Prem Arora v. DCIT

24 Taxmann.com 260High Court2012#6168 most cited

What is Prem Arora v. DCIT authority for?

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not leviable if the returned income and assessed income are the same, particularly in cases of search initiated after 01/06/2003 where a return is filed under section 153A and there is no concealment of income.

19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Prem Arora v. DCIT · section 153A · section 271(1)(c) · penalty · search assessment · concealment of income · returned income · assessed income · no variation

Also reported as

56 SOT 14

Sections most often in play

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 44AB

Judgments citing Prem Arora v. DCIT

Mr. Chittaranjan Trimbak Gaikwad, Pune vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 759/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.759/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Chittaranjan Trimbak Gaikwad, The Asst. Commissioner At Post Kadamwak Wasti, of Income Tax, Loni Kalbhor, Pune – 412201 Vs. Circle – 4, Pune PAN : AEBPT5707L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri B.C. Malakar Department by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 28-10-2024 Date of 10-01-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER A…

Shri Devendra Swarupchand Shingavi, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(A), Pune-11, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 316/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Pune20 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri B C MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad
Section 132Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Devendra Swarupchand Shingavi CIT(A), Pune -11, Pune 161/162, Dwarika Apts, Vs. Mukund Nagar, Pune – 411037 PAN : AULPS9948J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri B C Malakar Department by : Shri Uma Shankar Prasad Date of hearing : 20-05-2024 Date of pronouncement : 20-05-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order dated 20.12.2023 of the CIT(A), Pune-11 relating to assessm…

M/S. Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2045/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: 1. the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law & facts of the case in sustaining the pen
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 4

…153A is concerned, there is no allegation of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and also returned income and assessed income being same, penalty was not leviable in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prem Arora Vs. DCIT, reported in 56 SOT 14 (Del) . 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record including written submissions of the both the parties. We have already discussed in detail the provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act in earlier paragraphs while adjudicating the appeal for assessment year 2006-07 . In view of the Explan…

M/S. Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2044/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: 1. the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law & facts of the case in sustaining the pen
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 4

…153A is concerned, there is no allegation of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and also returned income and assessed income being same, penalty was not leviable in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prem Arora Vs. DCIT, reported in 56 SOT 14 (Del) . 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record including written submissions of the both the parties. We have already discussed in detail the provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act in earlier paragraphs while adjudicating the appeal for assessment year 2006-07 . In view of the Explan…

DCIT, Faridabad vs. M/S. Spaze Tower Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the application filed under Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2558/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant, Accountnat Member & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: 1. the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law & facts of the case in sustaining the pen
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 4

…153A is concerned, there is no allegation of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and also returned income and assessed income being same, penalty was not leviable in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prem Arora Vs. DCIT, reported in 56 SOT 14 (Del) . 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record including written submissions of the both the parties. We have already discussed in detail the provisions of Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act in earlier paragraphs while adjudicating the appeal for assessment year 2006-07 . In view of the Explan…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7249/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…no occasion for imposing penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) for concealment/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) while concluding as hereinabove relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- 1) Prem Arora Vs. DCIT-24 Taxmann.com 260 (Delhi Tribunal) 2) Purti Sakhar Karkhana Vs. DCIT 35 Taxmann.com 594 (Nag. Tri) 3) Vrajlal T. Gala Vs. ACIT 33 Taxmann.com 620 (Mum. Tribunal). 4) M/s Unimark Remedies Ltd. Vs. ACIT dated 26.09.2012 in ITA No. 3817/Mum/2009 5) Smt. Pramila D. Ashtekar Vs. ITO-39 Taxmann.com 103 (Pune) 6) Yogesh Parekh Vs. ACIT ITA No. 6750, 6051/Mum/2008…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7248/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…no occasion for imposing penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) for concealment/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) while concluding as hereinabove relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- 1) Prem Arora Vs. DCIT-24 Taxmann.com 260 (Delhi Tribunal) 2) Purti Sakhar Karkhana Vs. DCIT 35 Taxmann.com 594 (Nag. Tri) 3) Vrajlal T. Gala Vs. ACIT 33 Taxmann.com 620 (Mum. Tribunal). 4) M/s Unimark Remedies Ltd. Vs. ACIT dated 26.09.2012 in ITA No. 3817/Mum/2009 5) Smt. Pramila D. Ashtekar Vs. ITO-39 Taxmann.com 103 (Pune) 6) Yogesh Parekh Vs. ACIT ITA No. 6750, 6051/Mum/2008…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7247/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…no occasion for imposing penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) for concealment/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) while concluding as hereinabove relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- 1) Prem Arora Vs. DCIT-24 Taxmann.com 260 (Delhi Tribunal) 2) Purti Sakhar Karkhana Vs. DCIT 35 Taxmann.com 594 (Nag. Tri) 3) Vrajlal T. Gala Vs. ACIT 33 Taxmann.com 620 (Mum. Tribunal). 4) M/s Unimark Remedies Ltd. Vs. ACIT dated 26.09.2012 in ITA No. 3817/Mum/2009 5) Smt. Pramila D. Ashtekar Vs. ITO-39 Taxmann.com 103 (Pune) 6) Yogesh Parekh Vs. ACIT ITA No. 6750, 6051/Mum/2008…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7246/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…no occasion for imposing penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) for concealment/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) while concluding as hereinabove relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- 1) Prem Arora Vs. DCIT-24 Taxmann.com 260 (Delhi Tribunal) 2) Purti Sakhar Karkhana Vs. DCIT 35 Taxmann.com 594 (Nag. Tri) 3) Vrajlal T. Gala Vs. ACIT 33 Taxmann.com 620 (Mum. Tribunal). 4) M/s Unimark Remedies Ltd. Vs. ACIT dated 26.09.2012 in ITA No. 3817/Mum/2009 5) Smt. Pramila D. Ashtekar Vs. ITO-39 Taxmann.com 103 (Pune) 6) Yogesh Parekh Vs. ACIT ITA No. 6750, 6051/Mum/2008…

DCIT 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7245/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…no occasion for imposing penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) for concealment/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) while concluding as hereinabove relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- 1) Prem Arora Vs. DCIT-24 Taxmann.com 260 (Delhi Tribunal) 2) Purti Sakhar Karkhana Vs. DCIT 35 Taxmann.com 594 (Nag. Tri) 3) Vrajlal T. Gala Vs. ACIT 33 Taxmann.com 620 (Mum. Tribunal). 4) M/s Unimark Remedies Ltd. Vs. ACIT dated 26.09.2012 in ITA No. 3817/Mum/2009 5) Smt. Pramila D. Ashtekar Vs. ITO-39 Taxmann.com 103 (Pune) 6) Yogesh Parekh Vs. ACIT ITA No. 6750, 6051/Mum/2008…

Shri Sanat Kumar Bhattacharjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-27, Haldia, Midnapore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 497/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2017AY 2005-2006

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.N. Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -vs- ACIT, Circle-27, Haldia [PAN: ADFPB 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri V.N. Purohit, FCA For the Respondent : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 14.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 22.11.2017 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. These two appeals by the Assessee arise out of the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Kolka…

Shri Sanat Kumar Bhattacharjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-27, Haldia, Midnapore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 496/KOL/2016[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2017AY 2003-2004

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-27, Haldia [Pan: Adfpb 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.N. Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri M.Balaganesh, AM & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, JM] I.T.A Nos. 496&497/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2003-04 & 2005-06 Shri Sanat Kr. Bhattacharjee -vs- ACIT, Circle-27, Haldia [PAN: ADFPB 6426 K] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri V.N. Purohit, FCA For the Respondent : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 14.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 22.11.2017 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. These two appeals by the Assessee arise out of the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Kolka…

Ramesh D Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 35, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5179/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5179/Mum/2012 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05) M/S Ramesh D Shah, बनधम/ The Asstt. Commissioner Of 142, Andheri Industrial Estate, Income Tax. Cc -35, Vs. Off Veera Desai Road, Room No.103, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri (W), M K Road, Mumbai-400053 Mumbai-400 020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aacps9581N अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Revenue By Shri B S Bist सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.9.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :14.10.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Order Dated 3.07.2012 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-41, Mumbai Upholding The Penalty Imposed U/S 271 (1)(C) R.W.S274 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Pertains To Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Issue Raised Is Against The Upholding The Penalty On An Income Of Rs.18,50,000/- By The Ld.Cit(A) As Imposed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)

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

…d for immunity as per Explanation -5 to section 271 (1)( c ) and wrongly relied on the decision in the case of Ajit B Zota V/s ACIT (40 SOT 543). In defence the ld. AR strongly relied on the following decisions : A) Prem Arora V/s DCIT (Delhi Tribunal) (2012) 24 Taxmann.com 260; B) Vrajlal T Gala (HUF) V/s ACIT (2013) 33 taxmann.com 620; C) Yogesh Parikh V/s ACIT in ITA No.6750/Mum/2008 dated 25.7.2012 and D) Unimark Remedies Ltd V/s ACIT in ITA No. 409/Mum/2008 dated 26.9.2012 (Mum Tribunal) Finally, the ld.AR prayed that since the assessee has declared an income in the return of income filed in response to the…

DCIT, CC-Xvi, Kolkata vs. Shri Satyam Roy Chowdhury, Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 639/KOL/2009[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2016AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

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

…I.T.A. No. 639, 640, 641, 642, 643 & 644/KOL./2009 Assessment years: 2000-2001 to 2005-2006 Page 1 of 14 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos. 639, 640, 641, 642, 643 & 644/KOL/2009 Assessment Years:2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05& 2005-06 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,....................................Appellant Central Circle-XVI, Kolkata, Poddar Court, 18, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata-700 001 -Vs.- Shri Satyam Roy Chowdhury,............................................…

DCIT, C.C.Xxvii, Kolkata vs. M/S. Pratap Properties Ltd., Kolkata

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1386/KOL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh & Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Nongothung Jungio, JCIT, ld.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri A.K Tibrewal, FCA, ld.AR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA Before Hon. Sri Mahavir Singh, Judicial Member, and Hon. Sri M.Balaganesh, Accountant Member ITA No. 1386/Kol/2010- Asst Year 2005-06 ITA No. 1387/Kol/2010- Asst Year 2006-07 ITA No. 1388/Kol/2010- Asst Year 2007-08 DCIT, C.C XXVIII, Kolkata Vs. M/s. Pratap Properties Pvt. Ltd PAN:AADCP6647E (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Nongothung Jungio, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR For the Respondent : Shri A.K Tibrewal, FCA, ld.AR Date of Hearing : 03-02-2016 Date of Pronouncement: 10 -02-2016 ORDER Shri Sri M.Balaganesh, AM: These appeals of the…

DCIT, CC-I, Kolkata vs. Sheo Kumar Kajaria, Kolkata

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue for all the assessment years are dismissed

ITA 1425/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K TibrewalFor Respondent: Shri S.Dutta, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member, and Before : Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 1425 & 1426/Kol/2010 A.Ys 2004-05 & ’05-06 D.C.I.T, CC-1, Kolkata Vs. Shri Sheo Kumar Kajaria PAN: AFCPK 7875A (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 378 to 382/Kol/2011 A.Ys. ’02-03 to ’06-07 A.C.I.T, CC-XII, Kolkata Vs. M/s. Gopal Das Kothari (HUF) PAN: AACHG 8411M (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 1172 to 1174/Kol/2011 A.Ys. ’04-05 to ’06-07 A.C.I.T, CC-XII, Kolkata Vs. Shri Sajjan Kumar Patwari (HUF) PAN: AAFHS 3391K (Appellant) (Respondent) For…

Sri Narendra N. Thacker, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C.Xxiv, Kolkata

ITA Nos.1786-

ITA 1786/KOL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA Shri Mahavir Singh,Judicial Member, and Before : Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member ITA No. 1786 / /Kol/2009 – Asst Year 2001-02 ITA No. 1787 /Kol/ 2009 – Asst Year 2002-03 ITA No. 1788 /Kol/ 2009 – Asst Year 2003-04 Narendra J. Thacker Vs. D.C.I.T, CC-XXIV, Kol PAN: ABNPT 3231A (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Department) ITA No. 1521 / 2010 – Asst Year 2001-02 ITA No. 1522 / 2010 – Asst Year 2002-03 ITA No. 1523 / 2010 – Asst Year 2003-04 ITA No. 1690 / 2009 – Asst Year 2004-05 ITA No. 1691 / 2009 – Asst Year 2005-06 D.C.I.T, CC-XXIV, Kol Vs. Na…

DCIT, Cent Cir-I, Kol, Kolkata vs. Deepak Choudhury, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1875/KOL/2009[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Balaganesh & Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)

…IN THE INCME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA Before : Shri Balaganesh, Accountant Member, and Shri S.S Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member ITA No. 1875 / Kol/2009 – Asst Year 2002-03 ITA No. 1876 /Kol/ 2009 – Asst Year 2003-04 ITA No. 1877 /Kol/ 2009 – Asst Year 2004-05 ITA No. 1878 /Kol/ 2009 – Asst Year 2005-06 D.C.I.T, CC-I, Kolkata Vs. Deepak Choudhury PAN: ACSPC8549C (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant/: Shri Kalyan Nath, JCIT, Sr.DR For the Respondent/ : Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCA, ld.AR Date of Hearing: 30-10-2015 Date of Pronouncement: 30- 11-2015 ORDER SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM T…

Ashok Kumar Arora, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 841/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-I’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-841/Del/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09) Ashok Kumar Arora, vs ACIT, Unit No.-134, 1st Floor, Rectangle 1, Central Circle-19, Saket District Centre, Saket, New Delhi. New Delhi-110017. PAN-AAAFK5195J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh.Salil Kapoor, Adv. Respondent by Dr.B.R.R.Kumar, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 09.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement 23.09.2015 ORDER By the present appeal the assessee assails the correctness of the order dated 10.10.2013 of CIT(A)-XXXIII, New Delhi pertaining to 2008…

Prem Arora v. DCIT (24 Taxmann.com 260) — Cited in 19 Judgments | BharatTax