CIT v. Sohan Singh

254 ITR 170Reported decision#20126 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Judgments citing CIT v. Sohan Singh

Alfiya Ayazali Sayyad, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/NAG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha

Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ag./2022 3.1.4. The views similar to the above decision of Delhi and Kerala High Courts were expressed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharad Kumar 232 ITR 588 (Alld.). Similarly, the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Sohan Singh 254 ITR 170 has held that for the purpose of penalty, matter has to be examined in the background of Explanation to section 271(1)(c). It has also been held that evidence recorded during the course of assessment proceedings, through not conclusive, are not totally irrelevant. They could be taken note of. According to the High Court what was required was that…

Arjun Singh, Kota vs. ACIT, Circle-I

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 106/JPR/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…y him.’’ 3.1.4. The views similar to the above decision of Delhi and Kerala High Courts were expressed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharad Kumar 232 ITR. 588 (Alld.). Similarly, the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT VS Sohan Singh 254 ITR 170 has held that for the purpose of penalty, matter has to be examined in the background of Explanation to section 271(1)(c). It has also been held that evidence recorded during the course of assessment proceedings, through not conclusive, are not totally irrelevant. They could be taken note of. According to the High Court what was required was that…

Gaurav Garg, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5716/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132ASection 13ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69A

…rt has further held that after insertion of explanation its earlier decision in the case of Sir ShadiLal Sugar and General Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 168 ITR 705 (SC) was no longer applicable. (viii) The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sohan Singh 254 ITR 170 has. held that for the purpose of penalty matter has to be examined in the background of Explanation to section 271 (1(c). It has also been held that evidence recorded during the course of assessment proceedings, though not conclusive, are not totally irrelevant. They could be taken note of. According to the High Court what was required was that…

Shri Ashwinbhai B.Pokia, Surat vs. The ACIT.Circle-9, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1011/AHD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1011/Ahd/2014/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2004-05 Ashwinbhai B. Pokia Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner Of 61, Saify Society, Income-Tax, L.H.Road, Surat – 395006. Circle-9, Surat. [Pan: Ackpp 5049 C] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri J.K.Chandnani, Sr.Dr राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2018 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 31.07.2018

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…High Court in Viswakarma Industries vs. CIT (1982) 132 ITR 652, Hon'ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs. K.P.Madhusudana in 246 ITR 218, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Sushil Kumar Sharad Kumar 232 ITR 588 (Alld), Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sohan Singh 254 ITR 170 held that for the purpose of penalty matter has to be examined in the background of Explanation to Section 271(1)(c). It has also been held that evidences recorded during the course of assessment proceedings, though not conclusive, are not totally irrelevant. Page 5 of 7 Ashwinbhai B. Pokia v. ITO, ACIT, Circle-9, Surat/I.T.A. No.1011/Ahd/2014/…