Rajesh Chawala v. CIT

203 CTR 209High Court2006#9047 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 140apeak credit theorysection 271(l)surrender of incomesection 151(1)section 271(l)(c)section 151(2)section 271fsection 282survey under section 133anon-speaking orderintangible assets

Judgments citing Rajesh Chawala v. CIT

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 64/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

…provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that the appellant that he has filed return of income voluntarily disclosing the income does not hold good in view of decision in the case of Rajesh Chawala v. CIT reported in 203 CTR 209, where Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the assessee has filed (revised) return surrendering additional income only on coming to snow about the detection of concealment by the department and that it is not a case of bona fide voluntary disclosure, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that…

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 63/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

…provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that the appellant that he has filed return of income voluntarily disclosing the income does not hold good in view of decision in the case of Rajesh Chawala v. CIT reported in 203 CTR 209, where Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the assessee has filed (revised) return surrendering additional income only on coming to snow about the detection of concealment by the department and that it is not a case of bona fide voluntary disclosure, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that…

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 62/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

…provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that the appellant that he has filed return of income voluntarily disclosing the income does not hold good in view of decision in the case of Rajesh Chawala v. CIT reported in 203 CTR 209, where Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the assessee has filed (revised) return surrendering additional income only on coming to snow about the detection of concealment by the department and that it is not a case of bona fide voluntary disclosure, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that…

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 61/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

…provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that the appellant that he has filed return of income voluntarily disclosing the income does not hold good in view of decision in the case of Rajesh Chawala v. CIT reported in 203 CTR 209, where Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the assessee has filed (revised) return surrendering additional income only on coming to snow about the detection of concealment by the department and that it is not a case of bona fide voluntary disclosure, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that…

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 60/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

…provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that the appellant that he has filed return of income voluntarily disclosing the income does not hold good in view of decision in the case of Rajesh Chawala v. CIT reported in 203 CTR 209, where Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the assessee has filed (revised) return surrendering additional income only on coming to snow about the detection of concealment by the department and that it is not a case of bona fide voluntary disclosure, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that…

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 59/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

…provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that the appellant that he has filed return of income voluntarily disclosing the income does not hold good in view of decision in the case of Rajesh Chawala v. CIT reported in 203 CTR 209, where Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the assessee has filed (revised) return surrendering additional income only on coming to snow about the detection of concealment by the department and that it is not a case of bona fide voluntary disclosure, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that…

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH. S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKATSAR vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 58/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

…provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that the appellant that he has filed return of income voluntarily disclosing the income does not hold good in view of decision in the case of Rajesh Chawala v. CIT reported in 203 CTR 209, where Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the assessee has filed (revised) return surrendering additional income only on coming to snow about the detection of concealment by the department and that it is not a case of bona fide voluntary disclosure, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that…

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 57/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

…provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that the appellant that he has filed return of income voluntarily disclosing the income does not hold good in view of decision in the case of Rajesh Chawala v. CIT reported in 203 CTR 209, where Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the assessee has filed (revised) return surrendering additional income only on coming to snow about the detection of concealment by the department and that it is not a case of bona fide voluntary disclosure, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that…

LATE. SH. GURMAIL. SINGH S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,SHRI MUKAT SAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF 9INCOME TAX. CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 56/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

…provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that the appellant that he has filed return of income voluntarily disclosing the income does not hold good in view of decision in the case of Rajesh Chawala v. CIT reported in 203 CTR 209, where Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the assessee has filed (revised) return surrendering additional income only on coming to snow about the detection of concealment by the department and that it is not a case of bona fide voluntary disclosure, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that…

LATE. SH. GUMAIL SINGH . S/O. SH. LAL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

ITA 55/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250(6)Section 282Section 69A

…provisions and eventually levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The contention that the appellant that he has filed return of income voluntarily disclosing the income does not hold good in view of decision in the case of Rajesh Chawala v. CIT reported in 203 CTR 209, where Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that the assessee has filed (revised) return surrendering additional income only on coming to snow about the detection of concealment by the department and that it is not a case of bona fide voluntary disclosure, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable. Hence, it is not possible to hold that…

SH. SUBASH CHANDER,UDHAMPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, UDHAMPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 143/ASR/2017[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Mar 2019AY 1993-94

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No.142 & 143/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 1992-93 & 1993-94

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Arora (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148(1)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…if the assessee had declared the same profit rate as on the disclosed turnover in the reassessment proceedings. This is as the same would only be upon detection by the Department. Reference in this regard be made to the decision in Rajesh Chawla v. CIT [2006] 203 CTR 209 (P&H) [154 Taxman 364], rendered relying on several decisions, including CIT v. J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar [1977] 110 ITR 602 (Mad), also quoting there-from. Further, that penalty is to be levied with reference to original return is, again, well settled (CIT vs. Onkar Saran & Sons [1992] 195 ITR 01 (SC)). The penalty imposed for both the years is…

SH. SUBASH CHANDER,UDHAMPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, UDHAMPUR

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 142/ASR/2017[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Mar 2019AY 1992-93

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No.142 & 143/Asr/2017 Assessment Years: 1992-93 & 1993-94

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Arora (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148(1)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…if the assessee had declared the same profit rate as on the disclosed turnover in the reassessment proceedings. This is as the same would only be upon detection by the Department. Reference in this regard be made to the decision in Rajesh Chawla v. CIT [2006] 203 CTR 209 (P&H) [154 Taxman 364], rendered relying on several decisions, including CIT v. J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar [1977] 110 ITR 602 (Mad), also quoting there-from. Further, that penalty is to be levied with reference to original return is, again, well settled (CIT vs. Onkar Saran & Sons [1992] 195 ITR 01 (SC)). The penalty imposed for both the years is…