K.L. Swamy Vs. CIT (Kar) 239 ITR 386, Bhairav Lal Verma v. Union of India (All)

119 ITD 362Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#18801 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing K.L. Swamy Vs. CIT (Kar) 239 ITR 386, Bhairav Lal Verma v. Union of India (All)

Gaurishankar Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 6112/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…liable for levy of penalty "Voluntarily means out of free will ie without any compulsion. It has been held in the cases of K.L. Swamy Vs. CIT (Kar) 239 ITR 386, Bhairav Lal Verma Vs Union of India (All) 230 ITR 855 and M.N. Rajaraman Vs. ACIT (ITAT, Chennai) 119 ITD 362 that if the department has incriminating material with regard to the undisclosed income, the disclosure made by the assessee cannot be considered to be voluntary. Further, in the cases of P.C. Joseph & Bros. Vs. CIT (Ker) 240 ITR 818, CIT vs. Rakesh Suri (All) 331 ITR 458 and CIT vs. Sushma Devi Agarwal (ITAT, Kol-TM) 67 DTR 430, it has been held…

Gaurishankar Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 6110/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Harmesh Lal

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Satish Saraf, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner Central Circle-4(3), Central Range-4, Mumbai

ITA 6567/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6567, 6605 & 6568/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Satish Saraf, DCIT CC 4(3), C-2201, Rustomjee Air India Building, बिधम/ Elenza, Near Inorbil Mall, Nariman Point, Vs. Mumbai 400 021 Malad (W), Mumbai-400 064 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAGPS5830G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri A. K. Ghosh, AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 27.11.2019 Date of Hearin…

M. Veerabhadraiah, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeals for A

ITA 345/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2015AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri K. Venugopala Raju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…the details of cash and immovable property investments found through departmental action could not be considered as “voluntary” i.e. without any compulsion. The decision n case of Bairavlal Verma Vs. Union of India 230 ITR 855 (All.) and MN Rajaraman Vs. ACIT 119 ITD 362 (ITAT Chennai) supports this conclusion. In the appellant’s case I am, therefore, convinced that the incomes returned, whether under Section 139(1) or under Section 139(4), following survey operations, resulted from the incriminating evidence already in the possession of the department. These returns, therefore, cannot be considered as ‘voluntary…