Pr. CIT v. Manju Osatwal

443 ITR 107High Court2022#25153 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Manju Osatwal

DCIT CIRCLE 34(1), DELHI vs. VANEET AGGARWAL, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 69/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Ragini Handa, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…in the case of Ankush Jain Vis Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 WPO 6541/2017 &6543 of2017 dated 21.08.2019 was distinguishable. The ld. counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Manju Ostwal 443 ITR 107 order dated 11.02.2022. 11. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that the cash in hand of Rs. 5 crore for a period of 14 years from 2003-2016 was offered for tax in IDS on which the assessee has paid tax of Rs 2.25 crore. The breakup of income declared each year is given in the form and the…

RAVI KEDIA, BALODA BAZAR,BALODA BAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BHATAPARA, BALODA BAZAR, BALODA BAZAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 111/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 111/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ravi Kedia, Ekdand Chawal Udyog, Village Risda, Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh-493 332 Pan : Ajrpk5750D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Bhatapara (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…his aforesaid claim, the Ld. AR had taken me through Section 189 and Section 193 of the Income Declaration Scheme, Finance Act, 2016. The Ld. AR further relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Manju Oswal (2022) 443 ITR 107 (Cal.), wherein it was observed by the Hon’ble High Court that once a declaration made by the assessee under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (IDS) had been accepted by Principal Commissioner, such authority is thereafter estopped from taking any steps which would in effect amount to reopening and/or revising the decision already taken on such dec…

HEMANT KUMAR MULCHANDANI,JABALPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 42/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 183Section 263

…before us relied on the decisions in Mahaveer Kumar Jain vs. CIT (CA No.4166/2006, dated 19/04/2018) and R. Natarajan vs. ACIT (ITA No. 1058/MDS/2010, dated 23/02/2012), to the effect that income cannot be taxed twice, and on Pr. CIT vs. Manju Osatwal [2022] 443 ITR 107 (Cal) and Gopalkrishnan Raj Kumar vs. Pr. CIT (in W.P.Nos. 6367 & 6374/2021, dated 22/04/2022) to the effect that where an income stands declared under disclosure (immunity scheme), the same cannot be subject to tax again. There is no quarrel on the proposition per se. The issue, however, arising is factual, i.e., if the income declared under IDS…