Rattan Gupta v. CIT

234 ITR 2Reported decision#20091 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 159(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Judgments citing Rattan Gupta v. CIT

SHRI DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 338/CHANDI/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…6 TD 146 (iii) ITO Vs Purushotam Das Bangur & Anr (SC) 224 ITR 362 (iv) Elphinstone Picture Palace Vs Union of India & Anr (Pat) 74 ITR 115 (v) H.A. Nanji & Co. Vs ITO (Cal) 120 ITR 593 (vi) Sohan Singh Vs CIT (Del) 158 ITR 174 (vii) Rattan Gupta Vs CIT (P&H) 234 ITR 220 Similarly, information received from other agencies like CIB, Enforcement Directorate or from other Assessing Officers constitute material for reopening of assessment and notice issued u/s 148 in these circumstances is also valid. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:- i) CGT Vs. Susheela Shanmugasundaram (Mad) 242 ITR 1…

SH. DINESH SETHI,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 376/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Aug 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 376/Chd/2014 & "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Janesh Sethi, Legal Heir Of बनाम The Ito, Late Shri Dinesh Sethi, Ward – 1(1), Vs Prop. M/S R.S. Trading Corp., Ludhiana. C-434, Urban Estate Focal Point, Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Aaqpk1200Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Manav Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.06.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.8.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

…6 TD 146 (iii) ITO Vs Purushotam Das Bangur & Anr (SC) 224 ITR 362 (iv) Elphinstone Picture Palace Vs Union of India & Anr (Pat) 74 ITR 115 (v) H.A. Nanji & Co. Vs ITO (Cal) 120 ITR 593 (vi) Sohan Singh Vs CIT (Del) 158 ITR 174 (vii) Rattan Gupta Vs CIT (P&H) 234 ITR 220 Similarly, information received from other agencies like CIB, Enforcement Directorate or from other Assessing Officers constitute material for reopening of assessment and notice issued u/s 148 in these circumstances is also valid. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:- i) CGT Vs. Susheela Shanmugasundaram (Mad) 242 ITR 1…

NAGARJUNA OIL CORPORATION LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 4(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2538/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2538/Chny/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd., Corporate Ward – 4(2), Md Chambers, New No.53, Chennai – 34. Dr.R.K. Salai, Mylaypore, Chennai – 600 004. Pan: Aaacn 9369E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Bharath,Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2019 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath,CIT
Section 36(1)Section 56Section 57

…o noted that the assessee is still in the stage of setting up of its manufacturing unit. The assessee relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. M/s. Bokaro Steel Ltd, 236 ITR 315 and M/s. Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., 234 ITR 2. However the Assessing Officer relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Autokast Ltd., 248 ITR 110 and Tutikorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., 227 ITR 172 and assessed the income U/s.56. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, holding that the AO has counte…

KAYAGEE LOPAREX INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (OSD) 8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7745/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Amit Shuklaआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.7745 & 7746//Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Years-2008-09 & 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Kaygee Loparex India Pvt. Ltd. Acit(Osd) 8(1), B-28 Veera Ind. Estate,Bhukhanvala Vs Mumbai Chambers,Off Link Road, Andheri (W),Mumbai – 400 053 Pan: Aaack3962A (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee By ओर : Shri N. Jayendra राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri R.A. Dhyani सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" सुनवाई क" क" तारीख क" तारीख तारीख / Date Of Hearing :20-10-2015 तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28-10-2015 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 1961 क" धारा क" धारा 254 254(1)के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" धारा क" धारा के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश 1961 1961 254 254 Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dtd.23.10.2012And 29.10.2012 Of The Cit(A)-17,Mumbai,The Assessee Has Filed Appeals For The Abovementioned Two Assessment Years (Ays).During The Course Of Hearing Before Us The Authorised Representative(Ar)Fairly Conceded That Ground No.2 & 3 Are Covered Against The Assessee By The Decisions Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court. Hence, Both The Grounds Stand Dismissed.

For Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, अिधकरण " ए” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-“A”,BENCH सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं एवं एवं अिमत शु"ल,"याियक सद"य एवं Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Amit Shukla,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.7745 & 7746//Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Years-2008-09 & 2009-10 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Kaygee Loparex India Pvt. Ltd. ACIT(OSD) 8(1), B-28 Veera Ind. Estate,Bhukhanvala Vs Mumbai Chambers,Off link Road, Andheri (W),Mumbai – 400 05…

Rattan Gupta v. CIT (234 ITR 2) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax