← All Phrases

“Section 22(4)”

Section References (mined)Section 22Section 22(4)32 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 22(4) is Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT (266 ITR 99), cited in 181 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 22(4)

Berger Paints India Ltd. v. CIT
266 ITR 99 · 2004 · Supreme Court
181
citing judgments

The Revenue cannot take a conflicting stand from what it had earlier accepted in a previous assessment year without compelling justification. This principle of consistency applies to various issues, including the treatment of customs duty in closing inventory.

Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT
244 ITR 734 · 2000 · High Court
168
citing judgments

The Revenue is bound by the rule of consistency and cannot adopt a divergent position in a subsequent assessment year unless there is a change in facts or law.

Indian Oil Panipat Power Consortium Ltd. v. ITO
315 ITR 255 · 2009 · High Court
112
citing judgments

Interest earned from the temporary parking of borrowed funds specifically intended for project development, prior to the commencement of business, constitutes a capital receipt inextricably linked to the project and is not taxable as 'income from other sources'.

Miss P. Sarada v. CIT
229 ITR 444 · 1998 · Supreme Court
64
citing judgments

A loan or advance from a closely held company to a shareholder is a deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) upon receipt, unaffected by subsequent repayment or adjustment.

CEPT v. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd.
20 ITR 451 · 1951 · Supreme Court
59
citing judgments

Income derived from leasing a business asset is considered business income under Section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Bihar Institute of Mining & Mine Surveying v. CIT
208 ITR 608 · 1994 · High Court
57
citing judgments

An entity qualifies as an 'educational institution' under Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act only if it is primarily engaged in imparting education, rather than merely assisting educational bodies or providing scholarships and grants. The focus must be on active educational activities.

Smitaben N. Ambani v. CWT
323 ITR 104 · 2010 · High Court
44
citing judgments

The annual value of a self-occupied property, for both wealth tax and income tax purposes, is the reasonable rent expected from a hypothetical tenant. When using municipal ratable value, statutory deductions permissible under municipal law must be added back to arrive at this expected rent.

P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra
6 SCC 537 · 2005 · Reported
44
citing judgments

Establishing and administering educational institutions is not considered a commercial activity, and education is viewed as charity or philanthropy, especially when fees are regulated. However, if institutions collect money beyond prescribed fees, it constitutes capitation fees, leading to legal consequences.

Judgments citing Section 22(4)

Shring Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., Dehradun vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 7056/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh, Hon’Blea.Y. : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

manner required by the said section 139(1) or by such notice. * have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(1)/143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961. * have concealed the particulars

Ujjal Sinha, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1931/KOL/2025[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 24Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

time allowed and the | ner 39(1) or by the such notice. i Have without reasonable cause failed to comply with re section 22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, ee 142(1)/143(2) of the Incor 61. 6.1 We find that the above notice

M/S Nandlal Keshardeo, Ranchi vs. ACIT, Central Circle (1), Ranchi

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 15/RAN/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi12 Nov 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

manner required by the side section 139(1) or by such notice. *Have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of the India Income Tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(1)/143/2) of the Income Tax Act 1961. No dated have

Animesh Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Durgapur

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

ITA 1903/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 22(4)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

under the respective Acts in terms of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act read with section 43B of the Act, read with section 22(4)(x) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the additions made by the ld. AO towards

Animesh Mukherjee, Durgapur vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(4), Durgapur

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

ITA 1902/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 22(4)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

under the respective Acts in terms of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act read with section 43B of the Act, read with section 22(4)(x) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) challenging the additions made by the ld. AO towards

Income-Tax Officer-8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Vibgyor Texotech Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4705/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292B

said section 139(1) or by s notice. or have with have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of the Inc Income-tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(1)/143(2) of the income tax Act, 1922 or under section

Gaurav Ajmera, Ratlam vs. DCIT(Central)-2, Indore

Accordingly, Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 808/IND/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 115BSection 131Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 234ASection 271ASection 274

manner required by the side section 139(1) or by such notice. *Have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of the India Income Tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act1961. No. dated have ... manner required by the side section 139(1) or by such notice. *Have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of the India Income Tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(1)143(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961. No. dated

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rakjot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 81/RJT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara | बनाम Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Vs. Pan: Aampl 3903 F Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोटन्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJКОТ BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 80/RJT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) बनाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2 Rajkot, 2Nd Floor, Amruta Estate, M.G. Rad, Rajkot-360 001 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/03/2025 : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोटन्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 79/RJT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

BATHS AAS OT, ASTHMA SATA | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rakjot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 78/RJT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40

required by the said section 139(1) or by such notice. dated have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4) / 23(2) of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(1) / 143(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961. NO. dated

Pankajkumar Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The Actit, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 77/RJT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.76 To 80/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2012-13 & आयकर अपीलसं/.Ita No. 81/Rjt/2022 निर्धारणवर्ष /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya 3Rd Floor, Parth, Diwanpara Main Road, Rajkot-3600 001 Pan: Aampl 3903 F (अपीलार्थी/Assessee) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar राजस्व की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 Order Per Bench, Captioned Six Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2008-09 To 2012-13 & Ay 2014-15, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (“Ld.Cit(A)” For Short) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act" For Short), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Penalty Orders, Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) & 271Aab(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोटन्यायपीठ, राजकोट । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT

Pankaj Chimanlal Lodhiya, Rajkot vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 76/RJT/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40

ITA No.76 to 81/RJT/2022 (AY 8-09 to 12-13 & 14-15) Pankaj C Lodhiya आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोटन्यायपीठ, राजकोट

Nayankumar Jayantilal Balu, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 184/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui- Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

के अधीन दी गई सूचना सं. नहीं किया है। का अनुपालन Have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under Section 22(4) / 23(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under Section 142(1) / 143(2) of the Inomce-Tax Act, 1961, No dated • अपनी

Shivaji Laxman Sahane, Nashik vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1078/PUN/2024[A.Y. 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1078/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S.ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

required by the said section 139(1) or by such notice. o have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. o have

V.V. Mohammed, Kannur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kannur

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

ITA 862/COCH/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin04 Apr 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Sureshkumar C, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 139(2)Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 22(1)Section 22(4)Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

manner required by the said section 139(1) or by such notice. *have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or under section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 No dated

DCIT, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai vs. Triumph Securities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 962/MUM/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (VirtuallyFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel – Spl. Counsel
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

required by the said Section 139(1) or by such notice. dated *have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under Section 22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under Section 142(1)/143(2) of the Income ... have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under Section 22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income-tax Ac, 1922 or under Section 142(1) / 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. No. dated You are hereby requested to appear before

DCIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Michael Page International Recruitment Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3090/MUM/2023[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Ms. Hirali Desai, CA andFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 271(1)(e)Section 274

सूचना सं. ता. 22 (4)/23 (2) या आयकर का अनुपालन नहीं • Have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under Section 22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 or under Section 142(1)/143(2) of the Inomce-Tax Act, 1961, No DCIT

Priority Jewels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Appeals

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 3196/Mum/2024 is

ITA 3196/MUM/2024[AY 2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 246ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

manner required by the said section 139(1) or by such notice. *have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under section 22(4)/23(2) of the Indian Income- tax Act, 1922 or under secrionl42(1)/143(2) of the income-tax Act, 1961. Ne date * have

Sushil Kumar Paul, Siliguri vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2274/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Sushil Kumar Paul Acit, Circle-2, Siliguri. C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. (Pan: Akfpp 4837 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2022 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Siliguri Dated 23.08.2019 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “I. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 23,70,000/- Imposed By The Ao By Wrongly Invoking The Provisions Of Section 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 271A

manner required by the said section 139(1) or by such notice. Have without reasonable cause failed to comply with a notice under Section 22(4)/ 23(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or under Section 142(1)/ 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Have concealed