CIT v. Rajeev Bhatara

360 ITR 121High Court#24664 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 352,026 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 12AASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Rajeev Bhatara

ACIT, Chandigarh vs. The Punjabi University, Patiala

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 359/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 270A

…no deliberate attempt at the end of the assessee to misreport the income. The ld. First Appellate Authority has appreciated this issue in right perspective after following the judgement of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Rajiv Batra 360 ITR 121 as well as of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Reliance PetroProducts Ltd. 322 ITR 158 and Price Waterhouse Coopers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 348 ITR 306 A.Y.2018-19 5 (S.C.). The claim made in the return was a bonafide claim because at that point of time, assessee was not enjoying registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act.…

Bipin Pranjivandas Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(1)(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 1661/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…357 (Kerala) 9. CIT vs. S. M. Construction [2015] 92 CCH 0099(Mumbai HC) 10. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Krishi Tyre Retreading & Rubber Industries, 44 taxmann.com 9(Rajasthan) ITA No. 1661 & 1660/Mum/2024 Bipin Pranjivandas Shah 11. CIT vs. Rajiv Bhatara 360 ITR 121 (P&H) 12. CIT vs. Reliance Petro products P. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) 13. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Aero Traders(P.) Ltd., 322 ITR 316, Delhi HC. 14. CIT vs. Escorts Finance Ltd 328 ITR 44 (Delhi) 15. CIT vs. SSP. Ltd. 328 ITR 643 (P & H.) 16. CIT vs. Suresh Chand Bansal 329 ITR 330(Calcutta) 17. Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala vs. S…

Suresh Dutt Malhotra, Panipat vs. ACIT, Panipat

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2575/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv., Shri V. Rajkumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Sr. DR
Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(ii)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 54F(1)

…incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.” 12 Assessment year 2007-08 5.2 We also note that an identical issue had come up before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajeev Bhatara reported in 360 ITR 121 (P&H) wherein it was the assessee’s plea before the Assessing Officer that no capital gain tax was imposable in his case as the property which he had sold was situated beyond 8 Kms from the municipal limits of Panipat. After collecting information regarding the distance from various authorities, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion th…

CIT v. Rajeev Bhatara (360 ITR 121) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax