How many judgments cite CIT v. Rajiv Garg?

45 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Rajiv Garg (313 ITR 256), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Rajiv Garg come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 271(1)(c), Section 271AAB, Section 37(1), Section 69A.

CIT v. Rajiv Garg

313 ITR 256High Court2009#2608 most cited

What is CIT v. Rajiv Garg authority for?

An assessee's agreement to an addition does not automatically prove concealment, and voluntary surrender of income without corroborative material cannot sustain a penalty for concealment.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Rajiv Garg · 313 ITR 256 · penalty for concealment · voluntary surrender of income · agreement to addition · Section 271(1)(c) · Section 271AAB · corroborative material for penalty · concealment not proved by surrender · Section 69A penalty

Also reported as

175 Taxmann 184

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153A Section 271(1)(c)Section 271AAB Section 37(1)Section 69A Section 69C Section 274

Issues it is cited on

section 194ld section 270a(2)(a)section 9(i)(vii)section 9(i)section 194l section 270a(6)section 270a(2)service pe section 140a section 195(1)section 270a(9)peak credit theory

Judgments citing CIT v. Rajiv Garg

Rajendra Bhandari, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5749/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Years 2006-07 Vs. Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Alok Bhandari, 1/2873, Ram Nagar Extn. Faridabad. Loni Road, Shadara, New Delhi. Pan: Agmpb 5584A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Years 2006-07 Rajendra Bhandari, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-Ii, 1/2873, Ram Nagar Extn. Faridabad. Loni Road, Shadara, New Delhi. Pan: Agmpb 5581F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee(S) By : Shri R.S. Ahuja, C.A.. Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani, Sr.D.R.

For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani, Sr.D.R

Section 133A(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years 2006-07 Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-II, Alok Bhandari, 1/2873, Ram Nagar Extn. Faridabad. Loni Road, Shadara, New Delhi. PAN: AGMPB 5584A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Years 2006-07 Rajendra Bhandari, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-II, 1/2873, Ram Nagar Extn. Faridabad. Loni Road, Shadara, New Delhi. PAN: AGMPB 5581F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee(s) by : Shri R.S. Ahuja, C.A.. Revenue by : Ms. Bedobani, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 19/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronounc…

Alok Bhandari, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5747/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani, Sr.D.R

Section 133A(1)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

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

…271(1)© inserted w.e.f. 1std April, 1964 merely raises a rebuttable presumption but the basic principle that there should be have been concealment still remains.” Further Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajiv Garg 313 ITR 256 (P&H) upheld the order of the Tribunal where it was observed that – “Merely because an income has been offered by the assessee in response to the notice under section 148, it cannot be ipso facto inferred that the penal provisions of section 271(1)© are attracted. In order to apply the penal provisions of section 271(1)© it is to be necessarily i…

M/S. Om Prakash & Sons (HUF), New Delhi vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5648/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-I’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-5648/Del/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2002-03) Om Prakash & Sons (HUF), vs ACIT, C/o-RRA Taxindia, D-28, Central Circle, South Extension, Part-I, Faridabad New Delhi-110049. PAN-AAAHQ0723L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh.Somil Agarwal, Adv Respondent by Sh.Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement 16.11.2015 ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 09.06.2014 of CIT(A)-V, Gurgaon pertaining to…

Smt. Malathi Lakshmikumaran, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6013/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Salil Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 3

…en by the assessee that an appeal was not filed to save herself of the mental agony of litigation is a possible explanation.” The Tribunal finally placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case CIT Vs. Rajiv Garg & Ors., 313 ITR 256 (P&H), deleted penalty. 5 6. We are of the considered opinion that when the very addition to the returned income is under cloud and especially when this Tribunal held that the claim is clearly allowable the mere fact that the assessee himself offered item to tax, does not ipso fact lead to levy of penalty. The ld. Sr. DR has not pointed out any…