CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah

299 ITR 305High Court2008#1431 most cited

What is CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah authority for?

During a search operation, the authorized officer recording a statement under Section 132(4) must fully explain Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) to the assessee, particularly the requirement to specify the manner of earning undisclosed income, for a valid claim of penalty immunity. Income not declared or advance tax not paid proportionately before the search date is treated as undisclosed, thereby disallowing advance tax benefits.

80

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah · 299 ITR 305 · Mahendra C. Shah Gujarat High Court · Section 132(4) statement · Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) · authorized officer's duty · immunity from penalty · undisclosed income search · manner of deriving income · advance tax on surrendered income · Section 211 advance tax compliance · Section 271AAB immunity

Also reported as

172 Taxmann 58

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 132BSection 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

Issues it is cited on

section 271aaasection 271aasection 271ablock periodsection 132(4)undisclosed incomesection 271search and seizuresection 27section 132section 13opportunity of being heard

Judgments citing CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

ITA 521/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, \nvk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21\n\nSunil Kumar Agarwal\n395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside\nSanganeri Gate, Jaipur\ncuke\nVs.\nACIT,\nCentral Circle-2,\nJaipur\nLFkk;h y s[kk l a-@thvkb Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M\nvihykFkhZ@Appellant i zR;Fkh Z@Respondent\n\nvk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16\

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

…t paid advance tax proportionately on such income before the date of\nsearch,\nThen the income is treated as undisclosed, and advance tax compliance is not\nconsidered fulfilled.\nThis was upheld in multiple judicial decisions, e.g.:\nCIT v. Mahendra C. Shah (299 ITR 305) (Gujarat HC):\n\n98\nITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025\nSunil Kumar Agarwal\nSurrender during search without prior disclosure attracts legal consequences\nincluding penalty unless immunity under Sections 271AAB or 273(2)(c) is validly\nclaimed.\nIII. Advance Tax Implications - When Claimed Against Undisclosed Income\nTo claim benefit of advance t…

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 513/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

…as not paid advance tax proportionately on such income before the date of search, Then the income is treated as undisclosed, and advance tax compliance is not considered fulfilled. This was upheld in multiple judicial decisions, e.g.: CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah (299 ITR 305) (Gujarat HC): including penalty unless immunity under Sections 271AAB or 273(2)(c) is validly claimed. III. Advance Tax Implications - When Claimed Against Undisclosed Income To claim benefit of advance tax against searched income, the following must be proven: 1. Income was already estimated and declared before the date of search, and 2. Advanc…

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 57/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…absence of both the mandatory ingredient penalty u/s 271AAA is not sustainable. The assessee has relied upon the following case law: Pr.CIT vs. M/s. Emirates Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 400/2017) order dated 18.07.2017 CIT vs. Mahendra C Shah reported as 299 ITR 305 (GJ) PCIT vs. Mukeshbhai Ramanlal Prajapati 398 ITR 0170(GJ) Page no.8 011. On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the order of the ld. lower authorities and submitted that since the assessee did not follow the direction of ld. ITSC by way of making payment within the ITA No.52 to 57/PAT/2021 Patliputra Builders Ltd; A.Y. 09-1…

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 56/PAT/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…absence of both the mandatory ingredient penalty u/s 271AAA is not sustainable. The assessee has relied upon the following case law: Pr.CIT vs. M/s. Emirates Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 400/2017) order dated 18.07.2017 CIT vs. Mahendra C Shah reported as 299 ITR 305 (GJ) PCIT vs. Mukeshbhai Ramanlal Prajapati 398 ITR 0170(GJ) Page no.8 011. On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the order of the ld. lower authorities and submitted that since the assessee did not follow the direction of ld. ITSC by way of making payment within the ITA No.52 to 57/PAT/2021 Patliputra Builders Ltd; A.Y. 09-1…

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 55/PAT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…absence of both the mandatory ingredient penalty u/s 271AAA is not sustainable. The assessee has relied upon the following case law: Pr.CIT vs. M/s. Emirates Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 400/2017) order dated 18.07.2017 CIT vs. Mahendra C Shah reported as 299 ITR 305 (GJ) PCIT vs. Mukeshbhai Ramanlal Prajapati 398 ITR 0170(GJ) Page no.8 011. On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the order of the ld. lower authorities and submitted that since the assessee did not follow the direction of ld. ITSC by way of making payment within the ITA No.52 to 57/PAT/2021 Patliputra Builders Ltd; A.Y. 09-1…

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 54/PAT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…absence of both the mandatory ingredient penalty u/s 271AAA is not sustainable. The assessee has relied upon the following case law: Pr.CIT vs. M/s. Emirates Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 400/2017) order dated 18.07.2017 CIT vs. Mahendra C Shah reported as 299 ITR 305 (GJ) PCIT vs. Mukeshbhai Ramanlal Prajapati 398 ITR 0170(GJ) Page no.8 011. On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the order of the ld. lower authorities and submitted that since the assessee did not follow the direction of ld. ITSC by way of making payment within the ITA No.52 to 57/PAT/2021 Patliputra Builders Ltd; A.Y. 09-1…

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 53/PAT/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…absence of both the mandatory ingredient penalty u/s 271AAA is not sustainable. The assessee has relied upon the following case law: Pr.CIT vs. M/s. Emirates Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 400/2017) order dated 18.07.2017 CIT vs. Mahendra C Shah reported as 299 ITR 305 (GJ) PCIT vs. Mukeshbhai Ramanlal Prajapati 398 ITR 0170(GJ) Page no.8 011. On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the order of the ld. lower authorities and submitted that since the assessee did not follow the direction of ld. ITSC by way of making payment within the ITA No.52 to 57/PAT/2021 Patliputra Builders Ltd; A.Y. 09-1…

PATLIPUTRA BUILDERS LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 52/PAT/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, DR
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…absence of both the mandatory ingredient penalty u/s 271AAA is not sustainable. The assessee has relied upon the following case law: Pr.CIT vs. M/s. Emirates Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 400/2017) order dated 18.07.2017 CIT vs. Mahendra C Shah reported as 299 ITR 305 (GJ) PCIT vs. Mukeshbhai Ramanlal Prajapati 398 ITR 0170(GJ) Page no.8 011. On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the order of the ld. lower authorities and submitted that since the assessee did not follow the direction of ld. ITSC by way of making payment within the ITA No.52 to 57/PAT/2021 Patliputra Builders Ltd; A.Y. 09-1…

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD & ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CC-II, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1612/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: The Ld. Assessing Officer & Also Before The Cit(A)-3, Gurgaon Has Not Been Considered Properly.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 271A

…Vs. DCIT (2012) 77 DTR (CTK. Trib) 241 and decisions of Hon’ble Courts in case of CIT Vs. Sudhir Jain 41 Taxmann.com 234 (Del HC), Pr. CIT Vs. Shahion Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No. 823 of 2017 dt. 05/02/2018 (Gujarat), CIT Vs. Mahendra C. Shah reported in 299 ITR 305. 7. In his submissions, the ld DR submitted that the income of Rs. 1.75 crores, being the undisclosed income has been accepted by the partners of the assessee firm, Sh. Sanjay Kumar Sood and Sh. Ajay Kumar Sood in their statements recorded on oath u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was further submitted that one of the partners of the ass…

THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-2,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S BACKBONE PROJECTS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 567/RJT/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271A

…condition not fulfilled by the appellant in respect of undisclosed income of Rs.62,02,214/- is failure to explain the manner in which the income was earned. On this issue the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Mahendra C. Shah [2008] 299 ITR 305 (GUJ) which is in the context of immunity from penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5 is reproduced as under: "15. Insofar as the alleged failure on the part of the assessee to specify in the statement under section 132(4) of the Act regarding the manner in which such income has been derived, suffice it to state that when the statement is…

BACKBONE PROJECTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMR. INCOME TAX, CEN. CIRCLE-II,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 535/RJT/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271A

…condition not fulfilled by the appellant in respect of undisclosed income of Rs.62,02,214/- is failure to explain the manner in which the income was earned. On this issue the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Mahendra C. Shah [2008] 299 ITR 305 (GUJ) which is in the context of immunity from penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5 is reproduced as under: "15. Insofar as the alleged failure on the part of the assessee to specify in the statement under section 132(4) of the Act regarding the manner in which such income has been derived, suffice it to state that when the statement is…

SH. VIKRAM DHIRANI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 5610/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B. R. R. Kumarvikram Dhirani, Vs. Dcit, D-1039, New Friends Colony, Central Circle-7, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahtpd6528L

For Appellant: Shri. P. C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. DR
Section 132(4)Section 271(1)Section 271A

…t case as the officer recording statement had not put any question to the assessee as per mandate of sub section 2 of section 271AAA of the Act. Similar view has been rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C Shah reported as 299 ITR 305 (GJ) and in the case of PCIT vs Mukeshbhai Ramanlal Prajapati 398 ITR 0170 (GJ) as relied by the ld. counsel of assessee. The ld. Senior DR could not assist or show us any specific question put to the assessee during his statement to substantiate the manner in which undisclosed income was derived. 10. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment…

MILLENNIUM REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD,JALANDHAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

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

ITA 653/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 14Section 14ASection 56Section 69Section 69ASection 71

…nsequent application of the set off provisions u/s 71 of the Act. 3. That learned CIT (Appeals) while passing his orders have also summarily ignored the observations and decisions of the Hon'able Gujrat High Court in the case of CIT vs Mahendra C Shah (2008) 299 ITR 305 and 278 ITR 454 (2008) in the case of CIT vs Radha Krishan Goel vis a vis the spirit of the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act, which are quite pertinent and relevant since the explanations of the assessee have been disregarded by the worthy CIT(A) without passing any speaking orders. 4. That the assessee craves to add, modify the grounds of appeal…

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BHATIA,INDORE vs. THE JCIT-3, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 252/IND/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Advocate with Shri Gagan TiwariFor Respondent: 28.09.2022
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 271ASection 271DSection 274Section 41(1)

…ty u/s 271AAA of the Act specially when the offered undisclosed income has been accepted and due tax thereon has been paid by the assessee. The AO directed to delete the penalty of Rs.12,50,00,000/- levied u/s 271AAA of the Act CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah [2008] 299 ITR 305 ; CIT v. Radha KishanGoel [2005] 278 ITR 454, followed. (Para 16)" 4.02 Your Honour, the provisions of section 271AAA are pari materia with that of erstwhile Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act having its application for grant of immunity from penalty under s.271(1)(c) of the Act in the case of the search initiated under s.132 before 1s…

JCIT OSD (CENTRAL)-1, RATLAM vs. SHRI KANTILAL KATARIA, RATLAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 220/IND/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri R.P. Maurya, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kamal Garg & Arpit Gaur
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 292B

…dore (ITA No.636/Ind/2017, order dated 28.03.2019) 2) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ramgopal Chhavlal Maheshwari vs. DCIT (2019) 417 ITR 710 (Guj) 3) DCIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Dokania (2012) 32 CCH 260 (Ahd. Trib.) 4) CIT vs. Mahendra C Shah (2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj) 5) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel (2005) 278 ITR 454 (All. HC) 6) PCIT vs. Akshar Infrastructure 2018 (1) TMI 1310 (Guj. HC) 7) Crossings Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (Central) & Anr. (2014) 267 CTR 519 (All. HC) 8) Shri Dipak Kumar Kalani, Shri Pankaj Kalani vs. JCIT 2020 (9) TMI 144 (ITAT Indore) 9) DCIT vs. Shri Himanshu Verma 2019 (12) T…

SANJAY MANAKCHAND KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 435/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.435 & 436/Pun/2016 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

For Appellant: None (Shri Bhupendra Shah)For Respondent: Shri M. Jasnani
Section 132Section 69

…fficer is not justified in imposing the penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act. However, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Ritu Singal (supra) considering the above two decisions of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah, 299 ITR 305 (Guj.) and the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Radha Kishan Goel, 278 ITR 454 (All.) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) ACIT vs. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF, 348 ITR 561 (SC) and (ii) MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 358 ITR 593 (SC) held that since the assessee did not satisfy in such proceedi…

SANJAY MANAKCHAND KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 436/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.435 & 436/Pun/2016 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

For Appellant: None (Shri Bhupendra Shah)For Respondent: Shri M. Jasnani
Section 132Section 69

…fficer is not justified in imposing the penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act. However, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Ritu Singal (supra) considering the above two decisions of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah, 299 ITR 305 (Guj.) and the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Radha Kishan Goel, 278 ITR 454 (All.) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) ACIT vs. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF, 348 ITR 561 (SC) and (ii) MAK Data P. Ltd. vs. CIT, 358 ITR 593 (SC) held that since the assessee did not satisfy in such proceedi…

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1493/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 127Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 68

…der consideration. There was no query posed by the Investigation Officer as to the manner in which the undisclosed income offered by the assessee. Reference can be made on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah, 299 ITR 305 (Guj.) and the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Radha Kishan Goel, 278 ITR 454 (All.). 22. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court took a view that conditions stipulated u/s 271AAA stands satisfied and question of levy of penalty u/s 271AAA does not arise. When t…

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1494/PUN/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 127Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 68

…der consideration. There was no query posed by the Investigation Officer as to the manner in which the undisclosed income offered by the assessee. Reference can be made on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah, 299 ITR 305 (Guj.) and the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Radha Kishan Goel, 278 ITR 454 (All.). 22. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court took a view that conditions stipulated u/s 271AAA stands satisfied and question of levy of penalty u/s 271AAA does not arise. When t…

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1492/PUN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 127Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 68

…der consideration. There was no query posed by the Investigation Officer as to the manner in which the undisclosed income offered by the assessee. Reference can be made on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah, 299 ITR 305 (Guj.) and the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Radha Kishan Goel, 278 ITR 454 (All.). 22. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court took a view that conditions stipulated u/s 271AAA stands satisfied and question of levy of penalty u/s 271AAA does not arise. When t…

Showing 1–20 of 80 · Page 1 of 4