CIT vs. Kanaiyalal (2008) 299 ITR 19 (Raj), CIT v. C.S.V. Chandru

264 ITR 249High Court2003#11395 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 250Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing CIT vs. Kanaiyalal (2008) 299 ITR 19 (Raj), CIT v. C.S.V. Chandru

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)

…rest, the Assessing Officer ought to have granted him immunity available under section 271(1) Therefore, penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on the income shown in the return filed under section 153A CASES REFERRED TO CITv Chhabra Emporium [2003] 264 ITR 249/130 Tasman 818 (Delhi) (para 6.3), CIT v. SDV Chandr [2004] 266 ITR 175/136 Taxman 537 (Mad.) (para 6.3), GebilalKanhaialal (HUF) v. AM. CIT270 ITR 523/120051 143 Tasman 42 (Rai) 10 ITANO. 192/JPR/2025 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 taxman…

Sumer Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 844/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2016AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…itiated u/s. 132 before 01.06.2007. The appellant has relied on the following decisions:- (i) Gebilal Kanhaialal (HUF) v. ACIT..(2004) 270 ITR 523 (ii) CIT v. S. D.V. Chandru (2004) 266 ITR 175. (iii) CIT v. Kanhaivalal 299 ITR 19 (iv) CIT v. Chhabra Emporium 264 ITR 249 1.23 The Assessing Officer in his assessment order has admitted the fact that the appellant has filed its return of income in response to notice u/s. 153A showing income of Rs.67,04,500/- but he has imposed the penalty on the disclosed income also on the ground that this income has not been disclosed by the assessee in the original return of inco…

DCIT 36, Mumbai vs. Sumer5 Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3608/MUM/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2016AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…itiated u/s. 132 before 01.06.2007. The appellant has relied on the following decisions:- (i) Gebilal Kanhaialal (HUF) v. ACIT..(2004) 270 ITR 523 (ii) CIT v. S. D.V. Chandru (2004) 266 ITR 175. (iii) CIT v. Kanhaivalal 299 ITR 19 (iv) CIT v. Chhabra Emporium 264 ITR 249 1.23 The Assessing Officer in his assessment order has admitted the fact that the appellant has filed its return of income in response to notice u/s. 153A showing income of Rs.67,04,500/- but he has imposed the penalty on the disclosed income also on the ground that this income has not been disclosed by the assessee in the original return of inco…

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. Lakshmi Ceramics, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1033/CHNY/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1033/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Lakshmi Ceramics, Income Tax, V. No.63, Krishnasamy Mudaliar Road, Central Circle – Ii, (Brooke Bond Road), Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 007. Pan : Aacfl 0921 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sasikumar, JCITFor Respondent: Sh. T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate
Section 132ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…off (291 ITR 519) referred by the CIT(Appeals) was overruled by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors And Others (2008) 306 ITR 277. Referring to the judgment of Delhi High Court referred by the CIT(Appeals) in Chhabra Emporium (264 ITR 249), the Ld. D.R. submitted that Explanation 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was not available in the statute book when the Delhi High Court decided the case. Therefore, these judgments of Apex Court and Delhi High Court may not help the assessee. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) has committed an error in deleting the pena…

ACIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai vs. Jatin J.Shah, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2725/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Ms.Vasanti B. Patel, &For Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘जे’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.2724/Mum/2010 & ITA No.3104/Mum/2009 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2003-2004 & 2005-06) ACIT,CC-34, Mumbai-400020 Vs. M/s Jay Fab, 102, Neelkanth Sadan, Hingwala Lane, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai-400077 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AACFJ 9047 J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. AND ACIT,CC-34, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Shri Jatin J. Shah, 115, Vasan Udyog Bhavan, Opp. Phoenix mill Compound, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai…

ACIT Cen Cir 34, Mumbai vs. Jay Fab, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2724/MUM/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Ms.Vasanti B. Patel, &For Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘जे’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.2724/Mum/2010 & ITA No.3104/Mum/2009 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2003-2004 & 2005-06) ACIT,CC-34, Mumbai-400020 Vs. M/s Jay Fab, 102, Neelkanth Sadan, Hingwala Lane, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai-400077 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AACFJ 9047 J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. AND ACIT,CC-34, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Shri Jatin J. Shah, 115, Vasan Udyog Bhavan, Opp. Phoenix mill Compound, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai…

ACIT CC 34, Mumbai vs. Jay Fab, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3104/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Ms.Vasanti B. Patel, &For Respondent: Shri Shrikant Namdeo
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘जे’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.2724/Mum/2010 & ITA No.3104/Mum/2009 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2003-2004 & 2005-06) ACIT,CC-34, Mumbai-400020 Vs. M/s Jay Fab, 102, Neelkanth Sadan, Hingwala Lane, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai-400077 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AACFJ 9047 J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. AND ACIT,CC-34, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Shri Jatin J. Shah, 115, Vasan Udyog Bhavan, Opp. Phoenix mill Compound, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt Meera Devi

ITA/997/2010HC Delhi23 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 153Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…4A) and Section 132 (5) is discretionary and also limited and cannot be mechanically drawn but has to be supported by the facts and reasons. In this case, counsel relied upon the judgment reported as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chhabra Emporium (2003) 264 ITR 249 (Del) to say that during the course of search, statement of the assessee is recorded under Section 132(4) in respect of any cash, amount, stock or jewellery etc. that individual is entitled to claim immunity by virtue of fifth Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The decision in P.R. Mitrani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 287…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt Meera Devi

ITA/995/2010HC Delhi23 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 153Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…4A) and Section 132 (5) is discretionary and also limited and cannot be mechanically drawn but has to be supported by the facts and reasons. In this case, counsel relied upon the judgment reported as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chhabra Emporium (2003) 264 ITR 249 (Del) to say that during the course of search, statement of the assessee is recorded under Section 132(4) in respect of any cash, amount, stock or jewellery etc. that individual is entitled to claim immunity by virtue of fifth Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The decision in P.R. Mitrani Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2006) 287…