CIT v. Radha Kishan Goel

278 ITR 454High Court2005#1693 most cited
67

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 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

The DCIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Pankaj Kalani, Indore

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

ITA 1044/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…

Shri Mohamed Mohtram Farooqui, Jhunjhunu vs. ACIT, Circle, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 1252/JPR/2019[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Dec 2020AY 1993-94
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)
Section 132(12)Section 132(4)Section 132(5)Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…13. It was further submitted that otherwise also, much importance cannot be attached to the manner in which income has been derived while considering the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Allahabad High Court in case of CIT Vs. Radha Kishan Goel 278 ITR 454 with reference to Expln. 5 to section 271(1)(c) has held that under sec. 132(4) of the Act unless the authorised officer puts a specific question with regard to the manner in which income has been derived, it is not expected from the person to make a statement in this regard and in case, in the statement the manner in which income has been derive…

M/S A. Atulkumar & Co., Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Dy.Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.-3, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 389/RJT/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.389/Rjt/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2014-15) बनाम/ M/S. A. Atulkumar & Co., D.Ci.T., Soni Bazar, Mandvi Chowk, Central Circle-3, Vs. Kamdar Street, Opp. Shalin Rajkot. Chamber, Rajkot.

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Ms Namita Khurana, Sr. D.R
Section 234ASection 271A

…ver, both such modes cannot be pressed into service simultaneously to work out undisclosed income. The correct disclosure is also enclosed on Page No. 4 of the Paper Book 1. In this regard reliance is placed on following decisions: • CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel 278 ITR 454(AII.) • Jayantilal Thakordas Jariwala vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Ahmadabad ITAT)(44 CCH 054) • S.R. Koshti vs. CIT 193 CTR 518 (Guj.) • Jagmohan Singh Arora & Others 101 TTJ 682 (Mum.) • ACIT vs. Shri Badri Ram Choudhary (Co-ordinate Bench of Jodhpur) (118 TT J 0492) • ACIT vs. Shri Mahendra B. Kataria (ITAT Ahmedabad) (268/Ahd/201…

Shri Sayyed Hamid Ali, Ujjain vs. The ACIT Circle 2(1), Ujjain

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 38/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Sayyed Hamid Ali Acit-2(1) बनाम/ (Prop. Fairdeal Steel) 60-A, Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area Maxi Road, Ujjain (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Acmpa7063M Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Ujjain, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 30.11.2016 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 10.03.2015 By Acit- 2(1), Ujjain.

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sayyed Hamid Ali ACIT-2(1) बनाम/ (Prop. Fairdeal Steel) 60-A, Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area Maxi Road, Ujjain (Appellant) (Revenue) PAN: ACMPA7063M Appellant by Shri S.S. Deshpande, CA Revenue by Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 28.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 19.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: This appeal at the instance of Assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 is directed against the…

Smt. Shobha Sardana, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4978/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Shobha Sardana, Vs. Dcit, C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, D- Central Circle-I, 28, South Extension, Part-1, Faridabad New Delhi. Pan :Abaps9735M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Advocates Respondent By Sh. S.S. Rana, Cit(Dr)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271A

…Trib.) 10. Ashwani Kumar Arora Vs. ACIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 440 (Delhi-Trib.) 11. Concrete Developers Vs. ACIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 62 (Nagpur- Trib.) 12. Sita Ram Gupta Vs. ACIT [2014] 48 taxmann.com 327 (Delhi- Trib.) 13. CIT Vs. Radha Kishan Goel [2005] 278 ITR 454 (Allahabad- Trib.) 14. CIT Vs. Mahendra C. Shah [2008] 299 ITR 305 (Gujrat-H.C.) 15. Mothers Pride Education Pertsonna P. Ltd. (Delhi I.T. Trib.) ITA No. 3372/De1/2011 dated 12.10.2012 16. JCIT Vs. Shri Jayendra N. Shah (Ahmedabad I.T. Trib.) ITA No 1552/Ahd/2016 dated 16.03.2018 17. Santosh Kumar Vs. DCIT (Delhi I.T. Trib.) ITA No. 267/Del/2014…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Abag Hi- Tech Education Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 472/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Amit Singhania, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Senior DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…T vs. 11 ITA No.472/Del./2016 Gebilal Kanhaialal 348 ITR 561 (SC) and Mak Data (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT 358 ITR 539 (SC), Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah – 299 ITR 305 (Guj.), Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel - 278 ITR 454 (All.), Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Mothers Pride Education Personnel (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA No.3372 (Delhi of 2011 dated 12.10.2012, reversed the decision rendered by the Tribunal setting aside the penalty on the ground that in the absence of the query raised by the authorized officer during the course of recording of statement u/s 132 (4)…

Sh. Roshan Lal Jindal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

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

ITA 1555/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1555/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271ASection 69A

…)(i)and (ii). 10. We find that a similar requirement of disclosing the manner in which undisclosed income is earned is also there in Explanation-5 to section 271(l)(c). interpreting which the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs RadhaKrishanGoel (2005) 278 ITR 454 observed that non disclosure of manner of earning the undisclosed income is not relevant for the purpose of availing benefit under Explanation 5 below section 271(l)(c). In CIT vs Mahendra C. Shah [2008] 215 CTR 493 (Guj). It was held the assessee having declared the value of diamonds in his statement under section 132(4) and paid taxes thereon b…

Savaliya Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

Appeals are dismissed whereas assessee’s three appeals and three cross objections are allowed

ITA 402/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT.DR

…ch in charge officer did not raise any further question to the appellant firm. 3.7 It is further clear that The principles laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts in the cases of CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah [2008] 299 ITR 305 (Guj.) CIT v. Radha Krishna Goel [2005), 278 ITR 4547(2006], and 152 Taxman 290 (All.), are also squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. In the case of CIT V. Mahendra C. Shah, Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has observed that "When the statement is being recorded by the authorized Officer, it is incumbent upon the authorized officer to explain the provision of…

M/S. Savaliya Buildcon, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

Appeals are dismissed whereas assessee’s three appeals and three cross objections are allowed

ITA 401/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT.DR

…ch in charge officer did not raise any further question to the appellant firm. 3.7 It is further clear that The principles laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts in the cases of CIT v. Mahendra C. Shah [2008] 299 ITR 305 (Guj.) CIT v. Radha Krishna Goel [2005), 278 ITR 4547(2006], and 152 Taxman 290 (All.), are also squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case. In the case of CIT V. Mahendra C. Shah, Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has observed that "When the statement is being recorded by the authorized Officer, it is incumbent upon the authorized officer to explain the provision of…

M/S. Narsi Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3547/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

….) 10. Ashwani Kumar Arora Vs. ACIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 440 (Delhi-Trib.) 11. Concrete Developers Vs. ACIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 62 (Nagpur- Trib.) 12. Sita Ram Gupta Vs. ACIT [2014] 48 taxmann.com 327 (Delhi-Trib.) 12 13. CIT Vs. Radha Kishan Goel [2005] 278 ITR 454 (Allahabad- Trib.) 14. CIT Vs. Mahendra C. Shah [2008] 299 ITR 305 (Gujrat-H.C.) 15. Mothers Pride Education Pertsonna P. Ltd. (Delhi I.T. Trib.) ITA No. 3372/De1/2011 dated 12.10.2012 16. JCIT Vs. Shri Jayendra N. Shah (Ahmedabad I.T. Trib.) ITA No 1552/Ahd/2016 dated 16.03.2018 17. Santosh Kumar Vs. DCIT (Delhi I.T. Trib.) ITA No. 267/Del/2014…

Sh. Amit Jindal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1557/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271ASection 69A

…sआयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए”, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH "ी संजय गग", "याय"क सद"य एवं "ीमती अ"नपणा" ग"ता , लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SH.SANJAY GARG, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1556/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri.Ashok Jindal, The D.C.I.T., बनाम House No.22, NAC, Central Circle-1, Manimajra, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAMPJ1996Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1557/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri.Amit Jindal, The D.C.I.T., बनाम House No.21, NAC,…

Sh. Ashok Jindal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1556/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271ASection 69A

…sआयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए”, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘A’, CHANDIGARH "ी संजय गग", "याय"क सद"य एवं "ीमती अ"नपणा" ग"ता , लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SH.SANJAY GARG, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1556/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri.Ashok Jindal, The D.C.I.T., बनाम House No.22, NAC, Central Circle-1, Manimajra, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAMPJ1996Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1557/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri.Amit Jindal, The D.C.I.T., बनाम House No.21, NAC,…

The ACIT, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Patdi Commercial & Investment Ltd., Surat

In the result, all the three appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1815/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1810/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Krish Corporation, Central Circle-3, C-1175 To 1191, Surat. Radha Krishna Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat – 395 003. [Pan: Aahfk 9281C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (#$थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1811/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, C.A ""For Respondent: Smt. O.P. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271A

…ncome, it can be inferred that undisclosed income was derived from business which he was carrying on or from other sources. The objection of provision is achieved by making statement admitting non disclosure of money, bullion, jewelry, etc. [Radhakishan Goya! 278 ITR 454 - Alld .H.C.] 8 ITA Nos.1810, 1811 & 1815/Ahd/2014/SRT (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Krish Corporation It is seen that the judgements of Mahendra C Shah and Radhakishan Goyal both were delivered in the context of Section 271(1)(c) explanation 5[2] but the provisions are akin to Section 271AAA[2], There are various other court decisions also which suppo…

The ACIT, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Shri Vinod J. Patel, Surat

In the result, all the three appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1811/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1810/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Krish Corporation, Central Circle-3, C-1175 To 1191, Surat. Radha Krishna Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat – 395 003. [Pan: Aahfk 9281C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (#$थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1811/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, C.A ""For Respondent: Smt. O.P. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271A

…ncome, it can be inferred that undisclosed income was derived from business which he was carrying on or from other sources. The objection of provision is achieved by making statement admitting non disclosure of money, bullion, jewelry, etc. [Radhakishan Goya! 278 ITR 454 - Alld .H.C.] 8 ITA Nos.1810, 1811 & 1815/Ahd/2014/SRT (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Krish Corporation It is seen that the judgements of Mahendra C Shah and Radhakishan Goyal both were delivered in the context of Section 271(1)(c) explanation 5[2] but the provisions are akin to Section 271AAA[2], There are various other court decisions also which suppo…

The ACIT, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Krish Corporation, Surat

In the result, all the three appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1810/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1810/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. M/S. Krish Corporation, Central Circle-3, C-1175 To 1191, Surat. Radha Krishna Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat – 395 003. [Pan: Aahfk 9281C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (#$थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1811/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, C.A ""For Respondent: Smt. O.P. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271A

…ncome, it can be inferred that undisclosed income was derived from business which he was carrying on or from other sources. The objection of provision is achieved by making statement admitting non disclosure of money, bullion, jewelry, etc. [Radhakishan Goya! 278 ITR 454 - Alld .H.C.] 8 ITA Nos.1810, 1811 & 1815/Ahd/2014/SRT (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Krish Corporation It is seen that the judgements of Mahendra C Shah and Radhakishan Goyal both were delivered in the context of Section 271(1)(c) explanation 5[2] but the provisions are akin to Section 271AAA[2], There are various other court decisions also which suppo…

M/S Keti Sangam Infrastructure (I) Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT (Central), Indore

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

ITA 1341/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

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

…ts and various Tribunals. For this proposition the appellants place reliance on the following decisions. (i) The decision of The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C Shah [(2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj)] (ii) CIT V/s RadhaKishanGoel (2005) 278 ITR 454 (Allahabad) 36 Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. Principal CIT V/s Shahlon Silk Mills Pvt Ltd dated (iii) 05.02.2018 (iv) (v) Decision of Honourable ITAT, Ahmedabad in case of Sulochanadevi A. Agarwal, Suratvs Department Of Income Tax (vi) Smt. Raj Rani Gupta V/s DCIT Central (vii) Mothers Pride Education Personna P. Ltd. V/…

M/S Shree Coal Enterprises (I) Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. The ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

ITA 1337/IND/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

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

…ts and various Tribunals. For this proposition the appellants place reliance on the following decisions. (i) The decision of The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C Shah [(2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj)] (ii) CIT V/s RadhaKishanGoel (2005) 278 ITR 454 (Allahabad) 36 Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. Principal CIT V/s Shahlon Silk Mills Pvt Ltd dated (iii) 05.02.2018 (iv) (v) Decision of Honourable ITAT, Ahmedabad in case of Sulochanadevi A. Agarwal, Suratvs Department Of Income Tax (vi) Smt. Raj Rani Gupta V/s DCIT Central (vii) Mothers Pride Education Personna P. Ltd. V/…

M/S Keti Sangham Infrastruture (I) Limited, Indore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Indore

In the result, all the 12 appeals filed at the instance of

ITA 516/IND/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

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

…ts and various Tribunals. For this proposition the appellants place reliance on the following decisions. (i) The decision of The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C Shah [(2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj)] (ii) CIT V/s RadhaKishanGoel (2005) 278 ITR 454 (Allahabad) 36 Keti Sangam, etc. ITA Nos. 516/2017, 603/Ind/2016 etc. Principal CIT V/s Shahlon Silk Mills Pvt Ltd dated (iii) 05.02.2018 (iv) (v) Decision of Honourable ITAT, Ahmedabad in case of Sulochanadevi A. Agarwal, Suratvs Department Of Income Tax (vi) Smt. Raj Rani Gupta V/s DCIT Central (vii) Mothers Pride Education Personna P. Ltd. V/…

Mayasheel Construction, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad

ITA 7173/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. B.R. Mishra (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ncealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income, on the part of the assessee, so as to initiate penalty proceeding against the assessee. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel –(2005) 278 ITR 454 (All.), while deciding the identical issue as to levy penalty in case of voluntarily surrender has held as under:- “From a perusal of Expln. 5 it is evident that in circumstances which otherwise did not attract the penalty provisions of s. 271(l){c), a deeming provision was introduced as to attract the penalty provisions to those cases as well…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ssa, International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5051/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 271A

…-Trib.) 10. Ashwani Kumar Arora Vs. [2017] 81 taxmann.com ACIT 440 (Delhi-Trib.) 11. Concrete Developers Vs. ACIT [2013] 34 taxmann.com 62 (Nagpur- Trib.) 12. Sita Ram Gupta Vs. ACIT [2014] 48 taxmann.com 327 (Delhi-Trib.) 13. CIT Vs. Radha Kishan Goel [2005] 278 ITR 454 (Allahabad- Trib.) 14. CIT Vs. Mahendra C. Shah [2008] 299 ITR 305 7 ITA No.5051/Del./2013 (Gujrat-H.C.) 15. Mothers Pride Education Pertsonna P. Ltd. (Delhi dated 12.10.2012 I.T. Trib.) 16. JCIT Vs. Shri Jayendra N. Shah (Ahmedabad I.T. Trib.) dated 16.03.2018 17. Santosh Kumar Vs. DCIT dated 13.04.2018 12. More particularly, the decision of…