How many judgments cite Ketan B. Mehta v. ACIT?

29 judgments on BharatTax cite Ketan B. Mehta v. ACIT (348 ITR 325), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Ketan B. Mehta v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 10(38), Section 127, Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 147.

Ketan B. Mehta v. ACIT

348 ITR 325High Court2012#4039 most cited

What is Ketan B. Mehta v. ACIT authority for?

The duty to disclose material facts necessary for assessment, fully and truly, is confined by Explanation 1 to the relevant section. This principle applies across various provisions of the Income-tax Act.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Ketan B. Mehta v. ACIT · 348 ITR 325 · Section 143(3) · true and full disclosure · material facts · assessment · Explanation 1 to section

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 10(38)Section 127 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147 Section 148 Section 151(2)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

test of enduring benefit section 147(b)section 35dd section 72a section 54ec section 147(a)true and full disclosure section 115jaa section 54e section 2(31)section 39 resulting company

Judgments citing Ketan B. Mehta v. ACIT

Gayatri B Shah, Baroda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3273/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar] Assessment Year : 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 54E

…ibunal holds that the facts of the present case are similar to the facts before the Tribunal in Bhikulal Chandak HUF (supra). The Revenue does not dispute the same before us. Moreover, on almost identical facts, this Court in Mrs.Parveen P. Bharucha Vs. DCIT, 348 ITR 325, held that the earnest money received on sale of asset, when invested in specified bonds under Section 54EC of the Act, is entitled to the benefit of Section 54EC of the Act. This was in the context of reopening of an assessment and reliance was placed upon CBDT Circular No. 359 dated 10th May, 1983 in the context of Section 54E of the Act. 7. M…

ITO 22(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Crescent Construction, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 865/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

…CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), e. Ipca Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), f. Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), g. Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), h. Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), i. CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.), j. Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs ITO (2013) 355 ITR 348 (Guj.), M/s Crescent Construction Co. k. B.B.C. World News Ltd. vs Asst. DIT (2014) 362 ITR 577 (Del.). 2.25. Identical ratio was laid down in CIT vs Malayala Manorma Company Ltd. (2002) 253 ITR 378 (Ker.) We think th…

Crescent Construction Co., Navi Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 22(3), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 658/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154

DCIT 1(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Intelnet Global Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7428/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit-1(2)(1), M/S Intelnet Global Services R. No.535, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Mindspace, Malad West, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P C.O. No.99/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.7428/Mum/2014) Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Intelnet Global Services Dcit-1(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd. Intelnet Towers, R. No.535, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Mindspace, Malad West, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400064 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaaci7387P

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

…vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT 30 ITA No.7428/Mum/2013 & C.O. 99/Mum/2016 M/s Intelnet Global Services Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.), Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs ITO (2013) 355 ITR 348 (Guj.), B.B.C. World News Ltd. vs Asst. DIT (2014) 362 ITR 577 (Del.). Identical ratio was laid down in CIT vs Malayala Manorma Company Ltd. (2002) 253 ITR 378 (Ker.) We think this thread runs through the various provisions o…

Asst CIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. Muimbai Stock Brokers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed”

ITA 6369/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2006-07 Acit-4(3), M/S Mumbai Stock 6Th Floor, R. No.649, बनाम/ Brokers Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, R No.10A, 1St Floor, 7/10, Vs. M.K. Road, Botwala Building, Mumbai-4020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcm4133A

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 88E

…affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), Ipica Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.), Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs ITO (2013) 355 ITR 348 (Guj.), B.B.C. World News Ltd. vs Asst. DIT (2014) 362 ITR 577 (Del.). Identical ratio was laid down in CIT vs Malayala Manorma Company Ltd. (2002) 253 ITR 378 (Ker.) We think this thread runs through the various provisions o…

Sh. Devender Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3104/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishidevender Kumar Aggarwal, Cit 1533, Ranu Bagh, New Delhi Delhi-Ix, New Delhi Vs. Pan:Aaapa1974F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Satish Khosla, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Mitali Madhusmita, CIT DR

Section 143Section 263Section 54Section 54E

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Devender Kumar Aggarwal, CIT 1533, Ranu Bagh, New Delhi Delhi-IX, New Delhi Vs. PAN:AAAPA1974F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Sh. Satish Khosla, Adv Revenue by: Ms. Mitali Madhusmita, CIT DR Date of Hearing 22/08/2016 Date of pronouncement 25/10/2016 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A)-IX New Delhi dated 11.03.2014 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The assessee has raised the foll…

M/S Om Welfare Society, Hisar vs. ITO, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1583/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…2015] 374 ITR 104 [Bombay] -C1T V. HIGH ENERGY BATTERIES (INDIA) LTD 348 ITR 574 [MAD] [2012] -MC Dowell and Co Ltd V. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148 [SC] 5 Om Welfare Society -Union of India V. Azadi Bachao Andolan [2003] 263 ITR 706 [SC] -Parveen P Bharuch V. DCIT 348 ITR 325 [Bombay] [2012] -Asian Paint Ltd V. DCIT 308 ITR 195 [Bombay] [2009] -Carntin India Ltd V. Addl. CIT 314 ITR 275 [Bombay] [2009] -CIT V. Nirma Chemicals Works P Ltd 309 ITR 67 [Guj] [2009] The Assessing Officer decline the objection merely on the ground that this proviso is applicable only in those cases where the period of four years from the en…

Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 16(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4504/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2005-06 Jayant Manilal Gandhy, Acit, Delux Apartment, Circle-16(2), बनाम/ Altamount Road, Matru Mandir Bldg. Vs. Mumbai-400026 Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Afupg3313H ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 53ESection 54ESection 56

…vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), e. Ipca Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), f. Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), g. Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), h. Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), i. CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.), 40 Jayant Manilal Gandhy j. Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs ITO (2013) 355 ITR 348 (Guj.), k. B.B.C. World News Ltd. vs Asst. DIT (2014) 362 ITR 577 (Del.). 2.26. Identical ratio was laid down in CIT vs Malayala Manorma Company Ltd. (2002) 253 ITR 378 (Ker.) We think th…

R.P. Suvarna, Mumbai vs. CIT (33), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is disposed of in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 5536/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2006-07 Mr. R. P. Suvarna, Ito-18(3)(3), No.15, Rajanigandha Apts. Mumbai बनाम/ T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Vs. Mumbai-400016 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Anbps3240G

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50C

…affirmed in CIT vs Foramer Finance (2003) 264 ITR 566, 567 (SC), Ipica Laboratories vs DCIT (2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom.), Ritu Investment Pvt. Ltd.(2012) 345 ITR 214 (Del.), Ketan B. Mehta vs ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 254 (Guj.), Ms. Praveen P. Bharucha vs DCIT (2012) 348 ITR 325 (Bom.), CIT vs Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Del.), Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs ITO (2013) 355 ITR 348 (Guj.), B.B.C. World News Ltd. vs Asst. DIT (2014) 362 ITR 577 (Del.). Identical ratio was laid down in CIT vs Malayala Manorma Company Ltd. (2002) 253 ITR 378 (Ker.) I think this thread runs through the various provisions of…