Deepak Setia v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

155 Taxmann.com 293Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2023#9427 most cited

What is Deepak Setia v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

Income surrendered during a survey which is from business operations cannot be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A and taxed at the special rate under Section 115BBE.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Deepak Setia v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax · Section 69A · Section 115BBE · survey proceedings · undisclosed income · business income · unexplained income · ITAT Amritsar Bench · taxmann.com

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 28Section 69BSection 69Section 69ASection 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

abatement of assessmentsection 153a proceedingsthird party informationsection 158bdsection 69bstatement under section 132(4)assistant directorsection 156survey under section 133asection 132(4a)section 34section 292c

Judgments citing Deepak Setia v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Sh. Satyanarayan Mundra, Bhilwara vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above directions

ITA 885/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalsatyanarayan Mundra, Prop. Bajrang Pipe Store Opp. Milan Tonkij, Hari Sewa Marg, Bhilwara 311 001 Pan No. Abkpm 9539K ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 250Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Satyanarayan Mundra, Prop. Bajrang Pipe Store Opp. Milan Tonkij, Hari Sewa Marg, Bhilwara 311 001 PAN No. ABKPM 9539K ...... Appellant Vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer …...Respondent Appellant by : Mr. P. C. Parwal, CA, Ld. AR Respondent by : Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR Date of hearing : 14/08/2025 Date of pronouncement : 14/08/2025 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Jaipur-5 dated 11.04.…

Life Care Hospital, Sirohi vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 938/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 938/Jodh/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Life Care Hospital Vs. CIT(A), Tatoili Road, Opp. Sai Baba Jaipur. Mandir, P.O. Aburoad, Dist. Sirohi. PAN No.: AAFFL2914H Appellant Respondent Appellant by Sh. Sarla Agarwal, C.A. Respondent by Sh. Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 05/05/2025 24/06/2025 Date of Pronouncement ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT (A), Jaipur-4 dat…

Mahesh Kumar, Rajgarh Alwar vs. Pr. CIT Central Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 502/JPR/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalmahesh Kumar, Prop. M/S. Bhagwan Sahai & Sons, Station Road, Rajgarh, Alwar – 301 408. Pan No.: Adrpk 4704 K ..... Appellant Vs. Pr. Cit, (Central) Jaipur, Jaipur – 302 005 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. S. B. Natani, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mahesh Kumar, Prop. M/s. Bhagwan Sahai & Sons, Station Road, Rajgarh, Alwar – 301 408. PAN No.: ADRPK 4704 K ..... Appellant Vs. Pr. CIT, (Central) Jaipur, Jaipur – 302 005 ..... Respondent Appellant by : Mr. S. B. Natani, CA, Ld. AR Respondent by : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Ld. CIT-DR Date of hearing : 27/11/2024 Date of pronouncement : 27/11/2024 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Ld. PCIT (Central), Jaipur dated 19.…

Sh. Surendra Kumar Patni, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 977/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalshri Surendra Kumar Patni, C/O. M/S. Kalani & Co., 5Th Floor, Milestone Building, Gandhi Nagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302 015. Pan No.: Adupp9249 D ..... Appellant Vs. Acit, Circle-2, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302 005. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Mr. P.C. Parwal, Ca, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/11/2024 O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A), Jaipur Dated 25.06.2024 Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Mr. P.C. Parwal, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 69Section 69B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “A”, JAIPUR BEFORE Dr. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Surendra Kumar Patni, C/o. M/s. Kalani & Co., 5th Floor, Milestone Building, Gandhi Nagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302 015. PAN No.: ADUPP9249 D ..... Appellant Vs. ACIT, Circle-2, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan – 302 005. ..... Respondent Appellant by : Mr. P.C. Parwal, CA, Ld. AR Respondent by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, Ld. Sr. DR Date of hearing : 19/11/2024 Date of pronouncement : 21/11/2024 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL,…

Mohan Pandurangji Kharalkar, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(5), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr.Dr
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA No. 416/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Mohan Pandurangji Kharalkar Plot No. 14, Belekar Layout, PO Mhalgi Nagar, Hudkeshwar Road, ……………. Appellant Ingole Nagar, Nagpur. PAN – AKAPK7626E v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward 4(5), Nagpur. Assessee by : Shri Abhay Agrawal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr.Dr. Date of Hearing – 08/07/2024 Date of Order – 08/07/2024 O R D E R PER K.M.ROY, A.M. The present appeal has been preferred by the asses…

Income Tax Officer W 1, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty and Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…g Officer is not erroneous. ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 87 of 104 16.4.8 He further relied on the decision of ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of Deepak Setia V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2023) 155 Taxmann.com 293 (Amritsar-Trib), wherein the Tribunal has held that, when all the incomes earned by the assessee are only from business, there does not arise any question as to application of provisions of section 69A of the act. Accordingly, the Tribunal has held that, an undisclosed income quantified during the course of survey U/s.133A of the act coul…

Income Tax Officer, W-1, Vijayanagar vs. Ramachandra Setty and Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…g Officer is not erroneous. ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 87 of 104 16.4.8 He further relied on the decision of ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of Deepak Setia V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2023) 155 Taxmann.com 293 (Amritsar-Trib), wherein the Tribunal has held that, when all the incomes earned by the assessee are only from business, there does not arise any question as to application of provisions of section 69A of the act. Accordingly, the Tribunal has held that, an undisclosed income quantified during the course of survey U/s.133A of the act coul…

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Hassan, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty and Songs, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…g Officer is not erroneous. ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 87 of 104 16.4.8 He further relied on the decision of ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of Deepak Setia V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2023) 155 Taxmann.com 293 (Amritsar-Trib), wherein the Tribunal has held that, when all the incomes earned by the assessee are only from business, there does not arise any question as to application of provisions of section 69A of the act. Accordingly, the Tribunal has held that, an undisclosed income quantified during the course of survey U/s.133A of the act coul…

Income Tax Officer, W-1, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1163/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…g Officer is not erroneous. ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 87 of 104 16.4.8 He further relied on the decision of ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of Deepak Setia V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2023) 155 Taxmann.com 293 (Amritsar-Trib), wherein the Tribunal has held that, when all the incomes earned by the assessee are only from business, there does not arise any question as to application of provisions of section 69A of the act. Accordingly, the Tribunal has held that, an undisclosed income quantified during the course of survey U/s.133A of the act coul…

M/S. S. Ramashandra Setty & Sons, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1156/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…g Officer is not erroneous. ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 87 of 104 16.4.8 He further relied on the decision of ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of Deepak Setia V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2023) 155 Taxmann.com 293 (Amritsar-Trib), wherein the Tribunal has held that, when all the incomes earned by the assessee are only from business, there does not arise any question as to application of provisions of section 69A of the act. Accordingly, the Tribunal has held that, an undisclosed income quantified during the course of survey U/s.133A of the act coul…

Shri Tejpal Singh, Amritsar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

ITA 266/ASR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 266/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69A

…he entire cash was generated by sale of medicines from the undisclosed stock. Therefore, the nature of cash is from business not from any other sources. 4.2 The ld. AR relied on the order of the ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of Deepak Setia vs. DCIT (2023) 155 Taxmann.com 293 (Asr Trib.). The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as below: - “6. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. During survey proceeding the assessee surrendered total income of Rs. 29 lacs out of which amount to Rs. 14,23,000/- was related to other discrepancies/miscellaneous business income which…