Hari Narain Gattani v. DCIT

123 Taxmann.com 8Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2021#6600 most cited
18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Hari Narain Gattani v. DCIT

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. MADANLAL LALCHAND JAIN, NANDURBAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1572/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69B

…nder these circumstances, we have to see as to whether the provisions of sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act are to be attracted or not. 13. We find the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hari Narain Gattani vs. DCIT (2021) 186 ITD 434 (Jaipur – Trib.) has held that where the assessee surrenders undisclosed income during search action for relevant year, it is not necessary that tax rate has to be charged as per provision of section 115BBE. 14. We find the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Sons Ltd. vs. DCIT (2021) 190 ITD 128 (Chandigarh – Trib.) has held th…

MADANLAL LALCHAND JAIN,NANDURBAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1404/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69B

…nder these circumstances, we have to see as to whether the provisions of sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act are to be attracted or not. 13. We find the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hari Narain Gattani vs. DCIT (2021) 186 ITD 434 (Jaipur – Trib.) has held that where the assessee surrenders undisclosed income during search action for relevant year, it is not necessary that tax rate has to be charged as per provision of section 115BBE. 14. We find the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Sons Ltd. vs. DCIT (2021) 190 ITD 128 (Chandigarh – Trib.) has held th…

MADANLAL LALCHAND JAIN,NANDURBAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1403/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69B

…nder these circumstances, we have to see as to whether the provisions of sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act are to be attracted or not. 13. We find the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hari Narain Gattani vs. DCIT (2021) 186 ITD 434 (Jaipur – Trib.) has held that where the assessee surrenders undisclosed income during search action for relevant year, it is not necessary that tax rate has to be charged as per provision of section 115BBE. 14. We find the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Sons Ltd. vs. DCIT (2021) 190 ITD 128 (Chandigarh – Trib.) has held th…

RAMASAMY SENTHILKUMAR,SALEM vs. ITO , WARD - 1 (3), SALEM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 986/CHNY/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Chny/2022 िनधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ramasamy Senthilkumar, The Income Tax Officer, 76/466, Rajaji Street, Ward-1(3), Suramangalam, Vs. Salem Salem-636 005. [Pan: Aqppk-1526-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate(Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2023 : 16.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate(Erode)For Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115BSection 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 68

…at the AO cannot amend the rate of tax by invoking section 115BBE of the Act as it is a debatable issue. He also relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court of India in :- 4 -: 82 ITR 50 (SC) and the decisions of other Tribunals [205 TTJ (Jd) 810; 186 ITD 434/123 taxmann.com. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the decision of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and are of the view that, the appeal of the assessee has to be rejected. The assessee is aggrieved due to the application of special rate of tax on the added amount of Rs. 2,46,896/-. We notice that…