Dr. Partap Singh v. Director of Enforcement (

308 ITR 129High Court2009#9459 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Also reported as

22 Taxmann 30

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

illegal paymentsection 65b(4)section 147ofjewellery found during searchexplanation to section 37section 114weighted deductionprohibited by lawsection 35(2ab)section 65bsection 65panchnama

Judgments citing Dr. Partap Singh v. Director of Enforcement (

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 955/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 953 to 955/SRT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17 to 2018-19) Palak Designer Diamond Jewellary Ld. Assessing Officer, Vs. 6/1704-5-6, Gundi Sheri, NFAC, Ratanjiparekh no Khancho, Delhi Mahidhapura, Surat-395003 [PAN : AALFP 3491 R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri Biren Shah, AR Respondent represented by: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT (DR) & Shri Ajay Uke, Sr DR Date of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.02.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, V…

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 954/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 953 to 955/SRT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17 to 2018-19) Palak Designer Diamond Jewellary Ld. Assessing Officer, Vs. 6/1704-5-6, Gundi Sheri, NFAC, Ratanjiparekh no Khancho, Delhi Mahidhapura, Surat-395003 [PAN : AALFP 3491 R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri Biren Shah, AR Respondent represented by: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT (DR) & Shri Ajay Uke, Sr DR Date of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.02.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, V…

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 953/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 953 to 955/SRT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2016-17 to 2018-19) Palak Designer Diamond Jewellary Ld. Assessing Officer, Vs. 6/1704-5-6, Gundi Sheri, NFAC, Ratanjiparekh no Khancho, Delhi Mahidhapura, Surat-395003 [PAN : AALFP 3491 R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant represented by : Shri Biren Shah, AR Respondent represented by: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT (DR) & Shri Ajay Uke, Sr DR Date of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 23.02.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, V…

VINOD MONGIA,WAST AZAD NAGAR, DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , VIKAS BHAWAN,DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1844/DEL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Vinod Mongia, Vs Ito, C-40, Street No.1A, West Ward-58(7), Azad Nagar, Delhi-110005. Vikas Bhawan, Pan-Akhpm6218R Delhi Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shivam Jain, Adv. & Shri Nitin Kanwar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…ITA No.1844/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2012-13] Vinod Mongia, vs ITO, C-40, Street No.1A, West Ward-58(7), Azad Nagar, Delhi-110005. Vikas Bhawan, PAN-AKHPM6218R Delhi APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Shivam Jain, Adv. & Shri Nitin Kanwar, Adv. Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The captioned appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of I…

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1703/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

…g decisions: i) Nagubai Ammal and others vs. B. Shama Rao and others (1956) SCR 451 (SC) ii) Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC) iii) Dr. Partap Singh vs. Director of Enforcement ((1985) 155 ITR 166 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Kamal & Co. (2009) 308 ITR 129 (Raj) v) Balwant Singh vs. Director of Inspection (1969) 71 ITR 550 (Del) 41. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both the sides. We find the Assessi…

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1700/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

…g decisions: i) Nagubai Ammal and others vs. B. Shama Rao and others (1956) SCR 451 (SC) ii) Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC) iii) Dr. Partap Singh vs. Director of Enforcement ((1985) 155 ITR 166 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Kamal & Co. (2009) 308 ITR 129 (Raj) v) Balwant Singh vs. Director of Inspection (1969) 71 ITR 550 (Del) 41. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both the sides. We find the Assessi…

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1699/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

…g decisions: i) Nagubai Ammal and others vs. B. Shama Rao and others (1956) SCR 451 (SC) ii) Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC) iii) Dr. Partap Singh vs. Director of Enforcement ((1985) 155 ITR 166 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Kamal & Co. (2009) 308 ITR 129 (Raj) v) Balwant Singh vs. Director of Inspection (1969) 71 ITR 550 (Del) 41. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both the sides. We find the Assessi…

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1698/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

…g decisions: i) Nagubai Ammal and others vs. B. Shama Rao and others (1956) SCR 451 (SC) ii) Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC) iii) Dr. Partap Singh vs. Director of Enforcement ((1985) 155 ITR 166 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Kamal & Co. (2009) 308 ITR 129 (Raj) v) Balwant Singh vs. Director of Inspection (1969) 71 ITR 550 (Del) 41. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both the sides. We find the Assessi…

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1697/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

…g decisions: i) Nagubai Ammal and others vs. B. Shama Rao and others (1956) SCR 451 (SC) ii) Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC) iii) Dr. Partap Singh vs. Director of Enforcement ((1985) 155 ITR 166 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Kamal & Co. (2009) 308 ITR 129 (Raj) v) Balwant Singh vs. Director of Inspection (1969) 71 ITR 550 (Del) 41. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us by both the sides. We find the Assessi…

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

ITA 173/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Rao, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R
Section 147Section 68

…llected during such illegal search.” Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court again in Pooran Mal v. DIT (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC) has held that evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be rejected. Further, in CIT v. Kamal & Co. (2009) 308 ITR 129, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court held that the Revenue was entitled to use the material collected during the course of illegal survey. ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012 & T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore Page 65 of 107 40.2 Regarding ground relating to making additions based on statements recorded during the survey, ignoring the retraction of statem…

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

ITA 1467/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Rao, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R
Section 147Section 68

…llected during such illegal search.” Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court again in Pooran Mal v. DIT (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC) has held that evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be rejected. Further, in CIT v. Kamal & Co. (2009) 308 ITR 129, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court held that the Revenue was entitled to use the material collected during the course of illegal survey. ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012 & T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore Page 65 of 107 40.2 Regarding ground relating to making additions based on statements recorded during the survey, ignoring the retraction of statem…

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. T.G. RANGANATH, BANGALORE

ITA 1457/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Rao, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R
Section 147Section 68

…llected during such illegal search.” Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court again in Pooran Mal v. DIT (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC) has held that evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be rejected. Further, in CIT v. Kamal & Co. (2009) 308 ITR 129, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court held that the Revenue was entitled to use the material collected during the course of illegal survey. ITA Nos.1457, 1466, 1467/Bang/2012 & T.G. Ranganath, Bangalore Page 65 of 107 40.2 Regarding ground relating to making additions based on statements recorded during the survey, ignoring the retraction of statem…