Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal AIR 2002 SC 33, Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P.Board of High School and Intermediate Education

8 SCC 312Reported decision2003#25662 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 139Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250

Judgments citing Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal AIR 2002 SC 33, Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P.Board of High School and Intermediate Education

Uday Uttamrao Nevase, Pune vs. The Assessing Officer / Assessment Unit, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2606/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2606/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Uday Uttamrao Nevase, V The Assessing Officer / Saugandh Niwas, Hind Colony S Assessment Unit, Pune. Lane No.1 A, Bhekrai Nagar, Phursungi, Pune – 412308. Pan: Akqpn1150Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Ca Rohan Gupta Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari – Addl.Cit(Virtual) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2022-23 Dated 04.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section 270A, Dated 17.09.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Ground 1 Section 270Aa Immunity Cit A Erred In Law By Confirming The Penalty Of Rs 629382 Under Section 270A Without Considering And

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270A

…sed system of jurisprudence. It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in Roshan Deen v.Preeti Lal AIR 2002 SC 33, Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P.Board of High School and Intermediate Education and others (2003) 8 SCC 312 and Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and others (2003) 8 SCC 319. 6.2 Reverting to the facts of the present case, here also, the assessee who has a history for habitually claiming fraudulent refund by increasing deductions and reducing his taxable income since A.Y. 2016- 17 onwards, could not justify why he has continuously misreported his income…

Sanjeevkumar Manchand Rajput, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 613/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Ms. Abhilasha Pawar, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 270A

…ed system of jurisprudence. It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal AIR 2002 SC 33, Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P.Board of High School and Intermediate Education and others (2003) 8 SCC 312 and Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and others (2003) 8 SCC 319. 6.2 Reverting to the facts of the present case, here also, the assessee who has a history for habitually claiming fraudulent refund by increasing deductions and reducing his taxable income since A.Y. 2016-17 onwards, could not justify why he has continuously misreported his income a…

Sanjeevkumar Manchand Rajput, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 612/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Ms. Abhilasha Pawar, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 270A

…ed system of jurisprudence. It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal AIR 2002 SC 33, Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P.Board of High School and Intermediate Education and others (2003) 8 SCC 312 and Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and others (2003) 8 SCC 319. 6.2 Reverting to the facts of the present case, here also, the assessee who has a history for habitually claiming fraudulent refund by increasing deductions and reducing his taxable income since A.Y. 2016-17 onwards, could not justify why he has continuously misreported his income a…

Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal AIR 2002 SC 33, Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P.Board of High School and Intermediate Education (8 SCC 312) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax