Similarly, in P Jayappan v. SK 26. Similarly, in P Jayappan Vs SK Perumal, First Income Tax Officer

149 ITR 696Supreme Court of India1984#16769 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 331,145 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 31Section 32ASection 33(5)

Issues it is cited on

transfersection 143prescribedpersonsection 14section 143(3)indiabusinessdocumentinterest

Judgments citing Similarly, in P Jayappan v. SK 26. Similarly, in P Jayappan Vs SK Perumal, First Income Tax Officer

Ritesh Singh ACIT Circle 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Trend Electronics Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for

ITA 5461/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Shri Parth Parikh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 7

…ependent in nature to each other and that the finding in the adjudication proceedings against the person facing prosecution is not binding on the proceedings for criminal prosecution. 26. Similarly, in P Jayappan Vs SK Perumal, First Income Tax Officer (1984) 149 ITR 696 (SC), it was held that a mere expectation of success in some proceeding in appeal under the IT Act cannot come in the way of the institution of the criminal proceedings. This is because, in principle, the result of proceeding under the IT Act would not be binding on the criminal court. The criminal court has to judge the case independently on the…

Ritesh Singh ACIT Circle 3 3 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Trend Electronics Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all result, all the three appeals are allowed for three appeals are allowed for statistical purpose statistical purpose

ITA 5459/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Parth Parikh, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 7

…ot binding binding binding on on on the the the proceedings for proceedings proceedings for for criminal criminal criminal prosecution. prosecution. 26. Similarly, in P Jayappan Vs SK 26. Similarly, in P Jayappan Vs SK Perumal, First Income Tax Officer (1984) 149 ITR 696 First Income Tax Officer (1984) 149 ITR 696 First Income Tax Officer (1984) 149 ITR 696 (SC), it was held that a mere expectation of success , it was held that a mere expectation of success , it was held that a mere expectation of success in some proceeding in appeal under the IT Act in some proceeding in appeal under the IT Act in some proceedin…

Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-9, Now Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3218/AHD/2015[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1993-94

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 3217 & 3218/Ahd/2015 (Assessment Year: 1992-93 & 1993-94) Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, ACIT, Vs. 19/431, Satyagrah Chhavni Circle 4(2), Society, B/h. Sivanand Ashram, Ahmedabad Satellite Road, Ahmedabad- 380015 PAN : AJVPS 6793 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in person Respondent by: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 06.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement 31.12.2024 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT : These two…

Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-9, Now Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3217/AHD/2015[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1992-93

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 3217 & 3218/Ahd/2015 (Assessment Year: 1992-93 & 1993-94) Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, ACIT, Vs. 19/431, Satyagrah Chhavni Circle 4(2), Society, B/h. Sivanand Ashram, Ahmedabad Satellite Road, Ahmedabad- 380015 PAN : AJVPS 6793 A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in person Respondent by: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 06.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement 31.12.2024 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT : These two…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9 vs. Yum Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd

ITA/219/2018HC Delhi27 Sept 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133Section 276Section 482

…. 50. The last argument which has been contended is that the Complaint is premature as the Assessment of the income for the Financial Year 2015-16 was yet to be finalized. 51. In the case of P. Jayappan vs. S.K. Perumal, First Income Tax Officer [1984] 149 ITR 696, it has been held that pendency of re-assessment proceedings cannot act as a bar to the institution of criminal prosecution for the offences under Section 276-C or Section 277 Income Tax Act. The proceedings conducted under Section 153(A) by the Assessing Officer are different and do not pertain to the jurisdiction of the Investigating Unit…