How many judgments cite Sanjay Gupta v. CIT?

13 judgments on BharatTax cite Sanjay Gupta v. CIT (366 ITR 18), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Sanjay Gupta v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 271(1)(c), Section 148, Section 1961, Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

Sanjay Gupta v. CIT

366 ITR 18High Court2014#8437 most cited

What is Sanjay Gupta v. CIT authority for?

When the quantum of income is remanded to the Assessing Officer, the issue of penalty for undisclosed income should also be remanded to the Assessing Officer.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Sanjay Gupta v. CIT · section 271(1)(c) · undisclosed income · penalty · remanded · quantum of income · CIT(Appeals) · NFAC · denovo adjudication

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 148 Section 1961 Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(c)undisclosed income nfac

Judgments citing Sanjay Gupta v. CIT

Sri Sai Baba Sansthan, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption-II, Raipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 541/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.540 & 541/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Sri Sai Baba Sansthan Sai Mandir, Avenue-B, Civic Center, Sector-6, Bhilai-490 006 (C.G.) Pan: Aadts8938G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Exemption-Ii, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…urt in the case of Mohd. Mohatram Farooqui vs. CIT (SC) 2010-TIOL-23-SC-IT wherein it has been held that if addition is restored to the A.O, then penalty should also be restored. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sanjay Gupta Vs. CIT (2014) 366 ITR 18 (Del) has also held that where the quantum has been remanded to the A.O, the question of penalty on account of the said amount being treated as undisclosed income, should also be remanded to the A.O. In the present case before me the concerned authority however shall be Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC since the quantum has been remanded back to its file for…

Sri Sai Baba Sansthan, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Exmp-II, Raipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 540/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)

Shrikant Sharma, Dhamdha, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 169/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Raipur21 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shrikant Sharma Village: Birjhapur, Taluka : Dhamdha, Dist. Durg-491 331 (C.G.) Pan: Cayps4948D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…urt in the case of Mohd. Mohatram Farooqui vs. CIT (SC) 2010-TIOL-23-SC-IT wherein it has been held that if addition is restored to the A.O, then penalty should also be restored. Also, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sanjay Gupta Vs. CIT (2014) 366 ITR 18 (Del) has also held that where the quantum has been remanded to the A.O, the question of penalty on account of the said amount being treated as undisclosed income, should also be remanded to the A.O. In the present case the concerned authority shall be Ld. 5 Shrikant Sharma Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhilai CIT(Appeals)/NFAC since the quantum has been r…

Shri. Shankar Sadashiv Dangat, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 11(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 230/PUN/2020[ 2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Pune07 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

Section 271(1)(c)

…Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Mohatram Farooqui vs. CIT (SC) 2010-TIOL-23- SC-IT in which it has been held that if addition is restored to the AO, then penalty should also be restored. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sanjay Gupta vs. CIT (2014) 366 ITR 18 (Del) has also held that where the quantum has been remanded to the AO, the question of penalty on account of the said amount being treated as undisclosed income, should also be remanded to the AO. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of hearing in such fresh proceedings. 3 Shankar Sadashiv Dangat 3. In the r…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1, Aurangabad vs. M/S. Prabha Farms Pvt.Ltd, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1549/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1549/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. M/S. Prabha Farms Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad Nath House, Nath Road, Aurangabad Pan: Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…e Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Mohatram Farooqui vs. CIT (SC) 2010-TIOL-23-SC-IT in which it has been held that if addition is restored to the AO, then penalty should also be restored. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in Sanjay Gupta vs. CIT (2014) 366 ITR 18 (Del) has also held that where the quantum has been remanded to the AO, the question of penalty on account of the said amount being treated as undisclosed income, should also be remanded to the AO. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29th September, 2020. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHUR…

Thermax Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 679/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 271(1)(c)

…Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Mohatram Farooqui vs. CIT (SC) 2010-TIOL-23-SC-IT in which it has been held that if addition is restored to the AO, then penalty should also be restored. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sanjay Gupta vs. CIT (2014) 366 ITR 18 (Del) has also held that where the quantum has been remanded to the AO, the question of penalty on account of the remanded to the AO. 3. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27th September, 2019. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune…

Thermax Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 678/PUN/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Section 271(1)(c)

…Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Mohatram Farooqui vs. CIT (SC) 2010-TIOL-23-SC-IT in which it has been held that if addition is restored to the AO, then penalty should also be restored. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sanjay Gupta vs. CIT (2014) 366 ITR 18 (Del) has also held that where the quantum has been remanded to the AO, the question of penalty on account of the remanded to the AO. 3. In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27th September, 2019. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune…

Ericsson Telephone Corporation India Ab (India Branch), New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3462/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Sajit Parakh, CA, Shri SantdasFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…reme Court in the case of Mohd. Mohatram Farooqui vs. CIT (SC) 2010-TIOL- 23-SC-IT in which it has been held that if addition is restored to the AO, then penalty should also be restored. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Sanjay Gupta vs. CIT (2014) 366 ITR 18 (Del) has also held that where the quantum has been remanded to the AO, the question of penalty on account of the said amount being treated as undisclosed income, should also be remanded to the AO. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter to the file of the AO for determining the question of imposition or otherwise of t…

Ericsson Telephone Corporation India Ab (India Branch), New Delhi vs. DDIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

ITA 3461/DEL/2011[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Sajit Parakh, CA, Shri SantdasFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Mrs. Sharma Tyagi, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 2306/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Sharma Tyagi, Vs. Ito, Prop. M/S Tirupati Banquet Hall, Ward 2(3), 486, Indira Colony, Roorkee Road, Muzaffarnagar. Muzaffarnagar. Pan: Agwpt3535B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil Jain, Advocate & Ms Isha Jain, Ca Department By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 Order Per R.S. Syal, Vp: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Passed By The Cit(A) On 01.01.2015 Imposing Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 In Relation To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That Certain Additions Were Made

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…upreme Court in the case of Mohd. Mohatram Farooqui vs. CIT (SC) 2010- TIOL-23-SC-IT in which it has been held that if addition is restored to the AO, then penalty should also be restored. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Sanjay Gupta vs. CIT (2014) 366 ITR 18 (Del) has also held that where the quantum has been remanded to the AO, the question of penalty on account of the said amount being treated as undisclosed income, should also be remanded to the AO. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the AO for determining the question of imposition or otherwise of the p…

Dr Jasleen Kaur, Jalandhar vs. A.C.I.T, Circle - II, Jalndhar

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 376/ASR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year : 2007-08 Dr. Jasleen Kaur, Vs. Acit, C/O M/S Orthonova Hospital, Circle-Ii, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar. Jalandhar. Pan: Abipk6994L (Appellants) (Respondents)

For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Negi

Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

…Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Mohatram Farooqui vs. CIT (SC) 2010-TIOL-23-SC-IT in which it has been held that if addition is restored to the AO, then penalty should also be restored. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sanjay Gupta vs. CIT (2014) 366 ITR 18 (Del) has also held that where the quantum has been remanded to the AO, the question of penalty on account of the said amount being treated as undisclosed income, should also be remanded to the AO. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for determining the question of imposition or otherwis…

Rohde & Schwarz India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4570/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S. Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Dodeja, Sr. DR

Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…upreme Court in the case of Mohd. Mohatram Farooqui vs. CIT (SC) 2010-TIOL-23-SC-IT in which it has been held that if addition is restored to the AO, then penalty should also be restored. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Sanjay 3 Gupta vs. CIT (2014) 366 ITR 18 (Del) has also held that where the quantum has been remanded to the AO, the question of penalty on account of the said amount being treated as undisclosed income, should also be remanded to the AO. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the AO for determining the question of imposition or otherwise of the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. A. Little World Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4800/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri K.N. Chary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jain, CA

Section 271(1)(c)

…preme Court in the case of Mohd. Mohatram Farooqui vs. CIT (SC) 2010- TIOL-23-SC-IT in which it has been held that if addition is restored to the AO, then penalty should also be restored. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Sanjay Gupta vs. CIT (2014) 366 ITR 18 (Del) has also held that where the quantum has been remanded to the AO, the question of penalty on account of the said amount being treated as undisclosed income, should also be remanded to the AO. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the AO for determining the question of penalty or otherwise on the is…