Ratnachudamani S. Utnal v. ITO

269 ITR 212High Court2004#8217 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 234ASection 234BSection 244ASection 119Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 147(a)section 244asection 151(1)section 129section 2(22)deemed dividendsection 2(22)(e)section 127income escaping assessmentsection 119share application moneyliable to tax

Judgments citing Ratnachudamani S. Utnal v. ITO

RATORI MAA TRADING P.LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4485/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandraratori Maa Trading P. Ltd. Vs Ito M-98, 2Nd Floor, Jagat Ward -21(1) Rampark, Laxmi Nagar, New C. R. Building, New Delhi Delhipan: Aaecr0612A Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, New Delhi Dated

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…is valid if there is prime facie reason to believe that income had escapedassessment Information was received by the AO and reasons were recorded that there was escapement of income. This has been reaffirmed in the cases of Ratnachudamani S Utnal v ITO (2004) 269 ITR 212 (Karn) and ITO 3 Ratori Maa Trading P. Ltd. Vs. ITO & Others v Shree Bajrang Commercial Co (Pvt.) Ltd (2004) 269 ITR 338 (Cal). After the amendment of section 147 w. e. f. 01.04.1989, the scope of section 147 has been considerably widened. After the amendment, the only requirement under the section is that AO must have reason to believe that a…

CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-15(3), DELHI

ITA 1808/DEL/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1808/Del/2023 And 2983, 2984 And 2985/DEL/2015 [Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 And 2007-08] Shri Chetan Seth, Income Tax Officer, Plot No.14, LCS, Sector-B-1, Ward-15(3), Vasant Kunj, Vs New Delhi New Delhi-110070 PAN-AOLPS2992A Appellant Respondent Appellant by Shri Arun Kishore, CA & Shri Alok Suri, CA Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. (DR) Date of Hearing 28.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 ORDER PER BRAJES…

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

ITA 2985/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1808/Del/2023 And 2983, 2984 And 2985/DEL/2015 [Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 And 2007-08] Shri Chetan Seth, Income Tax Officer, Plot No.14, LCS, Sector-B-1, Ward-15(3), Vasant Kunj, Vs New Delhi New Delhi-110070 PAN-AOLPS2992A Appellant Respondent Appellant by Shri Arun Kishore, CA & Shri Alok Suri, CA Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. (DR) Date of Hearing 28.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 ORDER PER BRAJES…

SHRI CHETAN SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

ITA 2983/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1808/Del/2023 And 2983, 2984 And 2985/DEL/2015 [Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 And 2007-08] Shri Chetan Seth, Income Tax Officer, Plot No.14, LCS, Sector-B-1, Ward-15(3), Vasant Kunj, Vs New Delhi New Delhi-110070 PAN-AOLPS2992A Appellant Respondent Appellant by Shri Arun Kishore, CA & Shri Alok Suri, CA Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. (DR) Date of Hearing 28.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 ORDER PER BRAJES…

K.N.KRISHNAMURTHY,MUMBAI vs. MUM-W-(251)(93), BENGALURU

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 5694/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) K.N. Krishnamurthy Ito 42(2)(3) I-15, Mahindra Park Mumbai. Narayan Nagar, Lbs Vs. Marg, Ghatkopar West Mumbai-400 086. Pan : Aaepk7294A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kiran UnavekarFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Krishamurthy
Section 234B

…he kept Revenue’s money, payable as per time limits of section 209 and 6 K.N. Krishnamurthy 210 of the I.T. Act and hence levy of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act is correct and legal. h) Reliance is placed on the decision of Mrs. Prabha Lal (269 ITR 212) (Patna) for the proposition that even income accrued unexpectedly after the due date of installment is not a valid reason for non-levy of interest and interest under section 234B and 234C shall be charged. i) Charging of interest is mandatory and automatic and apart from the exceptions given in provisions of section 234B and 234C, any other rea…

KN KRISHNAMURTHY,MUMBAI vs. MUM-W-(432)(93), BENGALURU

ITA 5609/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) K.N. Krishnamurthy Ito 42(2)(3) I-15, Mahindra Park Mumbai. Narayan Nagar, Lbs Vs. Marg, Ghatkopar West Mumbai-400 086. Pan : Aaepk7294A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu JoshiFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Krishamurthy
Section 234B

…ept Revenue’s money, payable as per time limits of section 209 and 210 of the I.T. Act and hence levy of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act for both assessment years is correct and legal. h) Reliance is placed on the decision of Mrs. Prabha Lal (269 ITR 212) (Patna) for the proposition that even income accrued unexpectedly after the due date of installment is not a valid reason for non-levy of interest and interest under section 234B and 234C shall be charged. i) Charging of interest is mandatory and automatic and apart from the exceptions given in provisions of section 234B and 234C, any other rea…

ISWAR CHAND DUBEY,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-68 (1), DELHI

ITA 2985/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1808/Del/2023 And 2983, 2984 And 2985/DEL/2015 [Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 And 2007-08] Shri Chetan Seth, Income Tax Officer, Plot No.14, LCS, Sector-B-1, Ward-15(3), Vasant Kunj, Vs New Delhi New Delhi-110070 PAN-AOLPS2992A Appellant Respondent Appellant by Shri Arun Kishore, CA & Shri Alok Suri, CA Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. (DR) Date of Hearing 28.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 ORDER PER BRAJES…

PUNIT KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-36(2), DELHI

ITA 2983/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 147Section 151Section 2(22)(e)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1808/Del/2023 And 2983, 2984 And 2985/DEL/2015 [Assessment Years: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 And 2007-08] Shri Chetan Seth, Income Tax Officer, Plot No.14, LCS, Sector-B-1, Ward-15(3), Vasant Kunj, Vs New Delhi New Delhi-110070 PAN-AOLPS2992A Appellant Respondent Appellant by Shri Arun Kishore, CA & Shri Alok Suri, CA Respondent by Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. (DR) Date of Hearing 28.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 ORDER PER BRAJES…

CHIRAG R. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 31(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 792/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh (Jm) & Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…sions: (a) Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC) In this case it was held that insufficiency of reasons could not be a ground for quashing of the notice under section 148 at its threshold. (b) Shree Bajrang Commercial Co. (P.) Ltd. [2004] 269 ITR 338 (Cal.). (c) CIT v. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd [2012] 342 ITR 169 (Delhi). In this case the question as whether at stage of issuing notice under section 148 merits of matter are not relevant and Assessing Officer at that stage is required to form only a prima facie belief or opinion that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment? The…

TATA MOTORS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5600/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chanda
Section 10(34)Section 10(35)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144CSection 14A

…following decisions:– i) Bombay Gymkhana Ltd. v/s ITO, [2009] 27 SOT 58 (Mum.) (URO); ii) Wipro Information Technology Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2004] 88 TTJ 778 (Bang.); iii) CIT v/s Smt. Premlata Jalani, [2003] 264 ITR 744 (Raj.); iv) Mrs. Prabha Lal v/s CIT, [2004] 269 ITR 212 (Patna). 36. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the assessment order. 37. Having considered rival submissions and examined the provisions of section 234C of the Act in the light of the decisions cited before us, we are of the view that interest under section 234C of the Act has to be charged on the income returned by the assess…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. POWERLINK TRANSMISSION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 3870/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Manoneet Dalal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…is prima facie reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. Information was received by the AO and reasons were recorded that there was escapement of income. The following case laws reaffirm this contention:- i) Ratnachudamani S. Utnal v ITO (2004) 269 ITR 212 (Karn) ITO & Others v Shree Bajrang Commercial Co (Pvt.) Ltd (2004) 269 ITR 338 ii) (Cal) 5.2 So far as the legality for assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 is concerned there should be a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. After the amendment of section 147 w. e. f. 01.04.1989, the scope of section 147 has been cons…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. POWERLINK TRANSMISSION LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for A

ITA 3869/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Sh. Manoneet Dalal, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36

…is prima facie reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. Information was received by the AO and reasons were recorded that there was escapement of income. The following case laws reaffirm this contention:- i) Ratnachudamani S. Utnal v ITO (2004) 269 ITR 212 (Karn) ITO & Others v Shree Bajrang Commercial Co (Pvt.) Ltd (2004) 269 ITR 338 ii) (Cal) 5.2 So far as the legality for assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 is concerned there should be a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. After the amendment of section 147 w. e. f. 01.04.1989, the scope of section 147 has been cons…

ASST CIT 24(2), MUMBAI vs. MITA DIPAK SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s cross objection is allowed

ITA 1391/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Dr. A.L. Sainiasstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–24(2), Mumbai V/S Smt. Mita Dipak Shah 31–B, 1St Floor, Laxmi Estate ……………. Respondent Azad Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai 400 069 Pan – Afbps112A

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 10(38)

…e. For such proposition, he has relied upon the following decisions:– 9 Smt. Mita Dipak Shah i) Bombay Gymkhana Ltd. v/s ITO, [2008], 115 TTJ 639 (Mum.); ii) Wipro Information Technology Ltd. v/s DCIT, [2004] 88 TTJ 778 (Bang.); iii) Mrs. Prabhalal v/s CIT, 269 ITR 212 (Pat.). 18. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Assessing Officer. 19. Having considered rival submissions and perused materials on record, we find merit in the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative. A reading of the provisions contained under section…

SIYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 865/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 865/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Up-12, Pitampura, Ward-8(4), New Delhi-110034 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics7889N Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.12.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…tion was received by the AO and reasons were recorded that there was escapement of income. The ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition to Rs.13,00,000/- made by the AO. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Ratnachudamani S. Utnal Vs ITO (2004) 269 ITR 212 (Karn) " ITO & Others Vs Shree Bajrang Commercial Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (2004) 269 ITR 338 (Cal.) " Raymond Woolen Mills Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) " ACIT Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers (P.) Ltd. 161 Taxman 316 (SC) 8 Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 10. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before…