Pr.CIT v. Lata Jain

384 ITR 543High Court2016#555 most cited

What is Pr.CIT v. Lata Jain authority for?

In a search assessment under Section 153A, no additions can be made for assessment years where assessments have already been concluded, unless incriminating material related to undisclosed income for those years is found during the search operation.

174

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Pr.CIT v. Lata Jain · Section 153A · Section 132 · search assessment · incriminating material · concluded assessment · undisclosed income · addition under section 68 · bogus long term capital gain · no incriminating material found

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 143(3)Section 131Section 139(1)Section 142(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

annual letting valueannual valuepermanent account numberbogus long term capital gainsection 22section 127section 132aentry operatorregular assessmentaddition under section 68search assessmentaddition u/s 68

Judgments citing Pr.CIT v. Lata Jain

M/S. Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 5475/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain & Piyush K. KamalFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 253Section 5

…17 order dated 15.02.2018 " Jaipuria Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 5522 & 5523/Del/2015 order dated 27.06.2016 " Pr. CIT Vs Sunrise Finlease (P) Ltd. 252 Taxman 407 (Guj.) " CIT Vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del.) " Pr. CIT Vs Lata Jain 384 ITR 543 (Del.) " CIT Anil Kumar Bhatia 352 ITR 493 (Del.) & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. " CIT Vs Kurele Paper Mills P. Ltd. 380 ITR 571 (Del.) " CIT Vs MGF Automobiles Ltd. 241 Taxman 440 (Del.) " Pr. CIT Vs Ram Avtar Verma (2017) 395 ITR 252 " CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal 290 CTR 263 (Del.) " Suncity Projects (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT 46 CCH 3…

M/S. Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 5425/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain & Piyush K. KamalFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 253Section 5

…17 order dated 15.02.2018 " Jaipuria Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 5522 & 5523/Del/2015 order dated 27.06.2016 " Pr. CIT Vs Sunrise Finlease (P) Ltd. 252 Taxman 407 (Guj.) " CIT Vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del.) " Pr. CIT Vs Lata Jain 384 ITR 543 (Del.) " CIT Anil Kumar Bhatia 352 ITR 493 (Del.) & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. " CIT Vs Kurele Paper Mills P. Ltd. 380 ITR 571 (Del.) " CIT Vs MGF Automobiles Ltd. 241 Taxman 440 (Del.) " Pr. CIT Vs Ram Avtar Verma (2017) 395 ITR 252 " CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal 290 CTR 263 (Del.) " Suncity Projects (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT 46 CCH 3…

M/S. Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 5424/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain & Piyush K. KamalFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 253Section 5

…17 order dated 15.02.2018 " Jaipuria Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 5522 & 5523/Del/2015 order dated 27.06.2016 " Pr. CIT Vs Sunrise Finlease (P) Ltd. 252 Taxman 407 (Guj.) " CIT Vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del.) " Pr. CIT Vs Lata Jain 384 ITR 543 (Del.) " CIT Anil Kumar Bhatia 352 ITR 493 (Del.) & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. " CIT Vs Kurele Paper Mills P. Ltd. 380 ITR 571 (Del.) " CIT Vs MGF Automobiles Ltd. 241 Taxman 440 (Del.) " Pr. CIT Vs Ram Avtar Verma (2017) 395 ITR 252 " CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal 290 CTR 263 (Del.) " Suncity Projects (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT 46 CCH 3…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 4259/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain & Piyush K. KamalFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 253Section 5

…17 order dated 15.02.2018 " Jaipuria Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 5522 & 5523/Del/2015 order dated 27.06.2016 " Pr. CIT Vs Sunrise Finlease (P) Ltd. 252 Taxman 407 (Guj.) " CIT Vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del.) " Pr. CIT Vs Lata Jain 384 ITR 543 (Del.) " CIT Anil Kumar Bhatia 352 ITR 493 (Del.) & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. " CIT Vs Kurele Paper Mills P. Ltd. 380 ITR 571 (Del.) " CIT Vs MGF Automobiles Ltd. 241 Taxman 440 (Del.) " Pr. CIT Vs Ram Avtar Verma (2017) 395 ITR 252 " CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal 290 CTR 263 (Del.) " Suncity Projects (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT 46 CCH 3…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 4258/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain & Piyush K. KamalFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 253Section 5

…17 order dated 15.02.2018 " Jaipuria Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 5522 & 5523/Del/2015 order dated 27.06.2016 " Pr. CIT Vs Sunrise Finlease (P) Ltd. 252 Taxman 407 (Guj.) " CIT Vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del.) " Pr. CIT Vs Lata Jain 384 ITR 543 (Del.) " CIT Anil Kumar Bhatia 352 ITR 493 (Del.) & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. " CIT Vs Kurele Paper Mills P. Ltd. 380 ITR 571 (Del.) " CIT Vs MGF Automobiles Ltd. 241 Taxman 440 (Del.) " Pr. CIT Vs Ram Avtar Verma (2017) 395 ITR 252 " CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal 290 CTR 263 (Del.) " Suncity Projects (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT 46 CCH 3…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 4257/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain & Piyush K. KamalFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 253Section 5

…17 order dated 15.02.2018 " Jaipuria Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 5522 & 5523/Del/2015 order dated 27.06.2016 " Pr. CIT Vs Sunrise Finlease (P) Ltd. 252 Taxman 407 (Guj.) " CIT Vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del.) " Pr. CIT Vs Lata Jain 384 ITR 543 (Del.) " CIT Anil Kumar Bhatia 352 ITR 493 (Del.) & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. " CIT Vs Kurele Paper Mills P. Ltd. 380 ITR 571 (Del.) " CIT Vs MGF Automobiles Ltd. 241 Taxman 440 (Del.) " Pr. CIT Vs Ram Avtar Verma (2017) 395 ITR 252 " CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal 290 CTR 263 (Del.) " Suncity Projects (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT 46 CCH 3…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 4256/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain & Piyush K. KamalFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT DR
Section 253Section 5

…17 order dated 15.02.2018 " Jaipuria Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 5522 & 5523/Del/2015 order dated 27.06.2016 " Pr. CIT Vs Sunrise Finlease (P) Ltd. 252 Taxman 407 (Guj.) " CIT Vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del.) " Pr. CIT Vs Lata Jain 384 ITR 543 (Del.) " CIT Anil Kumar Bhatia 352 ITR 493 (Del.) & ITA Nos. 4256 to 4259/Del/2014 Gee Ispat Pvt. Ltd. " CIT Vs Kurele Paper Mills P. Ltd. 380 ITR 571 (Del.) " CIT Vs MGF Automobiles Ltd. 241 Taxman 440 (Del.) " Pr. CIT Vs Ram Avtar Verma (2017) 395 ITR 252 " CIT Vs Harjeev Aggarwal 290 CTR 263 (Del.) " Suncity Projects (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT 46 CCH 3…

M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2521/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…housinhg (NhavaSheva) Ltd (2015 374 ITR 645). iii) Jai Steel (India) Jodhpur Vs. ACIT (2013) 259 CTR 281 iv) CIT Vs.Deepak Kumar Aggarwal (2017) 398 ITR 586 v) Principal CIT Vs.DipakJashvantalaPanchal (2017) 397 ITR 253. vi) Principal VIT vs.Lalit Jain (2017) 384 ITR 543 vii) Pr.CIT vs. Dvangi Alias Rupa (2017 394 ITR 184 viii) Chintels India Ltd Vs. DCIT (2017) 397 ITR 416 ix) Smt. Anjli Pandit Vs. ACIT (2017) 157 DTR (Mum) (Tri.) 17 x) Pr.CITVs.MeetaGutgutia (2016)395 ITR 526. 55. In view of the aforesaid ratio decidendi of the Hon’ble High Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decisions cited above, since a…

M/S. Cliff Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2520/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…housinhg (NhavaSheva) Ltd (2015 374 ITR 645). iii) Jai Steel (India) Jodhpur Vs. ACIT (2013) 259 CTR 281 iv) CIT Vs.Deepak Kumar Aggarwal (2017) 398 ITR 586 v) Principal CIT Vs.DipakJashvantalaPanchal (2017) 397 ITR 253. vi) Principal VIT vs.Lalit Jain (2017) 384 ITR 543 vii) Pr.CIT vs. Dvangi Alias Rupa (2017 394 ITR 184 viii) Chintels India Ltd Vs. DCIT (2017) 397 ITR 416 ix) Smt. Anjli Pandit Vs. ACIT (2017) 157 DTR (Mum) (Tri.) 17 x) Pr.CITVs.MeetaGutgutia (2016)395 ITR 526. 55. In view of the aforesaid ratio decidendi of the Hon’ble High Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decisions cited above, since a…

M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2519/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…housinhg (NhavaSheva) Ltd (2015 374 ITR 645). iii) Jai Steel (India) Jodhpur Vs. ACIT (2013) 259 CTR 281 iv) CIT Vs.Deepak Kumar Aggarwal (2017) 398 ITR 586 v) Principal CIT Vs.DipakJashvantalaPanchal (2017) 397 ITR 253. vi) Principal VIT vs.Lalit Jain (2017) 384 ITR 543 vii) Pr.CIT vs. Dvangi Alias Rupa (2017 394 ITR 184 viii) Chintels India Ltd Vs. DCIT (2017) 397 ITR 416 ix) Smt. Anjli Pandit Vs. ACIT (2017) 157 DTR (Mum) (Tri.) 17 x) Pr.CITVs.MeetaGutgutia (2016)395 ITR 526. 55. In view of the aforesaid ratio decidendi of the Hon’ble High Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decisions cited above, since a…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2111/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…ATION SOCIETY reported in 378 ITR 84 (Bom] affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 297 CTR 441 (SC) 7) CIT V. KABUL CHAWLA reported in 380 ITR 573 (Del) 8) MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP. M/s. FERNS "N" PETALS reported in 395 ITR 526 (Del) 9) Ms. LATHA JAIN reported in 384 ITR 543 (Del) 2.1 Without prejudice to the above, the impugned search proceedings in the case of the appellant are bad in law and are ultra-vires the provisions of Section 132[1][a], [b] and [c] of the Act, which have not been contradicted by the authorities below despite having contended before them and therefore deemed to have been accepted by the doct…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2110/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…ATION SOCIETY reported in 378 ITR 84 (Bom] affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 297 CTR 441 (SC) 7) CIT V. KABUL CHAWLA reported in 380 ITR 573 (Del) 8) MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP. M/s. FERNS "N" PETALS reported in 395 ITR 526 (Del) 9) Ms. LATHA JAIN reported in 384 ITR 543 (Del) 2.1 Without prejudice to the above, the impugned search proceedings in the case of the appellant are bad in law and are ultra-vires the provisions of Section 132[1][a], [b] and [c] of the Act, which have not been contradicted by the authorities below despite having contended before them and therefore deemed to have been accepted by the doct…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2109/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…ATION SOCIETY reported in 378 ITR 84 (Bom] affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 297 CTR 441 (SC) 7) CIT V. KABUL CHAWLA reported in 380 ITR 573 (Del) 8) MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP. M/s. FERNS "N" PETALS reported in 395 ITR 526 (Del) 9) Ms. LATHA JAIN reported in 384 ITR 543 (Del) 2.1 Without prejudice to the above, the impugned search proceedings in the case of the appellant are bad in law and are ultra-vires the provisions of Section 132[1][a], [b] and [c] of the Act, which have not been contradicted by the authorities below despite having contended before them and therefore deemed to have been accepted by the doct…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2108/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…ATION SOCIETY reported in 378 ITR 84 (Bom] affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 297 CTR 441 (SC) 7) CIT V. KABUL CHAWLA reported in 380 ITR 573 (Del) 8) MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP. M/s. FERNS "N" PETALS reported in 395 ITR 526 (Del) 9) Ms. LATHA JAIN reported in 384 ITR 543 (Del) 2.1 Without prejudice to the above, the impugned search proceedings in the case of the appellant are bad in law and are ultra-vires the provisions of Section 132[1][a], [b] and [c] of the Act, which have not been contradicted by the authorities below despite having contended before them and therefore deemed to have been accepted by the doct…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2107/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…ATION SOCIETY reported in 378 ITR 84 (Bom] affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 297 CTR 441 (SC) 7) CIT V. KABUL CHAWLA reported in 380 ITR 573 (Del) 8) MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP. M/s. FERNS "N" PETALS reported in 395 ITR 526 (Del) 9) Ms. LATHA JAIN reported in 384 ITR 543 (Del) 2.1 Without prejudice to the above, the impugned search proceedings in the case of the appellant are bad in law and are ultra-vires the provisions of Section 132[1][a], [b] and [c] of the Act, which have not been contradicted by the authorities below despite having contended before them and therefore deemed to have been accepted by the doct…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2106/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…ATION SOCIETY reported in 378 ITR 84 (Bom] affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 297 CTR 441 (SC) 7) CIT V. KABUL CHAWLA reported in 380 ITR 573 (Del) 8) MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP. M/s. FERNS "N" PETALS reported in 395 ITR 526 (Del) 9) Ms. LATHA JAIN reported in 384 ITR 543 (Del) 2.1 Without prejudice to the above, the impugned search proceedings in the case of the appellant are bad in law and are ultra-vires the provisions of Section 132[1][a], [b] and [c] of the Act, which have not been contradicted by the authorities below despite having contended before them and therefore deemed to have been accepted by the doct…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri Ramappa Chandru, Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2105/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…ATION SOCIETY reported in 378 ITR 84 (Bom] affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 297 CTR 441 (SC) 7) CIT V. KABUL CHAWLA reported in 380 ITR 573 (Del) 8) MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP. M/s. FERNS "N" PETALS reported in 395 ITR 526 (Del) 9) Ms. LATHA JAIN reported in 384 ITR 543 (Del) 2.1 Without prejudice to the above, the impugned search proceedings in the case of the appellant are bad in law and are ultra-vires the provisions of Section 132[1][a], [b] and [c] of the Act, which have not been contradicted by the authorities below despite having contended before them and therefore deemed to have been accepted by the doct…

Sri Ramappa Chandru @ R Chandru, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commisssioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2019/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…ATION SOCIETY reported in 378 ITR 84 (Bom] affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 297 CTR 441 (SC) 7) CIT V. KABUL CHAWLA reported in 380 ITR 573 (Del) 8) MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP. M/s. FERNS "N" PETALS reported in 395 ITR 526 (Del) 9) Ms. LATHA JAIN reported in 384 ITR 543 (Del) 2.1 Without prejudice to the above, the impugned search proceedings in the case of the appellant are bad in law and are ultra-vires the provisions of Section 132[1][a], [b] and [c] of the Act, which have not been contradicted by the authorities below despite having contended before them and therefore deemed to have been accepted by the doct…

Sri Ramappa Chandru @ R.Chandru, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2018/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…ATION SOCIETY reported in 378 ITR 84 (Bom] affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 297 CTR 441 (SC) 7) CIT V. KABUL CHAWLA reported in 380 ITR 573 (Del) 8) MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP. M/s. FERNS "N" PETALS reported in 395 ITR 526 (Del) 9) Ms. LATHA JAIN reported in 384 ITR 543 (Del) 2.1 Without prejudice to the above, the impugned search proceedings in the case of the appellant are bad in law and are ultra-vires the provisions of Section 132[1][a], [b] and [c] of the Act, which have not been contradicted by the authorities below despite having contended before them and therefore deemed to have been accepted by the doct…

Sri Ramappa Chandru @ R Chandru, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, out of seven appeals of the assessee, two appeals for A

ITA 2017/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S.N. Prasad, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234B

…ATION SOCIETY reported in 378 ITR 84 (Bom] affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 297 CTR 441 (SC) 7) CIT V. KABUL CHAWLA reported in 380 ITR 573 (Del) 8) MEETA GUTGUTIA PROP. M/s. FERNS "N" PETALS reported in 395 ITR 526 (Del) 9) Ms. LATHA JAIN reported in 384 ITR 543 (Del) 2.1 Without prejudice to the above, the impugned search proceedings in the case of the appellant are bad in law and are ultra-vires the provisions of Section 132[1][a], [b] and [c] of the Act, which have not been contradicted by the authorities below despite having contended before them and therefore deemed to have been accepted by the doct…