What is E.N. Gopakumar v. CIT authority for?

In search assessments conducted under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, additions to the assessee's income can be made even in the absence of incriminating material found during a search operation conducted under Section 132.

How many judgments cite E.N. Gopakumar v. CIT?

428 judgments on BharatTax cite E.N. Gopakumar v. CIT (75 Taxmann.com 215), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does E.N. Gopakumar v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 153A, Section 132, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 69C.

E.N. Gopakumar v. CIT (75 Taxmann.com 215)

ACIT Central Circle 2 (1), Chennai vs. M/S Mohan Breweries & Distilleries Ltd, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 585/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…ld not be said that the additions were not based on incriminating material found during the course of search. In fact, this is the primary issue arising out of search operations. The decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of E.N. Gopakumar V/s CIT (75 Taxmann.com 215; 03.10.2016) as well as in CIT V/s St. Francis Clay Décor Tiles (70 Taxmann.com 234; 22.03.2016) supports this view. Therefore, the adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) could not be faulted with, on this score also. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. As per issue- wise chart placed before us, this issue arises in AYs 2008-09…

ACIT Central Circle 2 (1), Chennai vs. M/S Mohan Breweries & Distilleries Ltd, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 584/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…ld not be said that the additions were not based on incriminating material found during the course of search. In fact, this is the primary issue arising out of search operations. The decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of E.N. Gopakumar V/s CIT (75 Taxmann.com 215; 03.10.2016) as well as in CIT V/s St. Francis Clay Décor Tiles (70 Taxmann.com 234; 22.03.2016) supports this view. Therefore, the adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) could not be faulted with, on this score also. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. As per issue- wise chart placed before us, this issue arises in AYs 2008-09…

M/S Mohan Breweries & Distilleries Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2 (1), Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1259/CHNY/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abani Kanta Nayak (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 80I

…ld not be said that the additions were not based on incriminating material found during the course of search. In fact, this is the primary issue arising out of search operations. The decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of E.N. Gopakumar V/s CIT (75 Taxmann.com 215; 03.10.2016) as well as in CIT V/s St. Francis Clay Décor Tiles (70 Taxmann.com 234; 22.03.2016) supports this view. Therefore, the adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) could not be faulted with, on this score also. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. As per issue- wise chart placed before us, this issue arises in AYs 2008-09…

Sri Rathan Babulal Lath, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 157/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vilas V. Shinde, D.R

Section 132Section 153A

…ITA No.157/Bang/2020 Sri Rathan Babulal Lath, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sri Rathan Babulal Lath P-22, Golden Enclave Deputy Commissioner of Old Airport Road Income-tax Vs. Bengaluru 560 017 Central Circle-1(4) Bengaluru PAN NO : AABPL0986F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Vilas V. Shinde, D.R. Date of Hearing : 30.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 05.08.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:…

DCIT Central Circle-15, New Delhi vs. Sudha Nagar, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1832/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmadcit Vs. Sudha Nagar Central Circle – 15, D-3/10, Pashchimi Marg, New Delhi Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110 057 Pan No. Aabpn 9048 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Akshat Jain, Adv. Revenue By Shri H. K. Choudhary, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 27.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.08.2022 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under:-

Section 153ASection 154Section 254Section 68

…ssment u/s 153A of the Act, 1961, the Income Tax Act does not stipulate any such conditionality on AO. 2. That the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law in ignoring the judgements of the Hon’ble Kerla High Court in the cases of Mr. K. N. Gopa Kumar vs CIT Central (2017) 390 ITR 131, Mr. K. P. Ummer vs. CIT vide order dated 19.02.2019. and CIT vs. P. Sasi Kumar 73 Taxmann.com 173 wherein it is clearly held by the Hon’ble High Court that the condition of incriminating material found and seized is not mandatory for making additions u/s 153A of the I.T. Act. 3 3. That the Ld CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in quashing the…

Shri Ajay Virendra Arora, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-6(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1706/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleshri Ajay Virender Arora V. Dcit – Central Circle – 6(4) S-14, 6Th Floor Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor Solitaire Corporate Park Air India Building, Nariman Guru Govindji Marg, Chakala Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Addpa6742R (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit – Central Circle – 6(4) V. Shri Ajay Virender Arora Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor S-14, 6Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Solitaire Corporate Park Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Guru Govindji Marg, Chakala Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 Pan: Addpa6742R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain & Shri Ravikanth Pathak Department By : Smt. Shailja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain &For Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai

Section 127(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Ajay Virender Arora v. DCIT – Central Circle – 6(4) S-14, 6th Floor Room No. 1925, 19th Floor Solitaire Corporate Park Air India Building, Nariman Guru Govindji Marg, Chakala Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093 PAN: ADDPA6742R (Appellant) (Respondent) ACIT – Central Circle – 6(4) v. Shri Ajay Virender Arora Room No. 1925, 19th Floor S-14, 6th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Solitaire Corporate Park Point, Mumbai – 400 021 Guru…

Smt. Bimla Devi, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3266/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3263/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Rita Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4D, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aagpr4368A] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3264/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aflpa1767N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3265/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Shobha Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aaxpc8430H] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3266/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Bimla Devi, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aadpd8240L] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…ssessment years in which search took place on the basis of regular books of account and other materials found during the course of search. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of E.N. Gopakumar v. CIT [2016] 390 ITR 131 (Ker.). 18 I.T.A. Nos.3263-3266/Chny/19 9. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The facts born out from the record are that in this case, search operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 18.12.2012. It is an admitted fact on record that the assess…

Smt. Shobha Agarwal, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3 (2), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3265/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3263/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Rita Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4D, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aagpr4368A] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3264/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aflpa1767N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3265/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Shobha Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aaxpc8430H] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3266/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Bimla Devi, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aadpd8240L] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…ssessment years in which search took place on the basis of regular books of account and other materials found during the course of search. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of E.N. Gopakumar v. CIT [2016] 390 ITR 131 (Ker.). 18 I.T.A. Nos.3263-3266/Chny/19 9. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The facts born out from the record are that in this case, search operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 18.12.2012. It is an admitted fact on record that the assess…

Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3264/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3263/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Rita Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4D, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aagpr4368A] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3264/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aflpa1767N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3265/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Shobha Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aaxpc8430H] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3266/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Bimla Devi, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aadpd8240L] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…ssessment years in which search took place on the basis of regular books of account and other materials found during the course of search. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of E.N. Gopakumar v. CIT [2016] 390 ITR 131 (Ker.). 18 I.T.A. Nos.3263-3266/Chny/19 9. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The facts born out from the record are that in this case, search operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 18.12.2012. It is an admitted fact on record that the assess…

Smt. Rita Agarwal, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3 (2), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3263/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3263/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Rita Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4D, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aagpr4368A] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3264/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aflpa1767N] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3265/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Shobha Agarwal, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aaxpc8430H] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3266/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 Smt. Bimla Devi, The Deputy Commissioner Of 4E, Heritage Apartments, Orms Road, Vs. Income Tax, Kilapauk, Chennai 600 010. Central Circle 3(2), [Pan:Aadpd8240L] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Vivekanandan, CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…ssessment years in which search took place on the basis of regular books of account and other materials found during the course of search. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of E.N. Gopakumar v. CIT [2016] 390 ITR 131 (Ker.). 18 I.T.A. Nos.3263-3266/Chny/19 9. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The facts born out from the record are that in this case, search operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 18.12.2012. It is an admitted fact on record that the assess…

DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. M/S Silvertoss Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 86/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 86/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13. cuke Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, M/s.Silvertoss Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Central Circle, 29 A, Weston Street, Ajmer. Kolkata. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AALCS 2755 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent C.O. No. 5/JP/2022 (Arising in vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 86/J…

Smt. V.Prremalatha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 27/CHNY/2012[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

…by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.07.2018 which is reported at 96 Taxmann.com 468. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, drawing attention to the statutory provisions of Sec.153A relied on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of E.N.Gopakumar V/s CIT (75 Taxmann.com 215; 03.10.2016) which has taken a contrary view by relying upon its earlier decision in CIT V/s St. Francis Clay Décor Tiles (70 Taxmann.com 234; 22.03.2016). ITA Nos.21 to 27/Chny/2012 Our findings and Adjudication 4. Upon careful consideration of factual matrix as enumerated in preceding paragraphs, the undisputed position that emerges is…

Smt. V.Prremalatha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 26/CHNY/2012[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

…by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.07.2018 which is reported at 96 Taxmann.com 468. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, drawing attention to the statutory provisions of Sec.153A relied on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of E.N.Gopakumar V/s CIT (75 Taxmann.com 215; 03.10.2016) which has taken a contrary view by relying upon its earlier decision in CIT V/s St. Francis Clay Décor Tiles (70 Taxmann.com 234; 22.03.2016). ITA Nos.21 to 27/Chny/2012 Our findings and Adjudication 4. Upon careful consideration of factual matrix as enumerated in preceding paragraphs, the undisputed position that emerges is…

Smt. V.Prremalatha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 25/CHNY/2012[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

…by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.07.2018 which is reported at 96 Taxmann.com 468. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, drawing attention to the statutory provisions of Sec.153A relied on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of E.N.Gopakumar V/s CIT (75 Taxmann.com 215; 03.10.2016) which has taken a contrary view by relying upon its earlier decision in CIT V/s St. Francis Clay Décor Tiles (70 Taxmann.com 234; 22.03.2016). ITA Nos.21 to 27/Chny/2012 Our findings and Adjudication 4. Upon careful consideration of factual matrix as enumerated in preceding paragraphs, the undisputed position that emerges is…

Smt. V.Prremalatha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 24/CHNY/2012[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2004-2005

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

…by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.07.2018 which is reported at 96 Taxmann.com 468. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, drawing attention to the statutory provisions of Sec.153A relied on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of E.N.Gopakumar V/s CIT (75 Taxmann.com 215; 03.10.2016) which has taken a contrary view by relying upon its earlier decision in CIT V/s St. Francis Clay Décor Tiles (70 Taxmann.com 234; 22.03.2016). ITA Nos.21 to 27/Chny/2012 Our findings and Adjudication 4. Upon careful consideration of factual matrix as enumerated in preceding paragraphs, the undisputed position that emerges is…

Smt. V.Prremalatha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 23/CHNY/2012[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2003-2004

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

…by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.07.2018 which is reported at 96 Taxmann.com 468. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, drawing attention to the statutory provisions of Sec.153A relied on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of E.N.Gopakumar V/s CIT (75 Taxmann.com 215; 03.10.2016) which has taken a contrary view by relying upon its earlier decision in CIT V/s St. Francis Clay Décor Tiles (70 Taxmann.com 234; 22.03.2016). ITA Nos.21 to 27/Chny/2012 Our findings and Adjudication 4. Upon careful consideration of factual matrix as enumerated in preceding paragraphs, the undisputed position that emerges is…

Smt. V.Prremalatha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 22/CHNY/2012[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2002-2003

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

…by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.07.2018 which is reported at 96 Taxmann.com 468. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, drawing attention to the statutory provisions of Sec.153A relied on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of E.N.Gopakumar V/s CIT (75 Taxmann.com 215; 03.10.2016) which has taken a contrary view by relying upon its earlier decision in CIT V/s St. Francis Clay Décor Tiles (70 Taxmann.com 234; 22.03.2016). ITA Nos.21 to 27/Chny/2012 Our findings and Adjudication 4. Upon careful consideration of factual matrix as enumerated in preceding paragraphs, the undisputed position that emerges is…

Smt. V.Prremalatha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 21/CHNY/2012[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2022AY 2001-2002

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate ) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Karthick Ranganathan

Section 132Section 132ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234BSection 234C

…by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 02.07.2018 which is reported at 96 Taxmann.com 468. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, drawing attention to the statutory provisions of Sec.153A relied on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of E.N.Gopakumar V/s CIT (75 Taxmann.com 215; 03.10.2016) which has taken a contrary view by relying upon its earlier decision in CIT V/s St. Francis Clay Décor Tiles (70 Taxmann.com 234; 22.03.2016). ITA Nos.21 to 27/Chny/2012 Our findings and Adjudication 4. Upon careful consideration of factual matrix as enumerated in preceding paragraphs, the undisputed position that emerges is…

M/S. Subhash Stone Industries (P) Ltd., Nainital vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 141/ALLD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad19 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…on 153A. Once again, this issue came to be decided similarly by the Hon’ble Allahabad jurisdictional High Court in CIT & Ors. vs. Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar Sahson & Ors. (2016) 97 CCH 0377 (All HC). The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in E.N. Gopakumar vs. CIT (2016) 390 ITR 131 (Ker) was confronted with the similar issue in which the assessee relied on the judgments favouring it including Kabul Chawla (supra) and Continental Warehousing Corporation (supra). The Hon’ble High Court preferred to go with the view against the assessee. 7.5. On going through the above position, it is lucid that there are two schools of though…

The ACIT, Central Circle-1(2)., Ahmedabad vs. Pawan Satynarayan Jalan, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 204/AHD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 158B

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’A’’BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sr. Asstt. Name of Name of ITA/IT(SS)A No. Year Appellant Respondent Pawan Satyanarain Jalan, 275, New Cloth Market, A.C.I.T., IT(SS)A Outside Raipur gate, Circle-1(2), 1. No.134/Ahd/2021 2018-19 Raipur, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad- 380002. PAN:AAVPJ9612Q Pawan Satyanarain Jalan, 275, New Cloth Market, Outside Raipur A.C.I.T., ITA No. 2019-20 gate, Raipur, Circle-1(2), 2. 182/Ahd/2021 Ahmedabad-…

E.N. Gopakumar v. CIT

What is E.N. Gopakumar v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing E.N. Gopakumar v. CIT

ACIT Central Circle 2 (1), Chennai vs. M/S Mohan Breweries & Distilleries Ltd, Chennai

ACIT Central Circle 2 (1), Chennai vs. M/S Mohan Breweries & Distilleries Ltd, Chennai

M/S Mohan Breweries & Distilleries Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 2 (1), Chennai

Sri Rathan Babulal Lath, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

DCIT Central Circle-15, New Delhi vs. Sudha Nagar, New Delhi

Shri Ajay Virendra Arora, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-6(4), Mumbai

Smt. Bimla Devi, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Chennai

Smt. Shobha Agarwal, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3 (2), Chennai

Shri Pankaj Agarwal, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Chennai

Smt. Rita Agarwal, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3 (2), Chennai

DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. M/S Silvertoss Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Smt. V.Prremalatha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Smt. V.Prremalatha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Smt. V.Prremalatha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Smt. V.Prremalatha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Smt. V.Prremalatha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Smt. V.Prremalatha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Smt. V.Prremalatha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

M/S. Subhash Stone Industries (P) Ltd., Nainital vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

The ACIT, Central Circle-1(2)., Ahmedabad vs. Pawan Satynarayan Jalan, Ahmedabad