How many judgments cite Dr. Partap Singh v. Director of Enforcement?

52 judgments on BharatTax cite Dr. Partap Singh v. Director of Enforcement (155 ITR 166), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Dr. Partap Singh v. Director of Enforcement come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(2), Section 132, Section 142(1), Section 119, Section 131, Section 139.

Dr. Partap Singh v. Director of Enforcement

155 ITR 166Supreme Court of India1985#2206 most cited

What is Dr. Partap Singh v. Director of Enforcement authority for?

The phrase "so far as may be" in a statutory provision indicates that the referred procedures, such as those for conducting searches, are to be generally followed to the extent possible, meaning they are not mandatory in every minute detail but applied practically.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Dr. Partap Singh v. Director of Enforcement · 155 ITR 166 · interpretation of "so far as may be" · Section 132 · search procedure · general compliance · extent practicable · mandatory vs optional application · Section 153 BC(b) · Section 37(2) · Section 165

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 132 Section 142(1)Section 119 Section 131 Section 139 Section 147 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

illegal payment section 144(1)principal director general of income-tax explanation to section 37 section 65b(4)section 153a proceedings prohibited by law section 147of section 80ib(10)jewellery found during search section 80a(5)section 24(a)

Judgments citing Dr. Partap Singh v. Director of Enforcement

M/S. Atul Projects India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( Now Juridiction With Dc CC-2(4), Mumbai

ITA 1876/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

…be" in Section 153 BC(b), the issue of notice is not mandatory but optional and are to be applied to the extent practicable. In support of that contention, the learned counsel has relied on the observation made by this Court in Dr. Pratap Singh's case [1985] 155 ITR 166(SC). In this case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that "the provisions of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying out the search provided in Section 165 has to be general…

The DCIT, Central-1, Bhopal vs. M/S Vatika Builders & Developers, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 358/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit (Central)-I, M/S. Vatika Builders & Bhopal Developers, Vatika Parisar, बनाम/ Near Petrol Pump, Vs. Lalghati, Bhopal

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…y be' in section 158BC(b), the issue of notice is not mandatory but optional and are to be applied to the extent practicable. In support of that contention, the learned counsel has relied on the observation made by this court in Dr. Partap Singh's case [1985] 155 ITR 166 (SC). In this case, the court has observed that section 37(2) provides that 'the provisions of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying out the search provided in section 165 has to be genera…

Late Shri Bhimsen Darbarilal Arora, Surat vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Surat

In the result, ground no.4 raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1706/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1706/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing) Bhimsen Darbarilal Arora Through, Vs. The Acit, Circle-5, L/H. Rajat Bhimsen Arora, Surat. Smt. Mamta Bhimsen Arora, A-201, Madhulika Apartment, Bhatar Road, Surat. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acaps9230L

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…retracted the statement got disturbance and therefore delay has occurred to retract the statement’. Hence, we are of the view that such ‘restriction is invalid. 23. We note that Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Partap Singh v. Director of Enforcement 155 ITR 166(SC) held that illegality of the search does not vitiate the evidence collected during such illegal search. The Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Inv.) 93 ITR 505 (SC) held that even though the search and seizure were in contravention of provision of section 132, material seized would liable to be used agai…

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 328/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

…of India & Ors.(All.) 176 ITR 261 • "Reason to believe" need not be disclosed when a mere allegation made by petitioner — Illegality of search does not vitiate evidence collected during search. Dr. Pratap Singh & Another Vs Director of Enforcement & Ors.(SC) 155 ITR 166; Genom ITA Nos.323 to 328/Bang/2022 Wilfred D’Souza, Mangaluru Page 9 of 41 Biotech (P) Ltd. &Ors. Vs DIT(Inv.) & Ors. (Born) 23 DTR 241; 224 CTR 270 720 • The fact that the issue on which search was initiated (as evident from the Satisfaction note) was enquired by TPO and Ld. CIT(A) in the past and allowed in favour of assessee, will not affe…

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 327/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 326/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 325/BANG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 324/BANG/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

Wilfred D'Souza, Mangaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.323 & 324/Bang/2022 are allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 323/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, D.R

Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 246A

Manorma V. Rathi, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 778/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhsmt. Manorma V. Rathi Vs. The Acit, Circle 21(1) C/O G.P. Mehta & Co. C-10, Vi Floor, Cas., 807, Tulsiani Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Chambers, 212, Nariman Bandra Kurla Complex, Point, Mumbai Bandra (E), 400 021 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabpr3678Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Hoshang B. Irani

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(C)

…so far as may be” for applicability of other provisions u/s 153A(1)(a), would mean only when such provisions are required to be applied only if required and so far as they are not in conflict with substantive provisions of 153A(1). In case of Dr Paratap Singh 155 ITR 166(SC), the apex court interpreted the expression “so far as may be” to mean that those provisions may be followed to the extent possible. Similarly in case of Ujagar Print 75 CTR(SC)1 the apex court while explain the impact of the word “so far as may be” ,has held that provisions of 1944 Act shall apply “so far as may be” this is to the extent nece…

M/S Rittal India Pvt Ltd, Doddaballapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2868/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Ramasubramaniam, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

…order is still valid as per various Court decisions including few mentioned below which held that evidence gathered even in violation of procedure is valid evidence. 1.State of Maharashtra v. National Damodardas Soni [1980] AIR 593 (SC) 2. Singhs case [1985] 155 ITR 166 (SC) 3. Pooran Mal v Director of Inspection [1974] 93 ITR 505 (SC) The following decisions are also against the assessee. 1. Kerala Financial Corporation Vs CIT 201 FUR 129 (SC) 2. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd Vs. Add]. CIT 328ITR 210 ( Delhi HC) 3. Ranhaxy Laboratories Ltd Vs CIT 345 FUR 193 (Delhi HC) Accordingly, based on above discussion the groun…

Shri Govind Narain Johari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 287/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Although The Second Round Of Assessment Was Completed At The Directions Of Hon’Ble Itat.

For Appellant: Shri Hanif Khan (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Manisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…be" in Section 153 BC(b), the issue of notice is not mandatory but optional and are to be applied to the extent practicable. In support of that contention, the learned counsel has relied on the observation made by this Court in Dr. Pratap Singh's case [1985] 155 ITR 166 (SC). In this case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that "the provisions of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying out the search provided in Section 165 has to be genera…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Trust Circle- 3(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Baldwin Boys High School, Bangalore

ITA 606/BANG/2001[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 1997-98

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 10(22)Section 143(2)Section 234Section 253Section 253(4)

…be” in Section 153 BC(b), the issue of notice is not mandatory but optional and are to be applied to the extent practicable. In support of that contention, the learned counsel has relied on the observation made by this Court in Dr. Pratap Singh’s case [1985] 155 ITR 166(SC). In this case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that “the provisions of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying out the search provided in Section 165 has to be general…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Indrani Prasad, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed”

ITA 467/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri K.Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

Section 113Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 158Section 271

…be" in Section 153 BC(b), the issue of notice is not mandatory but optional and are to be applied to the extent practicable. In support of that contention, the learned counsel has relied on the observation made by this Court in Dr. Pratap Singh's case [1985J 155 ITR 166(SC). In this case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that "the provisions of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying out the search provided in Section 165 has to be general…

Indrani Prasad, New Delhi vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed”

ITA 409/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri K.Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

Section 113Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 158Section 271

…be" in Section 153 BC(b), the issue of notice is not mandatory but optional and are to be applied to the extent practicable. In support of that contention, the learned counsel has relied on the observation made by this Court in Dr. Pratap Singh's case [1985J 155 ITR 166(SC). In this case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that "the provisions of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying out the search provided in Section 165 has to be general…

M/S. Rajdhani Crafts, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4 Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1281/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 10BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…be" in Section 153 BC(b), the issue of notice is not mandatory but optional and are to be applied to the extent practicable. In support of that contention, the learned counsel has relied on the observation made by this Court in Dr. Pratap Singh's case [1985] 155 ITR 166 (SC). In this case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that "the provisions 11 ITA 1281/JP/2019 M/s Rajdhani Crafts Vs ACIT of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying out th…

Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 441/JPR/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok kr. Gupta &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 68

…be" in Section 153 BC(b), the issue of notice is not mandatory but optional and are to be applied to the extent practicable. In support of that contention, the learned counsel has relied on the observation made by this Court in Dr. Pratap Singh's case [1985] 155 ITR 166(SC). In this case, the Court has observed that 20 ITA 441/JP/2019_ Shri Rai Singh Sihag Vs ITO “12 Section 37(2) provides that "the provisions of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying out…

Shri Prince Rai, Damoh vs. Income Tax Officer, Damoh

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 145/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2009-10 Prince Rai, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward - Damoh Damoh (M.P.) (M.P.) [Pan: Ahlpr 7469N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. H.S. Modh, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Swati Agarwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2021

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…aw before the Income- tax authorities against the person from whose custody it is seized and, therefore, no writ of prohibition in restraint for such use can be granted. This stands reiterated by it in Dr. Pratap Singh & Anr. v. Director of Enforcement [1985] 155 ITR 166 (SC). This aspect would therefore, where assumed, have to be considered and answered after hearing the parties. There is yet another aspect of the matter, which issues forth from the foregoing: Whether a rejection of accounts has to necessarily precede a reference to the DVO u/s. 142A. That is, assuming its applicability and, further, that there…

Ramakant Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) &For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Bedi (CIT-DR)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…be" in Section 153 BC(b), the issue of notice is not mandatory but optional and are to be applied to the extent practicable. In support of that contention, the learned counsel has relied on the observation made by this Court in Dr. Pratap Singh's case [1985] 155 ITR 166(SC). In this case, the Court has observed that “12 Section 37(2) provides that "the provisions of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying out the search provided in Section 165 has to be gen…

Shri Rajendra Gupta, Kishangarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1038/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: The Hon’Ble Itat For The First Time, For Which No Further Investigation Of Facts Is Required. Therefore, The Same May Kindly Be Admitted In View Of The Decision Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Ntpc Ltd Vs. Cit 229 Itr 383(Sc)}. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Said Additional Ground On The Issue

For Appellant: Shri O.P. Batheja, ITP,ld.ARFor Respondent: Smt. Anuradha, JCIT, ld.DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…be" in Section 153 BC(b), the issue of notice is not mandatory but optional and are to be applied to the extent practicable. In support of that contention, the learned counsel has relied on the observation made by this Court in Dr. Pratap Singh's case [1985] 155 ITR 166 (SC). In this case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that "the provisions of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying out the search provided in Section 165 has to be genera…