Elphinstone Picture Palace Vs Union of India & Anr (Pat) 74 ITR 115 (v) H.A. Nanji & Co. v. ITO (Cal)

158 ITR 174High Court1986#16839 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 159(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Judgments citing Elphinstone Picture Palace Vs Union of India & Anr (Pat) 74 ITR 115 (v) H.A. Nanji & Co. v. ITO (Cal)

Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 338/CHANDI/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…ivasa Khandasari Udyog Vs ITO (ITAT, Bang) 56 TD 146 (iii) ITO Vs Purushotam Das Bangur & Anr (SC) 224 ITR 362 (iv) Elphinstone Picture Palace Vs Union of India & Anr (Pat) 74 ITR 115 (v) H.A. Nanji & Co. Vs ITO (Cal) 120 ITR 593 (vi) Sohan Singh Vs CIT (Del) 158 ITR 174 (vii) Rattan Gupta Vs CIT (P&H) 234 ITR 220 Similarly, information received from other agencies like CIB, Enforcement Directorate or from other Assessing Officers constitute material for reopening of assessment and notice issued u/s 148 in these circumstances is also valid. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:- i) CGT V…

Sh. Dinesh Sethi, Ludhiana vs. ITO, Ludhiana

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 376/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…ivasa Khandasari Udyog Vs ITO (ITAT, Bang) 56 TD 146 (iii) ITO Vs Purushotam Das Bangur & Anr (SC) 224 ITR 362 (iv) Elphinstone Picture Palace Vs Union of India & Anr (Pat) 74 ITR 115 (v) H.A. Nanji & Co. Vs ITO (Cal) 120 ITR 593 (vi) Sohan Singh Vs CIT (Del) 158 ITR 174 (vii) Rattan Gupta Vs CIT (P&H) 234 ITR 220 Similarly, information received from other agencies like CIB, Enforcement Directorate or from other Assessing Officers constitute material for reopening of assessment and notice issued u/s 148 in these circumstances is also valid. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:- i) CGT V…

The ACIT Cen Cir-13, Mumbai vs. Shri Suresh V. Jain, Mumbai

Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5091/MUM/2007[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5091/Mum/2007 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri L. K. S. DehiyaFor Respondent: ShriRajiv Khandelwal
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…Protective Addition does not depend on Substantive addition preceding it: 1. The argument that there can be no protective addition unless there is a substantive addition first has been rejected by the Delhi high Court in the case of Sohan Singh vs CIT 119861 158 ITR 174 (Delhi). In this case the AO of a Firm found that the income should belong to a third person ShSohan Singh, who was not assessed with him. Therefore, the AO simply assessed theFirm on a protective basis. Subsequently the concerned AO of Sohan Singh took action u/s 147 and made additions to income in his hands. The High Court has confirmed the act…

M/S Kunal Calcium Limited, Yamunanagar vs. DCIT, Yamunanagar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/CHANDI/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Feb 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ankur Alya, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 148Section 250(6)

…asa Khandasari Udyog Vs. ITO (ITAT, Bang) 56 ITD 146. ii ITO Vs. Purushotam Das Bangur & Anr. (SC) 224 ITR 362 iii) Elphinstone Picture Palace Vs. Union of India & Anr (Pat) 74 ITR 115 iv) H.A. Nanji & Co.Vs. ITO (Cai) 120 ITR 593 v) Sohan Singh Vs. CIT (Del) 158 ITR 174 vi) Rattan Gupta Vs. CIT (P&H) 234 ITR 220” 7 . W e h a v e h e a r d t h e r i v a l c o n t e n t i o n s c a r e f u l l y a n d p e r u s e d t h e o r d e r s o f t h e a u t h o r i t i e s b e l o w . I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e a s i s c l e a r l y e v i d e n t f r o m t h e c o p y o f r e a s o n s r e c o r d e d , p l a c e d…

M/S Jindal Aluminium Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 919/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Harinder Kumar, CIT(A)-3
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 80

…rmation, but merely proceeds to reopen the original assessment without any fresh facts or materials or without any enquiry into the materials which form part of the original assessment, section 34(1)(b) would have no application. ii) Sohan Singh Vs CIT (1986) 158 ITR 174(Delhi) In the instant case, the assessee had not disclosed to the ITO his connection with the business of the firm. In the light of the information received by him, the ITO had reason to believe that this business belonged to the assessee and as such he had also reason to believe that the income therefrom had escaped assessment in the hands of th…

Elphinstone Picture Palace Vs Union of India & Anr (Pat) 74 ITR 115 (v) H.A. Nanji & Co. v. ITO (Cal) (158 ITR 174) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax