What is CIT v. Lachman Das Bhatia authority for?

An assessment under section 153A is not justified if the documents relied upon by the Assessing Officer pertain to a subsequent period and not the assessment years under consideration. Any estimation of gross profits must be based on valid material, which was absent in this case.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Lachman Das Bhatia?

58 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Lachman Das Bhatia (396 ITR 691), spanning 2018 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Lachman Das Bhatia come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 132, Section 144, Section 153A, Section 132(4), Section 143(2), Section 69A.

CIT v. Lachman Das Bhatia (396 ITR 691)

S.Ashokan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 601/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.596, 600 & 601/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2010-11 & 2008-09) Mr. S.Ashokan, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal Central Circle-Iii(1) Chennai-600 056. Chennai. Pan: Aacpa 7676C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. M.Rajan,CITFor Respondent: 29.03.2022

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…r the impugned assessment year is unabated/concluded as on date of search. In light of above factual position, if you examine settled legal position as per various courts, including decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs Meeta Gutgutia 396 ITR 691, it is very clear that no addition can be made in the assessment framed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act, in absence of any incriminating materials found during the course of search qua, each assessment year. This legal position is further supported by the decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Continental Warehous…

S.Ashokan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 596/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.596, 600 & 601/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2010-11 & 2008-09) Mr. S.Ashokan, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal Central Circle-Iii(1) Chennai-600 056. Chennai. Pan: Aacpa 7676C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. M.Rajan,CITFor Respondent: 29.03.2022

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…r the impugned assessment year is unabated/concluded as on date of search. In light of above factual position, if you examine settled legal position as per various courts, including decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs Meeta Gutgutia 396 ITR 691, it is very clear that no addition can be made in the assessment framed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act, in absence of any incriminating materials found during the course of search qua, each assessment year. This legal position is further supported by the decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Continental Warehous…

S.Ashokan, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 600/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.596, 600 & 601/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2010-11 & 2008-09) Mr. S.Ashokan, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of 1/34, Pillayar Koil Street Income Tax, Ayyappan Thangal Central Circle-Iii(1) Chennai-600 056. Chennai. Pan: Aacpa 7676C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. M.Rajan,CITFor Respondent: 29.03.2022

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…r the impugned assessment year is unabated/concluded as on date of search. In light of above factual position, if you examine settled legal position as per various courts, including decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs Meeta Gutgutia 396 ITR 691, it is very clear that no addition can be made in the assessment framed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act, in absence of any incriminating materials found during the course of search qua, each assessment year. This legal position is further supported by the decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Continental Warehous…

M/S Shrigopal Rameshkumar Sales Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. Assistant Comissioner Central Circle 1(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 163/NAG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 163/Nag/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Shrigopal Ramesh Kumar Sales Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, Sarvodaya Cloth Market, Gandhibagh, Nagpur. Pan : Aabcs9226J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vijay Chandak, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Headoo, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Chandak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Headoo, CIT DR

Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…ompleted assessment without making any further 8 M/s. Shrigopal Rameshkumar Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, CC 1(3) addition/disallowances. Our aforesaid view is also supported by the following judicial pronouncements: (i). Principal CIT Vs. Vikas Gutgutia (2017) 396 ITR 691 (Del.) (ii). Principal CIT Vs. Devangi (2017) 394 ITR 184 (Guj.) (iii). Principal CIT Vs. Ms. Lata Jain (2016) 384 ITR 543 (iv). Abhishek Lodha, Mumbai Vs. Assessee Mumbai ‘G’ Bench (v). Mala Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT (2016) 51 ITR (Trib) 272 (Chd) (vi). Bishwanath Garodia Vs. Dy CIT (2016) Taxmann.com 81 (Kol-Trib) (vii). Jailokenath Oil E…