L/H Mrs. Ranjana Katyal v. DCIT

308 ITR 168High Court2009#1760 most cited

What is L/H Mrs. Ranjana Katyal v. DCIT authority for?

A reference for assessment years preceding the commencement of a search protocol is invalid, and no extended limitation period can be applied.

64

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mrs. Ranjana Katyal v. DCIT · 308 ITR 168 · section 132(3) · section 153B · assessment years · search protocol · limitation

Sections most often in play

Section 153BSection 132(3)Section 132(8A)Section 153ASection 115BBESection 68Section 69CSection 250

Issues it is cited on

section 132(3)section 132(5)section 158besection 153b(1)(a)section 132(2)section 65(b)section 292ccsection 80ia(4)(iii)section 153(1)(a)section 142(2c)section 65asection 62

Judgments citing L/H Mrs. Ranjana Katyal v. DCIT

Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane vs. Salasar Developers, Thane

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4513/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…on so searched within the time stipulated u/s 153B of the Act. Even Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of MDLR Resorts Private Limited(supra) has quoted relevant extract from decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. S. K. Katyal [2009] 308 ITR 168/177 Taxman 380(Delhi) whereby the Hon’ble Court has clearly stated in para 24 that if a panchnama does not, from the facts recorded therein, reveal that a search was at all carried out on the day to which it relates, then it would not be a panchnama relating to a search and, consequently, it would not be a panchnama of the type which finds mentio…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane vs. Salasar Developers, Thane

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4512/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…on so searched within the time stipulated u/s 153B of the Act. Even Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of MDLR Resorts Private Limited(supra) has quoted relevant extract from decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. S. K. Katyal [2009] 308 ITR 168/177 Taxman 380(Delhi) whereby the Hon’ble Court has clearly stated in para 24 that if a panchnama does not, from the facts recorded therein, reveal that a search was at all carried out on the day to which it relates, then it would not be a panchnama relating to a search and, consequently, it would not be a panchnama of the type which finds mentio…

Asst CIT Cir 2, Thane vs. Salasar Developers, Thane

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4511/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 132Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…on so searched within the time stipulated u/s 153B of the Act. Even Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of MDLR Resorts Private Limited(supra) has quoted relevant extract from decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. S. K. Katyal [2009] 308 ITR 168/177 Taxman 380(Delhi) whereby the Hon’ble Court has clearly stated in para 24 that if a panchnama does not, from the facts recorded therein, reveal that a search was at all carried out on the day to which it relates, then it would not be a panchnama relating to a search and, consequently, it would not be a panchnama of the type which finds mentio…

Balaji Universal Tradelink P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2183/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…, we have taken finds support from the decisions of the Supreme Court in ITO v. Seth Bros. [1969] 74 ITR 836 and Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection [1974] 93 ITR 505 (SC). Reference can also be made to the decision of this court in CITv. S. K. Katyal [2009] 308 ITR 168/177 Taxman 380 wherein the expression 'panchnama' was elucidated and explained in the following words:— "15. These provisions demonstrate that a search and seizure under the said Act has to be carried out in the presence of at least two respectable inhabitants of the locality where the search and seizure is conducted. These respectable inhabitan…