Pr. CIT v. Mukesh Bhai Raman Lal Tax Appeal 434

399 ITR 189High Court2017#8478 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Mukesh Bhai Raman Lal Tax Appeal 434

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9 vs. AMUL GABRANI,

The appeal is allowed and the questions raised are

ITA/1251/2018HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 271Section 271A

…on of law. In any case, we find ourselves bound by the more elaborate discussion which appears in the judgment rendered in Ritu Singal. YASHWANT VARMA, J. RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. JULY 24, 2024/neha 2 (2017) 399 ITR 189 (Del.) This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/07/2025 at 00:22:26…

DCIT, CC-2, FARIDABAD vs. A2Z INFRA ENGINEERS LTD., GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 813/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

…d substantiation of undisclosed income in the absence any inquiry in the course of search. 8. The issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble I.T.As No.813/Del/2019 5 Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Emirates Technologies P. Ltd., (2017) 399 ITR 189 (Del) and Pr.CIT vs. Sundeep Gupta (DHC) IT Appeal No.967-68/2017 dated 13.11.2017. 9. The obligation cast on the assessee spelled out under Section 271AAA are thus fully complied in the facts of the case and hence we see no error in the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A). We thus decline to interfere therewith. In the result, the appeal of the Reve…

A2Z INFRA ENGINEERING LIMITED,GURGAON vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 944/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR

Section 132(4)Section 271A

…r Section 132(4), the assessee was not obliged to volunteer explanation on manner of determining income or substantiation thereof. A reference was made to the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Emirates Technologies P. Ltd., (2017) 399 ITR 189 (Del) and Pr.CIT vs. Sundeep Gupta (DHC) IT Appeal No.967-68/2017 dated 13.11.2017. Thus, the obligations set out in penalty provision are considered to be fully met. The penalty imposed is thus not sustainable in law. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. I.T.As No.944/Del/2019 4 Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/03…

SHANKARLAL VIRJI THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE

ITA 1947/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ramlal Negishankarlal Virji Thakkar, Acit, Cc-1, 601, B, Garima Tower, Near Room No. 10, A Wing, 6Th Gurukul Bus Stop, Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Road Panchpakhadi, No. 16-Z, Wagle Industrial Vs Thane(W)-400602. Estate, Thane (W)-400604. Pan: Aaacd1753G Assessee Respondent : Shri Veerkumar C. Shah (Ar) Assessee By Revenue By : Shri T.S. Khalsa (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2021 Order

For Respondent: Shri Veerkumar C. Shah (AR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 271M

…unsel of the assessee is not applicable on the facts of the present case as in that case it has been duly noted that assessee has made due disclosure u/s 132(4). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision relied therein of PCIT Vs. Emirate Technology Pvt. Ltd. (399 ITR 189) is also not supporting assessee case in present case. As that decision provided that if manner of earning undisclosed income was not asked during the search adverse inference against assessee cannot be taken. In the present case assessee in the course of search on 22.02.2012, made no disclosure of undisclosed income u/s 132(4). Hence, the said…

SHRI PANKAJ KALANI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT, OSD (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

ITA 701/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 271ASection 274

…ould commence. When the base requirement itself fails, the question of denying the benefit of no penalty would not arise.” [Emphasis Supplied] 3.4.2] The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Emirates Technologies (P.) Ltd. as reported in [2017] 399 ITR 189 (Delhi) has held that: 3.The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in para 4.7 of the order dated November 4, 2013 noted that no specific query had been put to the assessee by drawing his attention to section 271AAA of the Act asking him to specify the manner in which the undisclosed income, surrendered during the course of search, had been deriv…

SHRI DIPAK KALANI,INDORE vs. THE JCIT,OSD, (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE

ITA 700/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2012-13

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 271ASection 274

SMT. SHOBHA SARDANA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4978/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Shobha Sardana, Vs. Dcit, C/O-M/S. Rra Taxindia, D- Central Circle-I, 28, South Extension, Part-1, Faridabad New Delhi. Pan :Abaps9735M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Advocates Respondent By Sh. S.S. Rana, Cit(Dr)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271A

…tiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. 11. The ld. AR for the assessee relied upon plethora of case laws cited as under :- 1. Pr. CIT Vs. Mukesh Bhai Raman Lal Tax Appeal 434 of2017 17 2. PCIT Vs. Emirates Technologies Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 399 ITR 189 (Delhi) 3. PCIT V s. Sandeep Gupta (DHC) ITA No. 967-68/2017 dated 13.11.2017 4. PCIT VS. Swapna Enterprise [2018] 401 ITR 488 (Gujrat HC) 5. Smt. Raj Rani Gupta VS. DCIT (Delhi I.T. Trib.) ITA No. 3371/De1/2011 dated 30.03.2012 6. ACIT V s. Shreenarayan Sitaram Mundra [2017] 83 taxmann.com 231 (Ahmedabad- Trib) 7. Neerat Singal Vs. ACIT [2013] 3…

JITENDRA VIRJI THAKKAR,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, THANE

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

ITA 1945/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…s, the assessee was asked to substantiate the manner of deriving the undisclosed income of Rs 48 lakhs. We find that the ld AR rightly placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs Emirates Technologies Pvt Ltd reported in 399 ITR 189 (Del) wherein it was held that in absence of query about the manner in which undisclosed income was derived and about its substantiation, the ld AO was not justified in imposing penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act especially when the other two conditions for claiming immunity under sub-section (2) of section 271AAA viz offering the undisclosed income i…

SH. AJAY KUMAR GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 6104/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. R.S.Singhvi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N.K.Bansal, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271Section 271A

…sessee was accepted by the AO and no further additions were made. The Ld. Authorised representative placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 4 vs. Emirates Technology Pvt. Ltd. reported (2017) 399 ITR 189 (Delhi) and submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had in this case upheld the order of the Tribunal holding that where no query is raised by the assessing officer regarding the manner of derivation of income from unexplained sources, the deletion of penalty was justified. The Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that penalty was not im…

M/S. NARSI IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3547/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271Section 271A

…antiate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. 11. The ld. AR for the assessee relied upon plethora of case laws cited as under :- 1. Pr. CIT Vs. Mukesh Bhai Raman Lal Tax Appeal 434 of2017 2. PCIT Vs. Emirates Technologies Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 399 ITR 189 (Delhi) 3. PCIT V s. Sandeep Gupta (DHC) ITA No. 967-68/2017 dated 13.11.2017 4. PCIT VS. Swapna Enterprise [2018] 401 ITR 488 (Gujrat HC) 5. Smt. Raj Rani Gupta VS. DCIT (Delhi I.T. Trib.) ITA No. 3371/De1/2011 dated 30.03.2012 6. ACIT V s. Shreenarayan Sitaram Mundra [2017] 83 taxmann.com 231 (Ahmedabad- Trib) 7. Neerat Singal Vs. ACIT [2013] 3…

SMT. TRIPAT KAUR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2835/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishismt. Tripat Kaur Vs. The Assistant A-29, Friends Colony, East Commissioner Of Income New Delhi Tax Pan: Aaapk8020A Central Circle- 14 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 154Section 271Section 271A

…Page 1 of 44 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―D‖: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Smt. Tripat Kaur Vs. The Assistant A-29, Friends Colony, East Commissioner of Income New Delhi Tax PAN: AAAPK8020A Central Circle- 14 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Ashish Goel & Ashish Chadha CAs Revenue by: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25/07/2018 Date of pronouncement 09/10/2018 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 01. This appeal is filed by Smt. Tripat Kaur, (‗Assessee‘, ‗Appellant‘) against the…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SSA, INTERNATIONAL LTD.,, NEW DELHI

ITA 5051/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 271A

…iate the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. 11. The ld. AR for the assessee relied upon plethora of case laws cited as under :- S.No. Case Name Citation 1. Pr. CIT Vs. Mukesh Bhai Tax Appeal 434 of2017 Raman Lal 2. PCIT Vs. Emirates [2017] 399 ITR 189 Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi) 3. PCIT V s. Sandeep Gupta ITA No. 967-68/2017 (DHC) dated 13.11.2017 4. PCIT VS. Swapna Enterprise [2018] 401 ITR 488 (Gujrat HC) 5. Smt. Raj Rani Gupta VS. DCIT dated 30.03.2012 6. ACIT V s. Shreenarayan [2017] 83 taxmann.com Sitaram Mundra 231 (Ahmedabad- Trib) 7. Neerat Singal Vs. ACIT [2013] 37 Taxmann.Com 189…

DCIT, GURGAON vs. M/S. GUPTA METAL SHEETS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2062/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153Section 271A

…eliance on the decision in PCIT vs. Mukesh Bhai Raman 2 Lal Prajapati Tax Appeal No. 434 of 2017 decided by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court on 24.07.2017 and the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in PCIT vs. Emirates Technology Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 399 ITR 189 (Del) in support of his contentions. 5. We have perused the record. The observation of the Ld. CIT (A) that in this matter the assessee was never asked by the Revenue any question regarding the manner of earning undisclosed income, is not controverted before us by the Revenue. It, therefore, goes undisputed that the penalty is levied because the…