Shri Dilipkumar Lalwani and Others (107 Appeals) 21 19.12 In Pr. CIT v. Vinita Chaurasia (394 ITR 758)

Q: What is Shri Dilipkumar Lalwani and Others (107 Appeals) 21 19.12 In Pr. CIT v. Vinita Chaurasia authority for?

The amended provisions of Section 153C require that documents found during a search must 'pertain to' or 'relate to' the assessee. The High Court held that this requirement does not apply to searches conducted prior to the amendment.

Q: How many judgments cite Shri Dilipkumar Lalwani and Others (107 Appeals) 21 19.12 In Pr. CIT v. Vinita Chaurasia?

71 judgments on BharatTax cite Shri Dilipkumar Lalwani and Others (107 Appeals) 21 19.12 In Pr. CIT v. Vinita Chaurasia (394 ITR 758), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Shri Dilipkumar Lalwani and Others (107 Appeals) 21 19.12 In Pr. CIT v. Vinita Chaurasia come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 10(37), Section 145A(b), Section 147, Section 148, Section 151.

Sh. Randhir Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT Rohtak, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…Modi affirmed by Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi reported in [2017] 77 taxman.com 78 (SC) iii) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 M/s Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. v. PCIT PROPOSITION XII: THAT NO MECHANICAL SET ASIDE PERMISSIBLE IN ABSENCE OF ENQUIRY BY PCIT i) 394 ITR 758 (Del) PCIT v. Vinita Chaurasia ii) ITA No. 705/Del/2017 PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. iii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT v. Sunder Lal iv) 111 ITR 326 (All) J.P. Srivastava & Sons Ltd. v. CIT v) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT v. Kashi Nath & Co. vi) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 M/s Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. v. PCIT vii) 343 ITR 229 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housin…

Surjeet Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…Modi affirmed by Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi reported in [2017] 77 taxman.com 78 (SC) iii) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 M/s Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. v. PCIT PROPOSITION XII: THAT NO MECHANICAL SET ASIDE PERMISSIBLE IN ABSENCE OF ENQUIRY BY PCIT i) 394 ITR 758 (Del) PCIT v. Vinita Chaurasia ii) ITA No. 705/Del/2017 PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. iii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT v. Sunder Lal iv) 111 ITR 326 (All) J.P. Srivastava & Sons Ltd. v. CIT v) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT v. Kashi Nath & Co. vi) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 M/s Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. v. PCIT vii) 343 ITR 229 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housin…

Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…Modi affirmed by Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi reported in [2017] 77 taxman.com 78 (SC) iii) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 M/s Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. v. PCIT PROPOSITION XII: THAT NO MECHANICAL SET ASIDE PERMISSIBLE IN ABSENCE OF ENQUIRY BY PCIT i) 394 ITR 758 (Del) PCIT v. Vinita Chaurasia ii) ITA No. 705/Del/2017 PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. iii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT v. Sunder Lal iv) 111 ITR 326 (All) J.P. Srivastava & Sons Ltd. v. CIT v) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT v. Kashi Nath & Co. vi) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 M/s Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. v. PCIT vii) 343 ITR 229 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housin…

Dhuni Chand HUF, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…Modi affirmed by Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi reported in [2017] 77 taxman.com 78 (SC) iii) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 M/s Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. v. PCIT PROPOSITION XII: THAT NO MECHANICAL SET ASIDE PERMISSIBLE IN ABSENCE OF ENQUIRY BY PCIT i) 394 ITR 758 (Del) PCIT v. Vinita Chaurasia ii) ITA No. 705/Del/2017 PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. iii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT v. Sunder Lal iv) 111 ITR 326 (All) J.P. Srivastava & Sons Ltd. v. CIT v) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT v. Kashi Nath & Co. vi) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 M/s Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. v. PCIT vii) 343 ITR 229 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housin…

Sh. Kashmir Singh Sandha, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…Modi affirmed by Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi reported in [2017] 77 taxman.com 78 (SC) iii) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 M/s Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. v. PCIT PROPOSITION XII: THAT NO MECHANICAL SET ASIDE PERMISSIBLE IN ABSENCE OF ENQUIRY BY PCIT i) 394 ITR 758 (Del) PCIT v. Vinita Chaurasia ii) ITA No. 705/Del/2017 PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. iii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT v. Sunder Lal iv) 111 ITR 326 (All) J.P. Srivastava & Sons Ltd. v. CIT v) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT v. Kashi Nath & Co. vi) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 M/s Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. v. PCIT vii) 343 ITR 229 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housin…

M/S Ganesh Dass HUF, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…Modi affirmed by Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi reported in [2017] 77 taxman.com 78 (SC) iii) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 M/s Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. v. PCIT PROPOSITION XII: THAT NO MECHANICAL SET ASIDE PERMISSIBLE IN ABSENCE OF ENQUIRY BY PCIT i) 394 ITR 758 (Del) PCIT v. Vinita Chaurasia ii) ITA No. 705/Del/2017 PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. iii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT v. Sunder Lal iv) 111 ITR 326 (All) J.P. Srivastava & Sons Ltd. v. CIT v) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT v. Kashi Nath & Co. vi) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 M/s Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. v. PCIT vii) 343 ITR 229 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housin…

Sh. Arvail Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…Modi affirmed by Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi reported in [2017] 77 taxman.com 78 (SC) iii) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 M/s Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. v. PCIT PROPOSITION XII: THAT NO MECHANICAL SET ASIDE PERMISSIBLE IN ABSENCE OF ENQUIRY BY PCIT i) 394 ITR 758 (Del) PCIT v. Vinita Chaurasia ii) ITA No. 705/Del/2017 PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. iii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT v. Sunder Lal iv) 111 ITR 326 (All) J.P. Srivastava & Sons Ltd. v. CIT v) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT v. Kashi Nath & Co. vi) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 M/s Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. v. PCIT vii) 343 ITR 229 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housin…

DCIT Central Circle-01, Delhi vs. Dl Heera Bhai Jewellery Arcade Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 61/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi26 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT [AS (Third Member)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 154

…roceedings u/s 153C of the Act has been recorded for the impugned assessment year. Thus, following the decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court in cases of RRJ Securities 380 ITR 612, Index Securities Pvt. Ltd. 86 Taxmann.com 84, and Vinita Chaurasia, 394 ITR 758, he held that the assessment order is bad in law, hence, deserves to be quashed. 12. Having held so he proceeded to decide the appeal on merits as well. While dealing with the merits of the issue Ld. Accountant Member observed that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and part of it sustained by Ld. CIT was entirely on the basis of CCTV fo…

Dl Heera Bhai Jewellery Arcade Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-1, New Delhi

ITA 951/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi26 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT [AS (Third Member)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 154

…roceedings u/s 153C of the Act has been recorded for the impugned assessment year. Thus, following the decisions of the Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court in cases of RRJ Securities 380 ITR 612, Index Securities Pvt. Ltd. 86 Taxmann.com 84, and Vinita Chaurasia, 394 ITR 758, he held that the assessment order is bad in law, hence, deserves to be quashed. 12. Having held so he proceeded to decide the appeal on merits as well. While dealing with the merits of the issue Ld. Accountant Member observed that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and part of it sustained by Ld. CIT was entirely on the basis of CCTV fo…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…enue. In this regard, reliance has rightly been placed on ; i) 142 ITR 778 (Pat) CIT vs. Shanti Lai Aggarwala ii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT vs. Late Sunder Lal iii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J.P. Srivastava & Sons v. CIT iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co. iv) 394 ITR 758 (Del) PCIT.v. Vinita Chaurasia 16.1 Then, in “CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd.” 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and “CIT Vs Software Consultants” 341 ITR 240 (Del), it has been held that the revisional authority cannot simply ask the AO to re-examine the matter and that this can be done only after the assessment order is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to t…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…enue. In this regard, reliance has rightly been placed on ; i) 142 ITR 778 (Pat) CIT vs. Shanti Lai Aggarwala ii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT vs. Late Sunder Lal iii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J.P. Srivastava & Sons v. CIT iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co. iv) 394 ITR 758 (Del) PCIT.v. Vinita Chaurasia 16.1 Then, in “CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd.” 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and “CIT Vs Software Consultants” 341 ITR 240 (Del), it has been held that the revisional authority cannot simply ask the AO to re-examine the matter and that this can be done only after the assessment order is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to t…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…enue. In this regard, reliance has rightly been placed on ; i) 142 ITR 778 (Pat) CIT vs. Shanti Lai Aggarwala ii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT vs. Late Sunder Lal iii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J.P. Srivastava & Sons v. CIT iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co. iv) 394 ITR 758 (Del) PCIT.v. Vinita Chaurasia 16.1 Then, in “CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd.” 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and “CIT Vs Software Consultants” 341 ITR 240 (Del), it has been held that the revisional authority cannot simply ask the AO to re-examine the matter and that this can be done only after the assessment order is found to be erroneous and prejudicial to t…