← All Phrases

“Section 24(4)”

Section References (mined)Section 24Section 24(4)10 judgments

OM PRAKASH GUPTA,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, JAIPUR

ITA 400/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 115BSection 153ASection 69

held to be\nBenamidar of the assessee and the assessee is held as a Beneficial Owner\nof these lands in the term of section 24(4) PBPT Act. 1988 and thereby it\nwas concluded that the investment of Rs.16,09,07,018/ in purchase of\nabove properties in the name

OM PRAKASH GUPTA,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, JAIPUR

ITA 399/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 115BSection 153ASection 69

held to be\nBenamidar of the assessee and the assessee is held as a Beneficial Owner\nof these lands in the term of section 24(4) PBPT Act. 1988 and thereby it\nwas concluded that the investment of Rs.16,09,07,018/ in purchase of\nabove properties in the name

OM PRAKASH GUPTA,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, JAIPUR

ITA 398/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 115BSection 153ASection 69

{ "clean_text": "आl;k;vihyh;vf/kdj.k]t;iqj U;k;ihB]t;iqj\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR

OM PRAKASH GUPTA,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, JAIPUR

ITA 397/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 115BSection 153ASection 69

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR\n\nडा०

OM PRAKASH GUPTA,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

ITA 396/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 153ASection 69

held to be Benamidar of the assessee and the assessee is held as a Beneficial Owner of these lands in the term of section 24(4) PBPT Act. 1988 and thereby it was concluded that the investment of Rs. 16,09,07,018/ in purchase of above properties

OM PRAKASH GUPTA,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, JAIPUR

ITA 395/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 153ASection 69

held to be Benamidar of the assessee and the assessee is held as a Beneficial Owner of these lands in the term of section 24(4) PBPT Act. 1988 and thereby it was concluded that the investment of Rs. 16,09,07,018/ in purchase of above properties

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 716/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 14Section 147Section 14ASection 154

Karnataka High Court in the case of Syndicate Bank 261 ITR 528 in which penalty has been confirmed for violation of section 24(4)(a) and 24(4)(b) of the Banking Regulation Act and the penalty paid by the assessee bank for violation of above section was not allowed

CANARA BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 111/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri S. Ananthan, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 14Section 147Section 14ASection 154

Karnataka High Court in the case of Syndicate Bank 261 ITR 528 in which penalty has been confirmed for violation of section 24(4)(a) and 24(4)(b) of the Banking Regulation Act and the penalty paid by the assessee bank for violation of above section was not allowed

BHAGWANT EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE EXEMTION 1(1), DELHI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 24(4)Section 26(3)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASIAN STAR COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2778/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Asian Star Company Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3) Room No.803, 8Th Floor, 114-C, Mitta Court, Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca4856B Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ms. Vaishali More, Ars Revenue By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143Section 148

said properties to be benami properties, in the reasons, if any, that he would have recorded prior to issuance of SCN on 25.01.2019. Section 24(4) of the PBPT Act, 1988 says that the Initiating Officer, after making such inquires and calling for such reports or evidence as he deems ... Initiating Officer initially covered the properties under section 2(9)(A), 2(9)(C) and later while passing order under section 24(4) he himself restricted to section 2(9) (A) and, In my opinion, the initiating Officer should not be vague and confused while initiating and concluding a proceeding