What is Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia authority for?

In search assessments under Section 153A, additions to income are permissible only if incriminating material is found during the search; in the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed. A statement recorded under Section 132(4) and later retracted may not, on its own, constitute sufficient incriminating evidence for making additions.

How many judgments cite Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia?

1,226 judgments on BharatTax cite Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia (395 ITR 526), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 153A, Section 143(3), Section 132, Section 147, Section 148, Section 153C.

Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia (395 ITR 526)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota vs. Shri Rajendra Agrawal, Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1432/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ate of search is not sustainable. A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del) as well as in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-2, New Delhi v. Meeta Gutgutia [2017] 395 ITR 526 and held that unless there is an incriminating material for the addition sought to be made pursuant to the search and seizure operation, the addition cannot be made in respect of the assessment year which was not pending as on the date of search. Therefore, once the assessee has raised all these contentions and explained during the penalty 21…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Smt. Jyoti Agarwal, Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1430/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ate of search is not sustainable. A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del) as well as in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-2, New Delhi v. Meeta Gutgutia [2017] 395 ITR 526 and held that unless there is an incriminating material for the addition sought to be made pursuant to the search and seizure operation, the addition cannot be made in respect of the assessment year which was not pending as on the date of search. Therefore, once the assessee has raised all these contentions and explained during the penalty pro…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota vs. Smt. Malti Agarwal, Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1447/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ate of search is not sustainable. A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del) as well as in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-2, New Delhi v. Meeta Gutgutia [2017] 395 ITR 526 and held that unless there is an incriminating material for the addition sought to be made pursuant to the search and seizure operation, the addition cannot be made in respect of the assessment year which was not pending as on the date of search. Therefore, once the assessee has raised all these contentions and explained during the penalty pro…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota vs. Smt. Indira Agrawal, Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1444/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ate of search is not sustainable. A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del) as well as in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-2, New Delhi v. Meeta Gutgutia [2017] 395 ITR 526 and held that unless there is an incriminating material for the addition sought to be made pursuant to the search and seizure operation, the addition cannot be made in respect of the assessment year which was not pending as on the date of search. Therefore, once the assessee has raised all these contentions and explained during the penalty pro…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kota vs. Shri Ajay Agarwal, Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1442/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ate of search is not sustainable. A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del) as well as in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-2, New Delhi v. Meeta Gutgutia [2017] 395 ITR 526 and held that unless there is an incriminating material for the addition sought to be made pursuant to the search and seizure operation, the addition cannot be made in respect of the assessment year which was not pending as on the date of search. Therefore, once the assessee has raised all these contentions and explained during the penalty pro…