Maruthi Babu Rao Jadav v. Asstt. CIT

430 ITR 504High Court2021#10651 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 143(3)Section 69A Section 132 Section 68 Section 69 Section 132(4)Section 132(4A)

Issues it is cited on

surrender of income section 155 section 69b stamp duty value section 132(4a)loose papers section 115bb section 115b section 115bbe addition u/s 68 section 29 section 44ab

Judgments citing Maruthi Babu Rao Jadav v. Asstt. CIT

VASANTHA LAXMI VEERAPANENI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1246/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA K HanmandlooFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 143Section 147Section 154

…ectification proceedings should have been dealt with Appeal filed against Assessment Order passed U/s.147 r.w.s.144B Dt 24.03.2022. 3. The CIT(Appeals), NFAC relied on the Judgment of Honourable Kerala High Court in the case of Maruthi Baburao Jadhav vs. ACIT 430 ITR 504, which is not applicable for the Appellant and not the judgment of Jurisdictional High Court. 4. The appellant has disclosed of Rs.3,83,500/- during demonetization period. Total Income assessed was Rs.62,54,500/-, which does not include the income returned Rs.3,28,810/- where as self assessment tax paid Rs.4,590/- credit was given. There was no…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SH. TARA CHAND GUPTA, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 514/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…tax. There is no dispute regarding the applicability of section 68/69/69A etc, and section 115BBE of the Act on the merits of the additions. This issue raised by the appellant has been considered in the following judgments. MaruthiBabuRaoJadav v. ACIT [2021] 430 ITR 504 (Ker.) (WA. No. 984 of 2019) x x x x KarthickNatarajan v. DCIT, International Taxation (2023) 154 taxmann.com 136 (Chennai-Trib.)/(2023) 202 ITD 552 (Chennai- Trib.)(11.07.2023) x x x x In view of the above, the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act as amended by second amendment Act by the Taxation Laws (second amendment) Act, 2016 are appli…

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 449/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

NILESH POPATLAL GADA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4) , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1538/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

…2016. Ld.AR relied on the decision of ITAT Jabalpur’s decision in the case of CIT Vs. Sandesh Kumar Jain (supra). 9.2 The applicability of Section 115BBE has been decided by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Maruthi Babu Rao Jadhav Vs. ACIT [2021] 430 ITR 504 (Kerala HC) . The relevant 12 paragraph of the Hon’ble High Court’s order is reproduced here as under : Quote, “ 12. The assessee contends that the seizures were made prior to the amendment. The affidavits admitting the ownership of amounts seized were also submitted prior to the amendment. The assessee was not aware of the enhanced tax liabilit…

DCIT,CC-2(2),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ARYA REALTY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1918/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1918/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Cc-2(2), Kolkata…….…..………………........………………....Appellant Vs. Arya Realty Developers Pvt. Ltd.…............................…..…..... Respondent P-95, Lake View Road, Kolkata – 700029. [Pan: Aaica1390C] Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Adhikari, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & Sunil Surana, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 27, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 28, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 26, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Dr Raised Issue Of A Delay Of 35 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. The Revenue Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay Citing Valid Reasons. After Hearing The Submissions, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Hearing. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Declared Business Income Of Rs.3,81,39,040/-. The Assessing Officer Treated This Income As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act & Accordingly Re- Classified It Under The Head ‘Income From Other Sources’ By Applying Section 115Bbe Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 250Section 68

…ted that the ld. CIT(A)’s decision did not result in any loss of revenue as the effective tax rate remained unchanged. The ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Maruthi Babu Rao Jadav v. ACIT reported in (2021) 430 ITR 504, wherein, it was held that higher tax rate u/s 115BBE is applicable only from assessment year 2017-18 onwards. Moreover, the present appeal is covered by CBDT Circular No.9/2024 which restricted to filing of appeals by revenue before the ITAT assigning monetary threshold unless falling under specific exceptions. 7. We, after hearing rival submiss…

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 879/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Totuka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ring the demonetisation period and has claimed that the amendment prescribing rate of tax of 60% of tax is not applicable to him The above issue of applicability year has been adjudicated in the following judements. Maruthi Babu Rao Jadav v. Asstt. CIT [2021] 430 ITR 504 (Ker.) (WA.No.984 OF 2019] "The writ petition sought for a declaration that the amendments made by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, to Section 1158BE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 enhancing the rate of income tax, for specified incomes which are unexplained, to 60% and the surcharge provided in the Finance Act. 2016 to 25% for income…

SH. SANJAY GODHA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal. The Said Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Arises Because The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before Him Against The Order Dated 20/11/2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, By Acit, Circle-01, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…n 115BBE of the Act is not applicable to assessment year 2017-18 but is applicable from the next assessment year which is AY 2018-19. The above issue of applicability year has been adjudicated in the following judgments, Maruthi Babu Rao Jadav vs. ACIT [2021] 430 ITR 504 (Ker.) x x x x Karthick Natarajan vs. DCIT, International Taxation [2023] 154 taxmann.com 136 (Chennai-Trib.)/(2023) 202 ITD 552 (Chennai-Trib.) [11.07.2023]. x x x x x In view of the above, respectfully following the judgment of Honourable Kerala High Court and honourable Tribunal, the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act as amended by second…

GARGI GLOBAL ACADEMY SANSTHAN,SIKAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 260/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka (CIT)

Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

…raised a legal issue regarding the applicability year of the amendment in section 115BBE of the Act. There is no merit in the issue as the same has already been rejected in the following judicial pronouncements:- • Maruthi Babu Rao Jadav vs. Asst. CIT [2021] 430 ITR 504 (Ker.) [WA. No. 984 of 2019] x x x x • Karthick Nataranjan v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, International Taxation [2023] 154 taxmann.com 136 (Chennai-Trib.)/[2023] 202 ITD 552 (Chennai-Trib.) (11.07.2023) x x x x In view of the above, provisions of section 115BBE of the Act as amended by second amendment Act by the Taxation Laws (second am…

VIVEKANDA SHIKSHA SAMITI,PALWAS ROAD, SIKAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 203/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka (CIT)

Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

…as raised a legal issue regarding the applicability year of the amendment in section 115BBE of the Act. There is no merit in the issue as the same has already been rejected in the following judicial pronouncements:- Maruthi Babu Rao Jadav vs. Asst. CIT [2021] 430 ITR 504 (Ker.) [WA. No. 984 of 2019] X X X Karthick Nataranjan v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, International Taxation [2023] 154 taxmann.com 136 (Chennai-Trib.)/[2023] 202 ITD 552 (Chennai-Trib.) (11.07.2023) X X X X In view of the above, provisions of section 115BBE of the Act as amended by second amendment Act by the Taxation Laws (second amendme…

SMT. RAJNI GUTPA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

ITA 45/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 68

…from assessment year 2018 19 and not with effect from assessment year 2017 18. The submissions of the appellant have been considered carefully in this regard. The issue has been dealt with in the following judgments Maruthi Babu Rao Jadav v. Asstt. CIT [2021] 430 ITR 504 (Ker.) [WA.No.984 OF 2019] "The writ petition sought for a declaration that the amendments made by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, to Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 enhancing the rate of income tax, for specified incomes which are unexplained, to 60% and the surcharge provided in the Finance Act, 2016 to 25% for income…