revealed by the discovery of certain assets in the assessee’s possession during the search conducted under Section 132. Here, it would be beneficial to reproduce the dictum of the Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kanhaiyalal, (2008) 299 ITR 19 (Raj), where it held that- “We may consider the things from yet another aspect, viz., that under the set up of IT Act, in whatever eventuality the assessment may have to be made, i.e. whether a regular assessment, or assessment consequent upon escapement of income, or assessment of a block period, but in either case, the ITA 463/2016 &…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-19 vs. Shri Ankur Aggarwal

ITA/466/2016HC Delhi09 Feb 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 260Section 263Section 264Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…as revealed by the discovery of certain assets in the assessee’s possession during the search conducted under Section 132. Here, it would be beneficial to reproduce the dictum of the Rajasthan High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kanhaiyalal, (2008) 299 ITR 19 (Raj), where it held that- “We may consider the things from yet another aspect, viz., that under the set up of IT Act, in whatever eventuality the assessment may have to be made, i.e. whether a regular assessment, or assessment consequent upon escapement of income, or assessment of a block period, but in either case, the ITA 463/2016 &…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-2 vs. M/S Bose Corporation (India) Pvt. L to

The appeal is allowed to the above extent

ITA/462/2016HC Delhi23 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 21Section 23Section 28

…27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as ―the Evidence Act‖), stand, therefore, statutorily foreclosed, in the case of statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court, in Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India, (2008) 4 SCC 668, enunciated this principle, in the following words (in para 47 of the report): CRL.A. 462/2016 Page 10 of 57 ―It may also be recalled that though an application was made for retracting the confession made by the appellant, neither…

Sumer Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 844/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2016AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…applicable in the case wherein search initiated u/s. 132 before 01.06.2007. The appellant has relied on the following decisions:- (i) Gebilal Kanhaialal (HUF) v. ACIT..(2004) 270 ITR 523 (ii) CIT v. S. D.V. Chandru (2004) 266 ITR 175. (iii) CIT v. Kanhaivalal 299 ITR 19 (iv) CIT v. Chhabra Emporium 264 ITR 249 1.23 The Assessing Officer in his assessment order has admitted the fact that the appellant has filed its return of income in response to notice u/s. 153A showing income of Rs.67,04,500/- but he has imposed the penalty on the disclosed income also on the ground that this income has not been disclosed by the…

DCIT 36, Mumbai vs. Sumer5 Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3608/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2016AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…applicable in the case wherein search initiated u/s. 132 before 01.06.2007. The appellant has relied on the following decisions:- (i) Gebilal Kanhaialal (HUF) v. ACIT..(2004) 270 ITR 523 (ii) CIT v. S. D.V. Chandru (2004) 266 ITR 175. (iii) CIT v. Kanhaivalal 299 ITR 19 (iv) CIT v. Chhabra Emporium 264 ITR 249 1.23 The Assessing Officer in his assessment order has admitted the fact that the appellant has filed its return of income in response to notice u/s. 153A showing income of Rs.67,04,500/- but he has imposed the penalty on the disclosed income also on the ground that this income has not been disclosed by the…

DCIT, CC-Xvi, Kolkata vs. Shri Satyam Roy Chowdhury, Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 639/KOL/2009[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…protection of second exception of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c). The relevant judicial authorities are Delhi High Court judgment in the case of C.I.T vs. Chhabra Emporium (264 ITR 299), Rajasthan High Court judgement in case of C.I.T vs~ C. Kanhaiyalal ( 299 ITR 19), Gujarat High Court judgement in the case of C.IT vs. Mahendra C. Shah (299 ITR 305). It is true that the admission in the assessment proceedings is for an amount as income in this assessment year when the statement u/s 132(4) did not offer any income for this assessment year. But the disclosure u/s 132(4) was for a lump sum amount of Rs.5,00,000…

DCIT, C.C.Xxvii, Kolkata vs. M/S. Pratap Properties Ltd., Kolkata

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1386/KOL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Nongothung Jungio, JCIT, ld.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri A.K Tibrewal, FCA, ld.AR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)

…e question of law involved in this appeals is answered in favour of the assesee and against the revenue. 16 ITA Nos. 1386 to 1388/Kol/2010-C-AM M/s. Pratap Properties Ltd, Kolkata D. Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Kanhaialal reported in (2008) 299 ITR 19 (Raj) , it was held that :- Where the Assessing Officer had found the income to relate to different assessment years, in different volumes, as contra distinguished to the one submitted by the assessee, and had accordingly made the assessments, which assessments had become final and were not the subject matter of challenge, penalty u/s 271(1)(c )…

ACIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai vs. Jatin J.Shah, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2725/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Ms.Vasanti B. Patel, &For Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…terest in respect of the income disclosed. 1.14 The appellant has argued that all these three conditions has been fulfilled, therefore no penalty is leviable u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Reliance has been placed on the decision of CIT vs. Kanaiyalal (2008) 299 ITR 19 (Raj), CIT vs. C.'B.V. Chandru (2004) 266 ITR 175 (Madras) and CIT vs. Chhabra Emporium (2003) 264 1TR 249 (Delhi). The contention of the appellant is not acceptable as no search and' seizure operation was conducted in the premises of the appellant and statement was made u/s.131 during the course of survey u/s. 133A and not during search and seizu…

ACIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai vs. Jay Fab, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2724/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Ms.Vasanti B. Patel, &For Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…terest in respect of the income disclosed. 1.14 The appellant has argued that all these three conditions has been fulfilled, therefore no penalty is leviable u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Reliance has been placed on the decision of CIT vs. Kanaiyalal (2008) 299 ITR 19 (Raj), CIT vs. C.'B.V. Chandru (2004) 266 ITR 175 (Madras) and CIT vs. Chhabra Emporium (2003) 264 1TR 249 (Delhi). The contention of the appellant is not acceptable as no search and' seizure operation was conducted in the premises of the appellant and statement was made u/s.131 during the course of survey u/s. 133A and not during search and seizu…

ACIT CC 34, Mumbai vs. Jay Fab, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3104/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Ms.Vasanti B. Patel, &For Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…terest in respect of the income disclosed. 1.14 The appellant has argued that all these three conditions has been fulfilled, therefore no penalty is leviable u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Reliance has been placed on the decision of CIT vs. Kanaiyalal (2008) 299 ITR 19 (Raj), CIT vs. C.'B.V. Chandru (2004) 266 ITR 175 (Madras) and CIT vs. Chhabra Emporium (2003) 264 1TR 249 (Delhi). The contention of the appellant is not acceptable as no search and' seizure operation was conducted in the premises of the appellant and statement was made u/s.131 during the course of survey u/s. 133A and not during search and seizu…

Sri Narendra N. Thacker, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C.Xxiv, Kolkata

ITA Nos.1786-

ITA 1786/KOL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)

…and paid taxes thereon had fulfilled all the conditions for availing of the benefit of immunity from levy of penalty as provided under Explanation 5 to section 271(1)( c) of the Act. E. Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Kanhaialal reported in (2008) 299 ITR 19 (Raj) , it was held that :- Where the Assessing Officer had found the income to relate to different assessment years, in different volumes, as contra distinguished to the one submitted by the assessee, and had accordingly made the assessments, which assessments had become final and were not the subject matter of challenge, penalty u/s 271(1)(c )…

DCIT, Cent Cir-I, Kol, Kolkata vs. Deepak Choudhury, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1875/KOL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Balaganesh & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)

…and paid taxes thereon had fulfilled all the conditions for availing of the benefit of immunity from levy of penalty as provided under Explanation 5 to section 271(1)( c) of the Act. E. Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Kanhaialal reported in (2008) 299 ITR 19 (Raj) , it was held that :- Where the Assessing Officer had found the income to relate to different assessment years, in different volumes, as contra distinguished to the one submitted by the assessee, and had accordingly made the assessments, which assessments had become final and were not the subject matter of challenge, penalty u/s 271(1)(c )…

Raju Premji vs. Customs Ner Shillong Unit

Appeals are allowed

Crl.A. No.-001647-001647 - 2007Supreme Court06 May 2009

Bench: Placing On Record The Factual Matrix Of The Matter, We May Notice That Whereas Accused Nos. 1 & 2 Have Been Convicted For Possession Of 380 Gms. Of Heroin, Appellants Herein Were Convicted Under Section 25 Of The Act For Abetment Thereof As They Purported To Have Associated Themselves With Finding Prospective Buyers In Disposing Of The Contraband. 2

Section 25Section 29Section 67

…tice. That cannot be permitted.” 22. We would, for this purpose, assume that such confessions are not hit with Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872 but even then they must receive strict scrutiny. This Court in Kanhaiyalal v. Union of India, [(2008) 4 SCC 668], upon taking into consideration number of decisions, held as under :- “43. The law involved in deciding this appeal has been considered by this Court from as far back as in 1963 in Pyare Lal Bhargava case. The consistent view which has been taken with regard to confessions made under provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act and…