Krishnamurthy v. DCIT

473 ITR 557Supreme Court of India2025#18479 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271AAASection 132Section 132(1)Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 271aaasection 271aasection 271asection 132(1)documents seizedsection 274chief commissionersection 132(4)undisclosed incomesection 271section 27search and seizure

Judgments citing Krishnamurthy v. DCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. GAURAV DALMIA, DELHI

In the result, additional ground 1 under Rule 27 of the assessee is

ITA 4162/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 69A

…addition in respect of transfer of entire shares of 6793430 shares in the hands of the appellant (kindly see finding of ld CIT (A) page 75 para 93). 4. That further, reliance placed by learned CIT DR on the judgment of K. Krishnamurthy vs DCIT reported in 473 ITR 557 in misconceived as the same is clearly distinguishable on the facts of the assessee, since the said judgment dealt with issue of penalty under section 271AAA(2) of the Act, wherein, in that case the assessee admitted undisclosed income and paid taxes thereon, however, in the case of assessee the additions have been made by learned AO purely o…

STAR DELTA TRANSFORMERS LTD,GOVINDPURA BHOPAL vs. ACIT/DCIT 1(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 124/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2011-12 Star Delta Transformers Acit/Dcit 1(1) Ltd., Bhopal 92-A Industrial Area बनाम/ Govindpura, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaccs0399D Assessee By Shri Anil Khabya, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 271A

…itted that the assessee must be given benefit of sub-section (2) of section 271AAA when the tax has been paid by assessee though belatedly. He submitted that identical situation has already been decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Krishnamurthy Vs. DCIT 473 ITR 557 (SC) and this bench must follow the same. Page 7 of 13 Star Delta Transformer Ltd. ITA No. 124/Ind/2025 – AY 2011-12 10. We have considered rival contentions of both sides and perused the orders of lower-authorities as well as the material held on record to which attention has been drawn. As narrated earlier, the grievance of assessee which c…

HITESHI LEASING AND HOUSING PVT LTD,NEW DELHO vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD

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

ITA 4620/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarhiteshi Leasing & Housing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 1, Yogi Associates, Faridabad. E – 335, East Of Kailash, New Delhi – 110 005. (Pan : Aaach8298J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pushpdeep Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Order : 15.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Gurgaon-3 [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 04.081.2024 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “(A) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Assessing Officer & Cit(A), While Passing The Order Erred In: A. Passing The Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2015 U/S 153A Despite The Fact The Assessee Was Not Searched & The Assessee Was Issued Notice Under Section 153C On 29.1 1.2013. This Is A Jurisdictional Error

For Appellant: Shri Pushpdeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR
Section 131Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

…ted that the incriminating 9 material found during the search in the case of Bestech Group is in fact incriminating material found relating to the assessee and he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Krishnamurthy vs. DCIT (2025) 473 ITR 557 (SC) and he drew our attention para 41 of the order, submitted that the incriminating document found in the case of search is of wide amplitude. It does not mean document found in the assessee’s premises alone during the search. At times search of an assessee leads to search of another individual and/or further investigation/interrogation of thir…

BHAGYA KALITA,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 257/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271A

…by the Ld. AO. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. AR has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Krishnamurthy vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2025] 171 taxmann.com 413 (SC)/[2025] 303 Taxman 499 (SC)/[2025] 473 ITR 557 (SC)[13-02-2025], specifically paras 31, 34, 35 extracted as under, in support of the claim that the penalty was not leviable: “31. This Court is of the view that though under Section 271AAA(1) of the Act 1961, the Assessing Officer has the discretion to levy penalty, yet this discretionary power is not unfettered, unbridled and uncanalised. Disc…

BHAGYA KALITA,GUWAHATI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 256/GTY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 250Section 271A

…by the Ld. AO. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. AR has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Krishnamurthy vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2025] 171 taxmann.com 413 (SC)/[2025] 303 Taxman 499 (SC)/[2025] 473 ITR 557 (SC)[13-02-2025], specifically paras 31, 34, 35 extracted as under, in support of the claim that the penalty was not leviable: “31. This Court is of the view that though under Section 271AAA(1) of the Act 1961, the Assessing Officer has the discretion to levy penalty, yet this discretionary power is not unfettered, unbridled and uncanalised. Disc…