CIT v. Prasanna Dugar (371 ITR 19)

Mangal & Mangal, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2207/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2207/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. R Mohan Reddy, CIT

Section 271A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी मंजुनाथ. जी, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2207/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Mangal & Mangal, The Assistant Commissioner of 25, N.S.B. Road, Teppakulam, v. Income Tax, Trichy – 620 002. Central Circle -1, [PAN: AAIFM-3378-B] No. 44, Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by :…

Padam Kumar Jain, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 17/RAN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 80G

…e that he voluntarily offered additional income during the assessment 'proceeding to avoid litigation and penalty. Such a defense is not acceptable in view of decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prasanna Dugar reported in (2015) 371 ITR 19 wherein it was held that Even where subsequent to search, assessee voluntarily disclosed a sum and offered said sum to tax, since said amount was not disclosed in original return, penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was justified. Further, the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of UOI Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in (2007) 295 ITR 244…

Padam Kumar Jain, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and copy of common order passed is to be placed on respective case files

ITA 16/RAN/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 80G

…e that he voluntarily offered additional income during the assessment 'proceeding to avoid litigation and penalty. Such a defense is not acceptable in view of decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Prasanna Dugar reported in (2015) 371 ITR 19 wherein it was held that Even where subsequent to search, assessee voluntarily disclosed a sum and offered said sum to tax, since said amount was not disclosed in original return, penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was justified. Further, the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of UOI Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors reported in (2007) 295 ITR 244…

Vinod (Ratan) Suhalka, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 241/JODH/2019[2007-08]Status: PendingITAT Jodhpur05 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

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

…7-08 for adjudication. 3.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 & 2 of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- ‘’6.4 I am supported in my view as above by the decision of the Hon. Calcutta High Court in the case of Prasanna Dugar 371 ITR 19. The assessee's SLP against the decision of the Hon. High Court has been dismissed by the Hon. Supreme Court vide order dated 01.05.2015, 373 ITR 681 The facts in the case before the Hon High Court were that a search under section 132 was conducted at the premises of the assessee on February 3, 2009. In the course of the search, the assessee made…

Shri Himanshu Prafulchandra Varia, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 909/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mukeshkumar Sharma, Sr.D.R

Section 131Section 139(5)Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2010-11 Shri Himanshu The DCIT, Prafulchandra Varia C- Circle-4(1)(2), 1001, Ashavari Tower, Vs Ahmedabad Near Ramdevnagar, (Respondent) Satellite, Ahmedabad- 380015 PAN: (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri P.F. Jain, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Mukeshkumar Sharma, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 05-04-2022 Date of pronouncement : 22-06-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the o…

Iris Engineering Industries P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1437/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Iris Engineering Industries Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., (Now Known As M/S. Ravilla Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2, Aerospace Industries P. Ltd.), No. 178, Coimbatore. Aerodrome Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore 641 005. [Pan:Aaaci8996G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. S. Palani Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Coimbatore Dated 31.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13 In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CIT

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1437/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/s. IRIS Engineering Industries Pvt. The Assistant Commissioner of Ltd., (Now known as M/s. Ravilla Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2, Aerospace Industries P. Ltd.), No. 178, Coimbatore. Aerodrome Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore 641 005. [PAN:AAACI8996G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओ…

R G Patil & Company, Haveri vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi

In the result, these 2 appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 352/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT (DR)

Section 271(1)(c)

…he undisclosed income of Rs.8,50,000/- offered in the return of income filed under section 153C. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prasanna Dugar v. CIT 373 ITR 681 (SC) wherein, decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court 371 ITR 19 (Cal), was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this case, the assessee filing return but riot disclosing amount surrendered voluntarily in search action. The Hon'ble High Court held that penalty is leviable in view of Explanation-5A to section 271(1)(c) and the said decision was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, even if amount is whic…

Gunti Ashwin Kumar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2365/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai

Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1&2 2361 & 2009-10 Gunti Prasad, Income-tax & 2362/H/2018 Hyderabad. Officer, 2011-12 PAN – AFDPG Ward – 9(2), 3013M Hyderabad 3 2360/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Prasad -do- (HUF), Hyderabad. PAN – AAEHG 1787 Q 4 2363/H/2018 Gunti Anil -do- 2009-10 Kumar, Hyd. PAN-ADEPG 7609Q 5 2364/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Naveen -do- Kumar, Hyd. PAN-AHLPG 6874L 6 2365/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Ashwin -do- Kumar, Hyd. PAN-ADEPG 7603E Asse…

Gunti Naveen Kumar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2364/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai

Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1&2 2361 & 2009-10 Gunti Prasad, Income-tax & 2362/H/2018 Hyderabad. Officer, 2011-12 PAN – AFDPG Ward – 9(2), 3013M Hyderabad 3 2360/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Prasad -do- (HUF), Hyderabad. PAN – AAEHG 1787 Q 4 2363/H/2018 Gunti Anil -do- 2009-10 Kumar, Hyd. PAN-ADEPG 7609Q 5 2364/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Naveen -do- Kumar, Hyd. PAN-AHLPG 6874L 6 2365/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Ashwin -do- Kumar, Hyd. PAN-ADEPG 7603E Asse…

Gunti Anil Kumar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2363/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai

Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1&2 2361 & 2009-10 Gunti Prasad, Income-tax & 2362/H/2018 Hyderabad. Officer, 2011-12 PAN – AFDPG Ward – 9(2), 3013M Hyderabad 3 2360/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Prasad -do- (HUF), Hyderabad. PAN – AAEHG 1787 Q 4 2363/H/2018 Gunti Anil -do- 2009-10 Kumar, Hyd. PAN-ADEPG 7609Q 5 2364/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Naveen -do- Kumar, Hyd. PAN-AHLPG 6874L 6 2365/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Ashwin -do- Kumar, Hyd. PAN-ADEPG 7603E Asse…

Gunti Prasad, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2362/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai

Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1&2 2361 & 2009-10 Gunti Prasad, Income-tax & 2362/H/2018 Hyderabad. Officer, 2011-12 PAN – AFDPG Ward – 9(2), 3013M Hyderabad 3 2360/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Prasad -do- (HUF), Hyderabad. PAN – AAEHG 1787 Q 4 2363/H/2018 Gunti Anil -do- 2009-10 Kumar, Hyd. PAN-ADEPG 7609Q 5 2364/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Naveen -do- Kumar, Hyd. PAN-AHLPG 6874L 6 2365/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Ashwin -do- Kumar, Hyd. PAN-ADEPG 7603E Asse…

Gunti Prasad, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2361/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai

Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1&2 2361 & 2009-10 Gunti Prasad, Income-tax & 2362/H/2018 Hyderabad. Officer, 2011-12 PAN – AFDPG Ward – 9(2), 3013M Hyderabad 3 2360/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Prasad -do- (HUF), Hyderabad. PAN – AAEHG 1787 Q 4 2363/H/2018 Gunti Anil -do- 2009-10 Kumar, Hyd. PAN-ADEPG 7609Q 5 2364/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Naveen -do- Kumar, Hyd. PAN-AHLPG 6874L 6 2365/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Ashwin -do- Kumar, Hyd. PAN-ADEPG 7603E Asse…

Gunti Prasad (HUF), Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2360/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusl.

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai

Section 131Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA No. AY Appellant Respondent No. 1&2 2361 & 2009-10 Gunti Prasad, Income-tax & 2362/H/2018 Hyderabad. Officer, 2011-12 PAN – AFDPG Ward – 9(2), 3013M Hyderabad 3 2360/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Prasad -do- (HUF), Hyderabad. PAN – AAEHG 1787 Q 4 2363/H/2018 Gunti Anil -do- 2009-10 Kumar, Hyd. PAN-ADEPG 7609Q 5 2364/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Naveen -do- Kumar, Hyd. PAN-AHLPG 6874L 6 2365/H/2018 2009-10 Gunti Ashwin -do- Kumar, Hyd. PAN-ADEPG 7603E Asse…

Sheikh Kutbuddin Habib, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 264/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 263 & 264/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K. Raghu, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh Periasamy, JCIT

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…hough no incriminating document suggesting undisclosed income was found and the assessee filed a revised return disclosing that income, penalty levied uls.271(1)(c) on that income was upheld by High court of calcutta in the case of CIT v Prasanna Dugar [2015] 371 ITR 19. Further, SLP filed by the assessee against this judgement was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at [2015] 373 ITR 681. Relevant portion of the High Court's order is reproduced as below: "On the basis of the disclosure, the assessee filed a return on March 31, 2010, offering a sum of Rs.70,00,000 for taxation earned during the…

Sheikh Kutbuddin Habib, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 263/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 263 & 264/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K. Raghu, CAFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh Periasamy, JCIT

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…hough no incriminating document suggesting undisclosed income was found and the assessee filed a revised return disclosing that income, penalty levied uls.271(1)(c) on that income was upheld by High court of calcutta in the case of CIT v Prasanna Dugar [2015] 371 ITR 19. Further, SLP filed by the assessee against this judgement was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at [2015] 373 ITR 681. Relevant portion of the High Court's order is reproduced as below: "On the basis of the disclosure, the assessee filed a return on March 31, 2010, offering a sum of Rs.70,00,000 for taxation earned during the…

Sh. Kasturi Lal Mahajan, Jammu vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

ITA 46/ASR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…. Vs. DCIT M/s Ose Infrastructure Ltd. v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA (ii) No.5891 to 5895/Del/2016 dated 14th August, 2018 9. On the contrary, the Ld. CIT DR relied upon the judgment passed by the Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT vs. Prasanna Dugar [2015] 371 ITR 19 (Kol) and submitted that all the cases relied upon by the assessee qua non-recovery of incriminating material did not deal with the Explanation-5A of Sec.271(1) (c) of the Act as the same pertains to the previous year when the provisions of Explanatio- 5A were not introduced. The Ld. CIT DR also relied upon the order passed by the ITAT Bench at Ja…

Sh Sumit Mahajan, Jammu vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

ITA 45/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…. Vs. DCIT M/s Ose Infrastructure Ltd. v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA (ii) No.5891 to 5895/Del/2016 dated 14th August, 2018 9. On the contrary, the Ld. CIT DR relied upon the judgment passed by the Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT vs. Prasanna Dugar [2015] 371 ITR 19 (Kol) and submitted that all the cases relied upon by the assessee qua non-recovery of incriminating material did not deal with the Explanation-5A of Sec.271(1) (c) of the Act as the same pertains to the previous year when the provisions of Explanatio- 5A were not introduced. The Ld. CIT DR also relied upon the order passed by the ITAT Bench at Ja…

Sh Sumit Mahajan, Jammu vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

ITA 44/ASR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…. Vs. DCIT M/s Ose Infrastructure Ltd. v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA (ii) No.5891 to 5895/Del/2016 dated 14th August, 2018 9. On the contrary, the Ld. CIT DR relied upon the judgment passed by the Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT vs. Prasanna Dugar [2015] 371 ITR 19 (Kol) and submitted that all the cases relied upon by the assessee qua non-recovery of incriminating material did not deal with the Explanation-5A of Sec.271(1) (c) of the Act as the same pertains to the previous year when the provisions of Explanatio- 5A were not introduced. The Ld. CIT DR also relied upon the order passed by the ITAT Bench at Ja…

Sh Sumit Mahajan, Jammu vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

ITA 43/ASR/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…. Vs. DCIT M/s Ose Infrastructure Ltd. v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA (ii) No.5891 to 5895/Del/2016 dated 14th August, 2018 9. On the contrary, the Ld. CIT DR relied upon the judgment passed by the Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT vs. Prasanna Dugar [2015] 371 ITR 19 (Kol) and submitted that all the cases relied upon by the assessee qua non-recovery of incriminating material did not deal with the Explanation-5A of Sec.271(1) (c) of the Act as the same pertains to the previous year when the provisions of Explanatio- 5A were not introduced. The Ld. CIT DR also relied upon the order passed by the ITAT Bench at Ja…

Sh Amit Mahajan, Jammu vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees stands allowed

ITA 42/ASR/2017[2087-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Dec 2019AY 2087-09

Bench: Sh. N.K.Choudhry & Dr. A.L.Sainiita No.46 /Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh (Ld. CA)For Respondent: Smt. Prabhjot Kaur (Ld. CIT-DR)

Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

…. Vs. DCIT M/s Ose Infrastructure Ltd. v/s ACIT, New Delhi in ITA (ii) No.5891 to 5895/Del/2016 dated 14th August, 2018 9. On the contrary, the Ld. CIT DR relied upon the judgment passed by the Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT vs. Prasanna Dugar [2015] 371 ITR 19 (Kol) and submitted that all the cases relied upon by the assessee qua non-recovery of incriminating material did not deal with the Explanation-5A of Sec.271(1) (c) of the Act as the same pertains to the previous year when the provisions of Explanatio- 5A were not introduced. The Ld. CIT DR also relied upon the order passed by the ITAT Bench at Ja…

CIT v. Prasanna Dugar

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Prasanna Dugar

Mangal & Mangal, Trichy vs. ACIT, Trichy

Padam Kumar Jain, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

Padam Kumar Jain, Ranchi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Ranchi

Vinod (Ratan) Suhalka, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

Shri Himanshu Prafulchandra Varia, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Iris Engineering Industries P Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

R G Patil & Company, Haveri vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Belagavi

Gunti Ashwin Kumar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Hyderabad

Gunti Naveen Kumar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Hyderabad

Gunti Anil Kumar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Hyderabad

Gunti Prasad, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Hyderabad

Gunti Prasad, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Hyderabad

Gunti Prasad (HUF), Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(2), Hyderabad

Sheikh Kutbuddin Habib, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

Sheikh Kutbuddin Habib, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

Sh. Kasturi Lal Mahajan, Jammu vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

Sh Sumit Mahajan, Jammu vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

Sh Sumit Mahajan, Jammu vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

Sh Sumit Mahajan, Jammu vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu

Sh Amit Mahajan, Jammu vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jammu