How many judgments cite Pr. CIT v. Sandeep Chandak?

58 judgments on BharatTax cite Pr. CIT v. Sandeep Chandak (405 ITR 648), spanning 2019 to 2026.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271AAB, Section 132, Section 153A, Section 271(1)(c), Section 274, Section 143(3).

Pr. CIT v. Sandeep Chandak

405 ITR 648High Court2018#1988 most cited

What is Pr. CIT v. Sandeep Chandak authority for?

A mere technical defect or incorrect provision mentioned in the caption of a penalty notice issued under Section 271AAB does not vitiate the penalty proceedings if the body of the notice makes the intention clear and the assessee understood the charge.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Pr. CIT v. Sandeep Chandak · penalty under section 271AAB · defect in penalty notice · section 271(1)(c) · search penalty proceedings · validity of notice · incorrect provision in notice · Allahabad High Court · Supreme Court confirmation

Also reported as

93 Taxmann.com 405

Sections most often in play

Section 271AAB Section 132 Section 153A Section 271(1)(c)Section 274 Section 143(3)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 271aab(1)penalty under section 271aab section 271aab(1a)section 271aab section 22(1)section 271aa section 275 section 292bb section 271a section 271(l)(c)penalty proceedings initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c)

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Sandeep Chandak

Smt. Manjeet Kaur Sran, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 05 appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 2641/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Ms. Ashisha Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Verma, Sr. DR

Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 2639, 2640, 2641, 2642 & 2643/Del/2017 A.Yrs. : 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09 to 2010-11 MRS. MANJEET KAUR SRAN, vs. DCIT, CC-29, 527B, 5TH FLOOR, HBN OFFICE, NEW DELHI D-MALL, PLOT-D, DISTT. CENTRE, PASCHIM VIHAR, NEW DELHI – 87 (PAN: AVCPS8638P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms. Ashisha Mittal, CA Department by : Ms. Rakhi Verma, Sr. DR. O R D E R PER BENCH These 05 appeals filed by the Assessee are directed against the respective Orders of the Ld. C…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jaipur, Central Circle-1 vs. Shri Prashant Gupta 301, Anukampa Mansion-I, M.I. Road, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 424/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT) &

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 44ASection 5

…o. 359/JP/2017 b. S C Mittal ITA 931/JP/2017 c. Anuj Mathur ITA 971/JP/2017 d. Ratan lal Agarwal ITA 418/JP/2018 6. During the course of appellate proceedings the Ld. A/R was specifically in applicability of the decision in the case of Sandeep Chandak Vs. CIT 93 Taxmann.com 405, in which case the SLP filed by the appellant in that case was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme court. 6.2 The learned A/R submitted as under: 20 DCIT Vs. Shri Prashant Gupta "In appeal proceeding, your goodself referred to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in case of PCIT V. Sandeep Chandak 304 CTR 657 and required to file the submis…

Shri Kamal Sethia, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 190/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jun 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Anil Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 190/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 cuke Shri Kamal Sethia The ACIT, Vs. 801, Western Heights, Central Circle-1, S-21, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFEPS 7265 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Anil Goyal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri A.…

Shri Vivek Sethia, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 189/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jun 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Anil Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 189/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 cuke Shri Vivek Sethia The ACIT, Vs. 801, Western Heights, Central Circle-1, S-21, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ASPPS 7131 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Anil Goyal (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri A.…

Shri Vimal Chand Surana, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 304/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 May 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 274

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh- 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa h Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 304/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16. cuke Shri Vimal Chand Surana, The Deputy Commissioner Vs. B-7, Surana Enclave, of Income-tax, Ram Singh Road, Central Circle-2, Opp. SMS Hospital, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AFEPS 6866 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.R. Sha…

Shri Karamashibhai G. Aghara, Morbi vs. The Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the assessee in the case of Shri Bharatbhai T

ITA 159/RJT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot16 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Respondent: Shri B.B. Rajendra Prasad, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 271A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [ Conducted through E-Court at Ahmedabad ] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. ITA/IT(ss)A No(s) Assessment Appeal(s) by Nos. Year (s) Appellant vs. Respondent Appellant (s) Respondent 1. ITA No.159/Rjt/17 2013-14 Shri Karmashibhai G.Aghara The ACIT “Matru Krupa” Central Anupam Society Circle-1 Nazarbaug Road, Morbi Rajkot PAN : ABIPA 4153 D 2. IT(ss)A 2013-14 Shri Narshibhai G.Aghara -do-Revenue No.159/Rjt/17 “Bansi” Somnath Society Opp.Diamond Hall, Morbi PAN : ABIPA 4152 C 3. IT(ss)A 2013-14…

Shri Shyam Sunder Khandelwal, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 307/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 271ASection 274

…s.” Thus the Tribunal has analyzed all the relevant provisions of the Act as well as various decisions on this point including the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court 18 Shri Shyam Sundar Khandelwal, Jaipur. in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Sandeep Chandak, 405 ITR 648 (Allahabad) relied upon by the ld. D/R and then arrived at the conclusion that the penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has the discretion to take a decision and the same should be based on judicious decision of the AO. Accordingly following the earlier decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ravi Mathur vs. DCIT (supra),…

Shri Gopal Das Sonkia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 306/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 271ASection 274

…bunal in case of ACIT vs. Marvel Associates.” Thus the Tribunal has analyzed all the relevant provisions of the Act as well as various decisions on this point including the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Sandeep Chandak, 405 ITR 648 (Allahabad) relied upon by the ld. D/R and then arrived at the conclusion that the penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has the discretion to take a decision and the same should be based on judicious decision of the AO. Accordingly following the earlier decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ravi Mathur vs. DCIT (supra),…

Shri Ram Das Sonkia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 295/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 271ASection 274

…Associates.” 17 Shri Ram Das Sonkia, Jaipur. Thus the Tribunal has analyzed all the relevant provisions of the Act as well as various decisions on this point including the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Sandeep Chandak, 405 ITR 648 (Allahabad) relied upon by the ld. D/R and then arrived at the conclusion that the penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but the AO has the discretion to take a decision and the same should be based on judicious decision of the AO. Accordingly following the earlier decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ravi Mathur vs. DCIT (supra),…

Shri Padam Chand Pungliya, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl. CIT)

Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 271ASection 274

Shri Krishna Yadav, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 987/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shi B.K. Gupta (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

…sclosed income surrendered under section 132(4) of the Act. She has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 3.2. The ld. D/R has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Principal CIT vs. Sandeep Chandak and Others 405 ITR 648 and submitted that even otherwise if the show cause notice does not mention the section correctly it will not be invalid as the AO will get the benefit of section 292BB of the Act. The ld. D/R has also relied upon the decision of Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Amit Agarwal, 88 taxmann.com 288. 4. We have considered the r…

Shri Manoj Moondhra, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 857/JPR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)(b)Section 154Section 271Section 271A

…132(4) of the Act is an undisclosed income in terms of Section 271AAB(1) r.w. explanation defining the undisclosed income. The decision relied by the ld. CIT-DR in Shri Manoj Moondhra vs. DCIT case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sandeep Chandak 405 ITR 648 is only on the point of benefit of Section 292BB of the Income Tax Act is available to the AO when the show cause notice issued U/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act mentions in its caption only Section 271 and not 271AAB. The Hon’ble High Court after considering the fact that body of the show cause notice and particularly the last line of the not…

Shri Mukesh Moondhra, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 226/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT)

Section 154Section 271ASection 274

…in the statement recorded U/s 132(4) of the Act is an undisclosed income in terms of Section 271AAB(1) r.w. explanation defining the undisclosed income. The decision relied by the ld. CIT-DR in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sandeep Chandak 405 ITR 648 is only on the point of benefit of Section 292BB of the Income Tax Act is available to the AO when the show cause notice issued U/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act mentions in its caption only Section 271 and not 271AAB. The Hon’ble High Court 18 Shri Mukesh Moondhra vs. DCIT. after considering the fact that body of the show cause notice and parti…

Shri Manoj Moondhra, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

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

ITA 225/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (JCIT)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)(b)Section 154Section 271Section 271A

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Rashmi Cement Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1606/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A Nos.1606/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. Rashmi Cement Ltd. Kolkata 39, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr 4343 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Radhey Shyam, Cit-Dr Respondent By : Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, Fca सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 21/02/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-20, Kolkata Dated 13.04.2017 Passed In Case No.1119/Cc2(2)/Cit(A)/15-16 Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Imposing Penalty Of Rs.3,09,69,700/- In His Order Dated 30.09.2015 U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. We Notice At The Time Of Hearing That This Revenue’S Appeal Suffers From Four Days Delay In Filing. It Filed Condonation Petition 06.07.2017 Describing Reasons Thereof To Various Procedural Formalities At Departmental Level. Learned Counsel Representing Assessee Is Very Fair In Not Disputing The Said Solemn Averments. We Therefore Condone The Impugned Four Days Delay In Filing Of Revenue’S Instant Appeal As Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate.

For Appellant: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCA

Section 271A

…on to provisions of Section 271(1)(c) or 271AAA where the AO was given discretion in the matter of levying penalty. The Ld.CIT DR supported the action of the AO by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of ACIT vs Sandeep Chandak (405 ITR 648). He therefore urged for upholding the order of AO levying penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. 7. Per contra, the Ld. AR fully supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) cancelling the penalty. He reiterated his submissions before the lower authorities and vehemently contended that the income of Rs.69 crores voluntarily offered in the return of income did…

M/S Silver and Art Palace, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 236/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 158BSection 246ASection 250Section 271A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 236/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 cuke M/s Silver & Art Palace, The DCIT, Vs. 313-A, Old Amer Road, Central Circle-4, Jaipur-302002. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AALFS 5749 K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S/ Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1608/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

DCIT, Cental Circle -2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S/ Aryan Minning & Trading Corporation Ltd, Kolakta

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1601/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. A.T.Varkey & Sh. A.L.Sainidcit, M/S. Aryan Mining & Central Circle-2(2), Aayakar V Trading Corporation Ltd., P-1, Hide Lane, 8Th Floor, Bhawan, Poorva, 110 S Shantipally, Kolkata-700073. Kolkata-700107. Pan-Aadca7247B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. A.K.Singh, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. A.K.Tulsyan, Fca & Ms. Sikha Agarwal, Aca 27.12.2018 Date Of Hearing 01.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement

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

…ave heard both parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld.CIT DR vehemently assailed the action of ld CIT(A) and supported the action of the AO by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of ACIT vs Sandeep Chandak(405 ITR 648) and want us to reverse the order of ld CIT(A) and restore the order of AO. 7. Per contra, the ld AR contented that the assessee company is engaged in the business of mining and selling of iron and manganese ores. According to him, the assessee raises from mines iron ores lumps & fines with varying iron (Fe) content. While processing Iron ore lu…