CIT v. Radha Kishan Goel

278 ITR 454High Court2005#1708 most cited
67

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Radha Kishan Goel · Section 132(4) · retraction of statement · statement during search · evidentiary value of confession · Section 153A · Section 69A · Section 147 · statement recorded under section 132(4) · withdrawal of statement · search assessment

Also reported as

152 Taxmann 290200 CTR 300

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 132(4)Section 37(1)Section 133(6)Section 69ASection 153ASection 131(1A)

Issues it is cited on

gaarsection 65(b)section 181section 194qsection 193section 65b(4)section 158bb(1)retraction of statementsection 158bbsection 65bstatement under section 132(4)section 65

Judgments citing CIT v. Radha Kishan Goel

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…t. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Rajkot) Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs. ACIT: 97 ITD 361 (Ahd.) Rajesh Jain vs. DCIT: 100 TTJ 929 (Del) Catherine Thomas V. DCIT: 111 ITD 132 (Cochin) To the same effect are the decision in the following cases: " PCIT vs. PGF Ltd.: 457 ITR 607 (D…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7841/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…t. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Rajkot) Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs. ACIT: 97 ITD 361 (Ahd.) Rajesh Jain vs. DCIT: 100 TTJ 929 (Del) Catherine Thomas V. DCIT: 111 ITD 132 (Cochin) To the same effect are the decision in the following cases: PCIT vs. PGF Ltd.: 457 ITR 607 (Del…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…t. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Rajkot) Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs. ACIT: 97 ITD 361 (Ahd.) Rajesh Jain vs. DCIT: 100 TTJ 929 (Del) Catherine Thomas V. DCIT: 111 ITD 132 (Cochin) To the same effect are the decision in the following cases: " PCIT vs. PGF Ltd.: 457 ITR 607 (D…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7838/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…t. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Rajkot) Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs. ACIT: 97 ITD 361 (Ahd.) Rajesh Jain vs. DCIT: 100 TTJ 929 (Del) Catherine Thomas V. DCIT: 111 ITD 132 (Cochin) To the same effect are the decision in the following cases: PCIT vs. PGF Ltd.: 457 ITR 607 (Del…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…t. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Rajkot) Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs. ACIT: 97 ITD 361 (Ahd.) Rajesh Jain vs. DCIT: 100 TTJ 929 (Del) Catherine Thomas V. DCIT: 111 ITD 132 (Cochin) To the same effect are the decision in the following cases: " PCIT vs. PGF Ltd.: 457 ITR 607 (D…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5520/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…t. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Rajkot) Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs. ACIT: 97 ITD 361 (Ahd.) Rajesh Jain vs. DCIT: 100 TTJ 929 (Del) Catherine Thomas V. DCIT: 111 ITD 132 (Cochin) To the same effect are the decision in the following cases: PCIT vs. PGF Ltd.: 457 ITR 607 (Del…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5517/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…t. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Rajkot) Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs. ACIT: 97 ITD 361 (Ahd.) Rajesh Jain vs. DCIT: 100 TTJ 929 (Del) Catherine Thomas V. DCIT: 111 ITD 132 (Cochin) To the same effect are the decision in the following cases: PCIT vs. PGF Ltd.: 457 ITR 607 (Del…

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 05, DELHI

ITA 5515/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…t. Jaya Lakshmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Rajkot) Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs. ACIT: 97 ITD 361 (Ahd.) Rajesh Jain vs. DCIT: 100 TTJ 929 (Del) Catherine Thomas V. DCIT: 111 ITD 132 (Cochin) To the same effect are the decision in the following cases: PCIT vs. PGF Ltd.: 457 ITR 607 (Del…

SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru” V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…SHRI RAMCHAND LAXMANDAS BABANI VS ITO, WARD 6(4), JAIPUR (para 6.3), Axsit. CIT. GehilalKanhaialal HUF 20121 348 ITR 561/210 Taxman 244/25 taxmann.com 214 (SC) (para 6.3), CIT v. Kanhaiyalal 2008] 299 ITR 19 (Raj.) (para 6.3), CIT v. Radha Kishan Goel [20051 278 ITR 454 (All) (para 6.3), CIT v. Abdul Rashi 201.31 40 taxmann.com 244 (Chattisgarh) (para 6.3), SMJ. Housing v. CI7[2013] 357 ITR 698/38 tasmann.com 203 (Mad) (para 6.3), CIT Vegetable Products Lad [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC) (para 6.3) and Shourya Towers (P) Ladv. Dy CIT[20131 359 ITR 523/213 Taxman 20 (Mag 30 taxmann.com.10 (Delhi) (para 7). Saurabh M. Sop…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SHYAM SUNDER JINDAL, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5671/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

…shmi Ammal: 390 ITR 189 (Mad) 59. PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) 60 Ratan Corporation: 197 CTR 536 (Guj.) 61. It has similarly been held in the following decisions: CIT vs. N. Swamy 241 IIR 363 (Mad) CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel: 278 ITR 454 (All) Surinder Pal Verma V. ACIT: 89 ITD 129 (Chd.) (TM) Smt. Ranjnaben Mansukhlal Shah V. ACIT: 83 TTJ 369 (Rajkot) Ashok Manilal Thakkar vs. ACIT: 97 ITD 361 (Ahd.) Rajesh Jain vs. DCIT: 100 TTJ 929 (Del) Catherine Thomas V. DCIT: 111 ITD 132 (Cochin) 62. To the same effect are the decision in the following cases:  PCIT vs. PGF Ltd.: 457 ITR 6…

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

…of appeal are dismissed. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the learned CIT (Appeals) while passing impugned order have summarily ignored the observations and decisions of the Hon'ble 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. The brief reply filed is reproduced as under: “1. That the Search & Seizure Op…

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)

…ffered 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 1st day of June, 2007. Under this Explanation t…

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

…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) TMI 410 (ITAT Delhi) 7. Ld. AR relied upon the order of…

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

…d 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 there is no specific query was raised to the assessee during the course of statement recorded u/s 132(4), as to th…

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

…d 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 there is no specific query was raised to the assessee during the course of statement recorded u/s 132(4), as to th…

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

…tion to buy mental peace and the appellant had made voluntarily disclosure u/s 132(4) and the tax due on the returned income had been paid. The appellant also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel, 278 ITR 454 (All.). However, the Assessing Officer considering the explanation of the appellant noted that the appellant had failed to satisfy and substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income has been derived, had proceeded wtih levy penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- vide order dated 19.09.2014. 17. Being aggrieved by the penalty order dated 19.09.2014, a…

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

…tion to buy mental peace and the appellant had made voluntarily disclosure u/s 132(4) and the tax due on the returned income had been paid. The appellant also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel, 278 ITR 454 (All.). However, the Assessing Officer considering the explanation of the appellant noted that the appellant had failed to satisfy and substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income has been derived, had proceeded wtih levy penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- vide order dated 19.09.2014. 17. Being aggrieved by the penalty order dated 19.09.2014, a…

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

…tion to buy mental peace and the appellant had made voluntarily disclosure u/s 132(4) and the tax due on the returned income had been paid. The appellant also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel, 278 ITR 454 (All.). However, the Assessing Officer considering the explanation of the appellant noted that the appellant had failed to satisfy and substantiate the manner in which the undisclosed income has been derived, had proceeded wtih levy penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- vide order dated 19.09.2014. 17. Being aggrieved by the penalty order dated 19.09.2014, a…

RUPINDER DHANOA SIDHU,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 31, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 7470/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N. K. Choudhryrupinderdhanoasidhu, Vs. Acit, C/O. R.S. Ahuja& Co, Ca Central Circle-31, C-353, Defence Colony, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Acipd0250F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132oSection 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271ASection 274Section 69A

…be no occasion for an assessee to stage and make averments in the exact format stipulated by the provisions considering the setting in which such statement is being recorded, as noted by the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. RadhaKishanGoel : (2005) 278 ITR 454. Secondly, considering the illiterate, to be specific and to the point regarding the conditions stipulated by exception No. 2 while making statement under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The view taken by the Tribunal as well as the Allahabad High Court to the effect that even if the statement does not specify the manner in which the…

THE DCIT, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE vs. SHRI DIPAK KALANI, INDORE

In the result, revenue’s appeals in IT(SS)A 104

ITA 1045/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ourt in the case of Shree Ganesh Trading Co Vs CIT as reported in 30 taxmann.com 170, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Banwarilal as reported in 225 ITR 870, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs Radhakishan Goyal as reported in 278 ITR 454, Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of ACIT vs Sushil Devi S Agrawal as reported in 50 ITD 524, Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Ms Aishwarya K Rai vs DCIT as reported in 104 ITD 166 and Hon'ble Jaipur Bench of ITAT in the case of Chandesh Kumar Maheshwari vs ACIT also support the case of the appellant. 7.12 Considering the over…

Showing 1–20 of 67 · Page 1 of 4