CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah

299 ITR 305High Court2008#1420 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 366,005 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
Read the full judgment

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

Chains Corner Jewellery (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 22, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5703/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanjukta Chowdhury, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Maurya Pratap, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2Section 271A

…in which undisclosed income was derived so as to qualify for non-levy of penalty within the meaning of sub-section(2) of section 271AAA of the I.T. Act, 1961.” The Tribunal followed the judgement of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah (299 ITR 305) and that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel (2005) 278 ITR 454 (All.) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. 6.4 Also a similar issue arose in Sita Ram Gupta vs. ACIT [2014] 48 taxmann.com 327 (Delhi - Trib.). The Tribunal held that “Where Assessing Officer having completed assessment, passed a penalty order un…

Narpat Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7662/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Shri Narpat Mehta, Vs. Acit – Cc-23, Mumbai 202, Sukh Jyot, Telpal Scheme No.1, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai - 400057 Pan/Gir No. Aaepm9981G Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…@ 10 % on cash amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal - 40 erred in law & on facts in stating that the appellant's AR reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah ( 299 ITR 305 ) & Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel (278 ITR 454) & Also Hon'ble ITAT decision in the case of Mls Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd. ( ITA No. 6763/MUM/2011 ) is distinguishable from our case. 2 ITA No.7662-2014 Shri Narpat Mehta 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. 4. In this case, assessee is aggrieved f…

DCIT 22(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Vijay Ravji Gajra, Navi Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeal for Asst Year

ITA 6261/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Rajnesh K. ArvindFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Tiwari
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271A

…e any reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). The order is in tune with the principles laid down by various co-ordinate Benches and High Courts particularly with reference to disclosure made under section 132(4). In the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah (299 ITR 305) the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court considered similar statement under section 132(4) to grant immunity under section 271(1)(c). The Hon'ble High Court held as under:- “When the statement is being recorded by the authorized officer it is incumbent upon the authorized officer to explain the provisions of Explanation 5 in entirety to the assessee conce…

ACIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai vs. Prakash C. Kanugo, Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeal for Asst Year

ITA 5223/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav (Jm) & Shri Jason P.Boaz (Am) Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Anandi VermaFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shivram & Ms. Neelam Jadhav
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…similar circumstances, in respect of Explanation-5 to sec. 271(1)(c) which also contained similar requirements of disclosing the manner in which the income was earned and substantiating the same Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra Shah 299 ITR 305 (Guj.) has held as under: (Paras 7 to 15 of the decision stand reproduced) 6.5.6 In view of the above, it is clear that even if the statement does not specify the manner in which income is derived but the income is declared and tax thereon is paid, there would be substantial compliance not warranting on further denial of the benefit under Expla…

Hemant Kumar, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 18 & 19, Mumbai

ITA 745/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2016AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271Section 271A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं सी एवं सी सी. एन सी एन एन. "साद एन "साद "साद,"याियक "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/745/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Hemant Kumar ACIT Central Circle-18 & 19 A-602, Swarna Bldg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Sector-7, Kharghar Mumbai-40…

ACIT Cen Cir 7, Mumbai vs. Wizcraft International Entertainment P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is dismissed

ITA 6876/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Cc-7, M/S Wizcraft International Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 805, 8Th Floor, 5Th Floor, Satyadev Plaza, Veera Old Cgo Annex, , M. K. Road, Desai Road, Andheri (West), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400053. Pan: Aaacw1931D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Senehal Shah (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Ramapriya Raghavan
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271A

…ircumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribes, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty manner prescribed by the statute." The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court also in the case of CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah 299 ITR 305 held as under:. "Insofar as the alleged failure on the part of the assessee to specify in the statement under s. 132(4) of the Act regarding the manner in which such income has been derived, suffice it to state that when the statement is being recorded by the authorized officer it is incumbent upon the authorized officer to explain the provisions…

DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai vs. Shashikiran Shetty, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 5978/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5813/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shashikiran Shetty, Dcit, Cen. Cir. 44, बनाम/ 5 Th Floor, Diamond Square, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Cst Road Kalina, M.K. Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 098. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Ameps 5601 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

…ccepted the facts and offered to tax the sum of Rs. 23.00 crores and paid taxes thereon with interest." The assessee relied upon the following judicial decisions during the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A): (i) CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah (2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj.) (ii) CIT vs. E.V. Balashanmugham (2006) 286 ITR 626 (Mad.) (iii) CIT vs. Nem Kumar Jain (2006) 151 Taxman 187 (All.) (iv) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel (2005) 278 ITR 454 (All.) (v) Gulabrai V. Gandhi vs. ACIT (2003) 84 ITD 370 (Mum.) (vi) Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. DCIT (ITA Nos.476 & 477/CTK/2011) (ITAT, Cuttack) dated 22.12.2011. (vii) Pram…

Shashikiran Shetty, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 44, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA N0

ITA 5813/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5813/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Shashikiran Shetty, Dcit, Cen. Cir. 44, बनाम/ 5 Th Floor, Diamond Square, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Cst Road Kalina, M.K. Road, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 098. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Ameps 5601 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

…ccepted the facts and offered to tax the sum of Rs. 23.00 crores and paid taxes thereon with interest." The assessee relied upon the following judicial decisions during the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A): (i) CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah (2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj.) (ii) CIT vs. E.V. Balashanmugham (2006) 286 ITR 626 (Mad.) (iii) CIT vs. Nem Kumar Jain (2006) 151 Taxman 187 (All.) (iv) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel (2005) 278 ITR 454 (All.) (v) Gulabrai V. Gandhi vs. ACIT (2003) 84 ITD 370 (Mum.) (vi) Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. DCIT (ITA Nos.476 & 477/CTK/2011) (ITAT, Cuttack) dated 22.12.2011. (vii) Pram…

Options Developrs and Builders, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ce Cir 22, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the ld

ITA 7129/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 Options Developers & Acit, Central Circle-22, Builders, Room No.465, बनाम/ 10, Mithila Shopping Centre Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Ground Floor, V. M. Road, M.K. Road, Juhu Scheme Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400049 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaafo6752F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Kothari Ms. Sudha Ramchandran-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 05/05/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 16/05/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 132Section 271A

…ssessing Officer/authorize officer to guide the assessee as the assessee is merely a layman. The assessee was never made aware about the requirement of the law. The ld. counsel placed reliance upon the following decisions :- i. CIT vs Mahendra C. Shah (2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj.); 215 CIT 493 (Guj.). 3 M/s Options Developers & Builders ii. CIT vs Radha Kishan Goyal 278 ITR 454 (All.), iii. DCIT vs Mr. Hafeez S. Contractor (ITA No.6415/Mum/2013) order dated 02/09/2015, iv. ACIT(OSD) vs M/s Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.6763/Mum/2011) order dated 10/07/2013, v. Shri Uday C Tamhankar vs DCIT (ITA No.711 to 715 /M…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Smt. Ritu Singal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5257/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y. : 2010-11 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Smt. Ritu Singal, Tax, Cc-13, Vs. W-29, Greater Kailash, Room No. 332, Ara Centre, Part-Ii, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi – 110 048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Surendra Kumar, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. R.S. Negi, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271A

…income of Rs. 10,00,000/- was declared by the assessee in his statements u/s 132(4) of the Act and also offered the same to tax in its return of income filed u/s. 139 of the Act. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C Shah[(2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj)], followed by the Ld CIT(A), it has been held that it is not required to specify the manner in which the income was earned in respect of the amount offered to tax in the return of income filed pursuant to search action by paying taxes thereon for availing immunity from penalty under Explanation 5 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The same…

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)

…udicial 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/-, which is allocated to different years based on search material and for convenien…

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)

…by the assessee viz. filing of disclosure petition u/s 132(4) followed by filing of return thereon u/s 153C and paying taxes thereon. We place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Mahendra C Shah reported in (2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj) , it was held that at page 315 :- “In so far 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 10 ITA Nos. 1386 to 1388/Kol/2010-C-AM M/s. Pratap Properties Ltd, Kolkata such income has been derived, suffice it state that when the statement is bein…

DCIT, CC-I, Kolkata vs. Sheo Kumar Kajaria, Kolkata

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

ITA 1425/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri S.Dutta, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)

…010 with Tax Appeal No. 1182 to 1185 of 2010 dated 3.12.2014. (this decision reversed the third member decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal relied upon by Learned DR) l) Decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Mahendra C Shah reported in (2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj). The operative portion of the aforesaid judgements are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity but the same has been considered elaborately in the judgement rendered by this tribunal as stated supra. By placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions, this tribunal in the case of Narendra J Thacker (supra) had held :- - the assessee has…

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)

…aw involved in this appeals is answered in favour of the assesee and against the revenue. ITA Nos.1690,1691,1786-1788/Kol/09 & ,1521-1523/Kol/2010-C-AM 18 Narendra N.Thacker (PB) D. Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Mahendra C Shah reported in (2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj) , it was held that :- The assessee having made a declaration u/s 132(4) 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 1…

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)

…uashed and set aside. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) is restored. The question of law involved in this appeals is answered in favour of the assesee and against the revenue. D. Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Mahendra C Shah reported in (2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj) , it was held that :- The assessee having made a declaration u/s 132(4) 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 1…

Dr.C.N.Rajadurai, Chennai vs. ACIT, Madurai

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1632/CHNY/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1627, 1628, 1629, 1630, 1631 & 1632/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1999-2000 To 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh.V.S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. N. Rengaraj, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1627, 1628, 1629, 1630, 1631 & 1632/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1999-2000 to 2004-05 Dr. C.N. Rajadurai, The Assistant Commissioner 48, Sivan Koil Street, v. of Income Tax, Kodambakkam, Central Circle II, Chennai - 600 024. Madurai. PAN : AETPR 1746 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellan…

Dr.C.N.Rajadurai, Chennai vs. ACIT, Madurai

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1631/CHNY/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1627, 1628, 1629, 1630, 1631 & 1632/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1999-2000 To 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh.V.S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. N. Rengaraj, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1627, 1628, 1629, 1630, 1631 & 1632/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1999-2000 to 2004-05 Dr. C.N. Rajadurai, The Assistant Commissioner 48, Sivan Koil Street, v. of Income Tax, Kodambakkam, Central Circle II, Chennai - 600 024. Madurai. PAN : AETPR 1746 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellan…

Dr.C.N.Rajadurai, Chennai vs. ACIT, Madurai

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1630/CHNY/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1627, 1628, 1629, 1630, 1631 & 1632/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1999-2000 To 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh.V.S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. N. Rengaraj, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1627, 1628, 1629, 1630, 1631 & 1632/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1999-2000 to 2004-05 Dr. C.N. Rajadurai, The Assistant Commissioner 48, Sivan Koil Street, v. of Income Tax, Kodambakkam, Central Circle II, Chennai - 600 024. Madurai. PAN : AETPR 1746 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellan…

Dr.C.N.Rajadurai, Chennai vs. ACIT, Madurai

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1629/CHNY/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1627, 1628, 1629, 1630, 1631 & 1632/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1999-2000 To 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh.V.S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. N. Rengaraj, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1627, 1628, 1629, 1630, 1631 & 1632/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1999-2000 to 2004-05 Dr. C.N. Rajadurai, The Assistant Commissioner 48, Sivan Koil Street, v. of Income Tax, Kodambakkam, Central Circle II, Chennai - 600 024. Madurai. PAN : AETPR 1746 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellan…

Dr.C.N.Rajadurai, Chennai vs. ACIT, Madurai

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1628/CHNY/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1627, 1628, 1629, 1630, 1631 & 1632/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1999-2000 To 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh.V.S. Jayakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. N. Rengaraj, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1627, 1628, 1629, 1630, 1631 & 1632/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1999-2000 to 2004-05 Dr. C.N. Rajadurai, The Assistant Commissioner 48, Sivan Koil Street, v. of Income Tax, Kodambakkam, Central Circle II, Chennai - 600 024. Madurai. PAN : AETPR 1746 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellan…