MALPE VISHWANATH ACHARYA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER. 365 32

9 SCC 1Supreme Court of India2018#121 most cited
532

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2006 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 144Section 37(1)Section 133(6)Section 201Section 201(1A)Section 44AB

Issues it is cited on

section 264asection 44aasection 264section 192section 17section 251(1)section 251(1)(a)assessee in defaultsection 201(1)section 251section 201section 44ab

Judgments citing MALPE VISHWANATH ACHARYA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER. 365 32

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Aathmika Holdings Pvt Ltd, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed and the

ITA 836/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(x)Section 92C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.836/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 & Cross-Objection No.38/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 v. The DCIT, M/s. Aathmika – Central Circle-2(2), Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. No.10, Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Nagar, Thoraipakkam, Chennai-600 097. [PAN: ABDCS 5539 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent/Cross- Objector) Department…

Satish Narayan Tarale, Belgavi vs. Intl.Taxation Ward, Panaji

ITA 55/PAN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 055/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Satish Narayan Tarale 35, Laxmi Narayan Niwas, 2Nd Stage, Hanuman Nagar, Belgaum-590001. Pan : Afkpt0032Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 11/06/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenges Din & Order No Itba/Ast/F/144/2024- 25/1072202908(1) Dt. 15/01/2025 Passed By The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] U/S 144 R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Anent To Assessment Year 2019-20 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 148Section 253(6)Section 3Section 4Section 6(6)Section 69A

…that, the limit of escaped income set in section 149 of the Act is excluding the amount of BEL embedded in section 139(1)(b) of the Act. By application of stricter interpretation of law laid by Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘CoC(I) Mumbai Vs Dilip kumar & Co’ [2018, 9 SCC 1 (SC)] we say so because if the limit of escaped income set in 149 of the Act is considered to be inclusive of BEL, then it would be granting of blanket license to the Revenue to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act invariably against all individual (for their failure to file return) in the grip of escapement who may not have earned even a ‘penny’ over & a…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Patto Plaza vs. Esteem Industries Private Limited, Plot

ITA 253/PAN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavankumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Mahendra Sanghvi [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 250Section 253Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVANKUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 253/PAN/2024 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji, Goa. ................................................... Appellant V/s Esteem Industries Pvt. Ltd. 76-77, Pissurlem Industrial Estate, Pissurlem, Goa-403530. PAN : AAACE9474F ........................................................ Respondent Appearances Assessee by : Mr Mahendra Sanghvi [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclus…

Emerging India Focus Funds, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 1(2)(2), Delhi

ITA 1963/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…d in Article 13(3A) or the Article 13(3A) should have used the term gains on alienation of shares directly or indirectly. • In this connection, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs M/s Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors. (2018) 9 SCC 1 held that while interpreting taxation statute, there is no room for searching intendment nor drawing any presumption. Relevant extract of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruling is reproduced below: "Indeed, it is well settled that in a taxation statute, there is no room for any intendment; that regard must be had to the clear meaning of the words and that…

Hemkunt Foundations, Gurugram vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) -1, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed and the Stay

ITA 631/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 & Stay Application No.329Del/2024 ( In Ita No. 631/Del/2024 ) Assessment Year: 2021-22 Hemkunt Foundations, Vs. Principal Commissioner Plot No.809, Second Floor, Income Tax, Rd 42, Sector 42, Central-1, Gurugram, Haryana New Delhi Pin: 122 002 Pan No. Aaath8443C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Kapoor, SumitFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Agarwal, Special Counsel and Shivansh Pandya, Jr. Standing
Section 12ASection 133ASection 143(2)Section 80G

…cer. Transferor officers lose jurisdiction from the date of order u/s 127. Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court judgement in CIT Vs Sahara India Financial Corp Ltd (2007) 294 ITR 363 (Del) has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT Vs ABC Papers Ltd (2022) 9 SCC 1, with a minor modification not relevant for our present purpose. [Para 36, 42]. Hon'ble Supreme Court held that transfer u/s 127 cannot change the jurisdiction of ITAT and High Court, but can change the jurisdiction of Statutory Income Tax Authorities ie AO, CIT/PCIT, CIT(A). In other words, if Appeal has already been filed before ITAT or High Court…

Shri Anantanath Alpasankhyatar Vividh Uddeshagal Souhard Sahakari Sangh Niy, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 6/PAN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 006/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Anantanath Alpasankhyatar Vivid Uddheshagal Souhardha Sahakari Sangh Niyamit [‘Saavusssn’] 1738, Anantnath Building, Jain Galli, Main Rd., Kannur Niyamit Kalloli, Kalloli, Belagavi. Pan : Aagts1962B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Gokak, Belagavi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Sachin Nichal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Deshmukh Prakash [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 02/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/06/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Is Filed Against Din & Order 1070608483(1) Dt. 25/11/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Penalty Dt. 23/03/2022 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act By The National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi [‘Ld. Nfeac’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2009-10 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Sachin Nichal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Deshmukh Prakash [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(4)

…ed out. Taking a benefit of doubt the Ld. AO framed the assessment. This finds fortified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘CCE Vs Calcutta Springs’ [2008, 229 ELT 161(SC)] which has been followed subsequently in landmark judgement ‘CoC Vs Dilip Kumar & Co’ [2018, 9 SCC 1 (SC)]. However, in respect of penalty in fiscal laws the principle followed is akin to principle adhered in criminal cases. That is to say the benefit of doubt is more easily given to the assessee, and this proposition found well expounded in ‘V V Iyer Vs CC’ [1999, 110 ELT 414 (SC)]. 12. The appeal in result stands ALLOWED. In terms of rule 34 of I…

Himalayan Buddhist Cultural Association, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2299/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2023-24 Himalayan Buddhist Cultural Vs. Income Tax Officer, Association, New Delhi B-4, Ladakh Buddhist Vihara, Tarav Devi Colony, Bela Road, New Delhi Pan : Aaath1948L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. R.S. Singhvi, Ca Sh. Rajat Garg, Ca Department By Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 11(3)Section 11(3)(c)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…C). 5. It is further made clear that there is no stipulation in the amended statutory proviso that all previous accumulations would be hit by the same; and, therefore, I hereby hold stricter interpretation in light of Commissioner Vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 (FB)(SC) to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ respective action. Ordered accordingly. 4 | P a g e 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd June, 2025 (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 3rd June, 2025. RK/-…

Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar vs. ITO, Exemption, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2225/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year 2018-19]

Section 10Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151

…7176 of 2022. “6.9. Viewed in aforesaid perspective, Section 10(23C)(iiiab) of the IT Act is not generally exempt qua the petitioner- College….. In case of ambiguity, the benefit tilts in favour of Revenue as laid down in Dilip Kumar and Company & Ors. (2018) 9 SCC 1 = 2018 SCC OnLine SC 747 = 2018 (361) ELT 577 (SC).” 6. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was no condition of filing of return of income in the Act to claim the exemption u/s 10(23C) of the Act. He submitted that for claiming the exemption u/s 10(23C)(iiiab) of the…

Balkishan Rathi, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2786/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2016-17 Sh. Balkishan Rathi, Vs. Acit, H. No. 10, Rajpur Khurd, Central Circle-14, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Afkpr6580F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153CSection 292CSection 69C

…the seized material under section 292C is concerned, the same admittedly applies only to the searched parties than a third person under sub-section (1) thereof and in light of stricter interpretation going by Commissioner vs. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors. [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB). This indeed is coupled with the fact that the learned lower authorities have solely gone by the statement of Mr. Prateek Nagpal than having got substantiated the same by way of due corroboration as per the relevant material. And also that the assessee has further not been granted any opportunity to cross-examine the above searched person a…

Shri Sajadiali Sardar Patel Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd., Rajkot vs. The ITO Ward-2(1)(2), Rajkot.

ITA 607/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.607/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Sajadiali Sardar Patel Seva Ito Ward-2, (1) (2) Vs. Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Rajkot – 360001 At Sajadiyali – Rajkot New Aayakar Bhavan, At Sajadiyali Taluka, Race Course Ring Road, Jamkandorana, Dist, Rajkot – 360001 Sajadiyali – Rajkot 360001 Gujrat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas2374L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28 / 01 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22 / 04/2025

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80PSection 84

…ITA NO. 607-RJT-2024 SHRI SAJADIALI SARDAR PATEL SEWA SAHKARI MANDALI, RAJKOT - 360001 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM. & DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.607/RJT/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Sajadiali Sardar Patel Seva ITO Ward-2, (1) (2) Vs. Sahkari Mandali Ltd. Rajkot – 360001 At Sajadiyali – Rajkot New Aayakar bhavan, At Sajadiyali Taluka, Race Course Ring Road, Jamkandorana, Dist, Rajkot – 360001 Sajadiyali – Rajkot 360001 Gujrat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAAAS2374L (Appellant) (Respondent) A…

M/S Khemka Stuart Leisure Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 6376/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. Acit, M/S. Snerea Developers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-9, C/O- Bgjc & Associates, Raj New Delhi Tower, G-1, Alaknanda Community Centre, New Delhi Pan:Aajcs5849K (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Snerea Developers Pvt. Central Circle-18, Ltd., New Delhi 301, Bakshi House, 40-41, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan:Aajcs5849K (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/S. Dcit, Sohna Technobuild Central Circle-18, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 301, Bakshi House, 40-41, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan:Aakcs8148N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. ACIT, M/s. Snerea Developers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-9, C/o- BGJC & Associates, Raj New Delhi Tower, G-1, Alaknanda Community Centre, New Delhi PAN:AAJCS5849K (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 DCIT, Vs. M/s. Snerea Developers Pvt. Central Circle-18, Ltd., New Delhi 301, Bakshi House, 40-41, Nehru Place, New Delhi PAN:AAJCS5849K (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/s. DCIT, Sohna Tech…

M/S Khemka Stuart Leisure Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 6375/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. Acit, M/S. Snerea Developers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-9, C/O- Bgjc & Associates, Raj New Delhi Tower, G-1, Alaknanda Community Centre, New Delhi Pan:Aajcs5849K (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Snerea Developers Pvt. Central Circle-18, Ltd., New Delhi 301, Bakshi House, 40-41, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan:Aajcs5849K (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/S. Dcit, Sohna Technobuild Central Circle-18, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 301, Bakshi House, 40-41, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan:Aakcs8148N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. ACIT, M/s. Snerea Developers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-9, C/o- BGJC & Associates, Raj New Delhi Tower, G-1, Alaknanda Community Centre, New Delhi PAN:AAJCS5849K (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 DCIT, Vs. M/s. Snerea Developers Pvt. Central Circle-18, Ltd., New Delhi 301, Bakshi House, 40-41, Nehru Place, New Delhi PAN:AAJCS5849K (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/s. DCIT, Sohna Tech…

M/S Snerea Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 6330/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. Acit, M/S. Snerea Developers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-9, C/O- Bgjc & Associates, Raj New Delhi Tower, G-1, Alaknanda Community Centre, New Delhi Pan:Aajcs5849K (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Snerea Developers Pvt. Central Circle-18, Ltd., New Delhi 301, Bakshi House, 40-41, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan:Aajcs5849K (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/S. Dcit, Sohna Technobuild Central Circle-18, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 301, Bakshi House, 40-41, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan:Aakcs8148N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. ACIT, M/s. Snerea Developers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-9, C/o- BGJC & Associates, Raj New Delhi Tower, G-1, Alaknanda Community Centre, New Delhi PAN:AAJCS5849K (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 DCIT, Vs. M/s. Snerea Developers Pvt. Central Circle-18, Ltd., New Delhi 301, Bakshi House, 40-41, Nehru Place, New Delhi PAN:AAJCS5849K (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/s. DCIT, Sohna Tech…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Snerea Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6237/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. Acit, M/S. Snerea Developers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-9, C/O- Bgjc & Associates, Raj New Delhi Tower, G-1, Alaknanda Community Centre, New Delhi Pan:Aajcs5849K (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dcit, Vs. M/S. Snerea Developers Pvt. Central Circle-18, Ltd., New Delhi 301, Bakshi House, 40-41, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan:Aajcs5849K (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/S. Dcit, Sohna Technobuild Central Circle-18, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 301, Bakshi House, 40-41, Nehru Place, New Delhi Pan:Aakcs8148N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 153C(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. ACIT, M/s. Snerea Developers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-9, C/o- BGJC & Associates, Raj New Delhi Tower, G-1, Alaknanda Community Centre, New Delhi PAN:AAJCS5849K (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 DCIT, Vs. M/s. Snerea Developers Pvt. Central Circle-18, Ltd., New Delhi 301, Bakshi House, 40-41, Nehru Place, New Delhi PAN:AAJCS5849K (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vs. M/s. DCIT, Sohna Tech…

Santosh Ashokrao Barhanpurkar, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2132/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…of income in consequence of any mis-reporting” thereof; as prescribed sub-sec. (9) containing (a) to (f) clauses. Faced with this situation, I adopt stricter interpretation as per Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar And Co. & Ors. [2018] 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) and conclude that these twin penalties for assessment years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 also deserve to be deleted. Ordered accordingly.” 10. Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal (supra), wherein under similar/ identical situation the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted, we direct the AO to delete the penalty of Rs.36…

ACIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncc Hes Jv, Madhapur

ITA 689/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ce to say, such a course of liberal interpretation is no more available while dealing with the Income Tax Act's provisions as per honourable apex court's recent constitutional bench's decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Dilip Kumar and Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 settling the law that a fiscal statute as well as an exemption clause incorporated therein ought to be construed in stricter parlance only. Their lordships make it clear that benefit of doubt in case of taxing provision goes to the tax payer and vice versa in an instance of an exemption provision. The assessee's first argument is rejected therefore.…

ACIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncc Hes Jv, Madhapur

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 688/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ce to say, such a course of liberal interpretation is no more available while dealing with the Income Tax Act's provisions as per honourable apex court's recent constitutional bench's decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Dilip Kumar and Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 settling the law that a fiscal statute as well as an exemption clause incorporated therein ought to be construed in stricter parlance only. Their lordships make it clear that benefit of doubt in case of taxing provision goes to the tax payer and vice versa in an instance of an exemption provision. The assessee's first argument is rejected therefore.…

ACIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Ncc Hes Jv, Hyderabad

ITA 682/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S. Ramarao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…ce to say, such a course of liberal interpretation is no more available while dealing with the Income Tax Act's provisions as per honourable apex court's recent constitutional bench's decision in Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Dilip Kumar and Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 settling the law that a fiscal statute as well as an exemption clause incorporated therein ought to be construed in stricter parlance only. Their lordships make it clear that benefit of doubt in case of taxing provision goes to the tax payer and vice versa in an instance of an exemption provision. The assessee's first argument is rejected therefore.…

G.H.R. Education Foundation, Nagpur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

ITA 615/NAG/2024[--]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10Section 366Section 8Section 80G

…t when the words in a statute are clear, plain and unambiguous and only one meaning can be inferred, the courts are bound to give effect to the said meaning irrespective of consequences. If the words in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip (2018) 9 SCC 1. ETAX DEPAR Kumar and Company &Ors..the statute are plain and unambiguous, it becomes necessary to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words used declare the intention of the legislature". The Court, while noting the nuances between 'strict' and 'literal' interpretation, held as follows: "29....We may reiterate at the cost of…

G. H. R. Education Foundation, Nagpur vs. CIT Exemption, Pune

ITA 538/NAG/2024[0]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10Section 366Section 8Section 80G

…t when the words in a statute are clear, plain and unambiguous and only one meaning can be inferred, the courts are bound to give effect to the said meaning irrespective of consequences. If the words in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip (2018) 9 SCC 1. ETAX DEPAR Kumar and Company &Ors..the statute are plain and unambiguous, it becomes necessary to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words used declare the intention of the legislature". The Court, while noting the nuances between 'strict' and 'literal' interpretation, held as follows: "29....We may reiterate at the cost of…