1. CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandewal 417 ITR 325 (SC); 2. Rajender Kumar Sehgal v. ITO

398 ITR 701High Court2017#7030 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 147 Section 148 Section 142(1)Section 139 Section 144B Section 143(3)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 14b section 292bb section 292b section 292 section 29 service of notice section 142 notice under section 148 reassessment proceedings section 139 section 151 section 143(2)

Judgments citing 1. CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandewal 417 ITR 325 (SC); 2. Rajender Kumar Sehgal v. ITO

PARMANAND,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD, 2(1)(2), AGRA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 447/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…ent order bad in law. Ld AR referred the following case law in support of his arguments: 1. CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal, (2019) 310 CTR (SC) 8. 2. Rajender Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO, (2019) 414 ITR 286 (Del). 3. PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd., (2017) 398 ITR 701 (Del). 4. PCIT vs. Shri Jay Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd., (2016) 383 ITR 448 (Del). 5. CIT vs. Rajeev Sharma, (2011) 336 ITR 678 (All). 6. PCIT vs. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 404 ITR 299 (Del). 7. Anil Agarwal HUF vs. ITO, ITA No. 2594/Del/2024, dated 30.07.2025 (ITAT Delhi). 8. Deepak Kumar Gupta vs. ITO, ITA No. 4528/Del/2024, dated…

CHANCHAL BANSAL,BAHADURGARH vs. ITO WARD-3 ROHTAK, ROHTAK

ITA 4684/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalchanchal Bansal Vs. Ito Ward-3 Mohallamazid, 14, Aayakarbhawan Ward No.25, Rohtak, Jhajjar, Bahadurgarh, Haryana – 124001 Haryana – 124507 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bicpb3122P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. P.K. Jain, Ca Ms. Vrishti Jain, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…d assessment order as bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 1. CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandewal 417 ITR 325 (SC); 2. Rajender Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO 414 ITR 286 (Del.); 3. PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. 398 ITR 701 (Del); 4. PCIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Trading P. Ltd. 388 ITR 448 (Del.); 5. CIT vs. Rajiv Sharma 336 ITR 678 (All.); 6. PCIT vs. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 404 ITR 299 (Del). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file return within the time specified in the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and therefore the Assessin…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNAL vs. ASHUTOSH FOODS, NISSING

ITA 234/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmadeputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ashutosh Foods Income Tax, Karnalkaithal Road, Aayakarbhawan, Nissingkarnal, Sector-12, Karnal Haryana – 132024 Haryana – 132001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aavfa2840F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dr.Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…assessment order as bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 1. CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandewal 417 ITR 325 (SC); 2. Rajender Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO 414 ITR 286 (Del.); 3. PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. 398 ITR 701 (Del); 4. PCIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Trading P. Ltd. 388 ITR 448 (Del.); 5. CIT vs. Rajiv Sharma 336 ITR 678 (All.); 6. PCIT vs. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 404 ITR 299 (Del). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file return within the time specified in the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and therefore the Assessi…

DEEPAK KUMAR GUPTA,KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(1), MORADABAD, MORADABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4528/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Deepak Kumar Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 7/115, Flat No. B-1, Sai Niwas, Ward 2(1), Arya Nagar, Kanpur - 208020 Moradabad ( U.P) Uttar Pradesh. Pin: 244 001 Pan :Acmpg1836E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 69

ANIL AGARWAL HUF,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX WARD-28(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 2594/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2594/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Anil Agarwal Huf Income Tax Officer, F-71,Second Floor, Vs. Ward-28(1), Main Green Park, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aahha2179P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69

…sessment order as bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 1. CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandewal 417 ITR 325 (SC); 2. Rajender Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO 414 ITR 286 (Del.); 3. PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. 398 ITR 701 (Del); 4. PCIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Trading P. Ltd. 388 ITR 448 (Del.); 5. CIT vs. Rajiv Sharma 336 ITR 678 (All.); 6. PCIT vs. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 404 ITR 299 (Del). 4 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file return within the time specified in the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and therefore the…

JATIN DILIPBHAI JANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 892/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR and Shri ashokkumar Suthar, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘B’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS.SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.891 and 892/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year : 2012-13 and 2017-18 Jatin Dilipbhai Jani Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(1) 64, Asopalav Bungalows Ahmedabad. Shalaj B.O. Ahmedabad. PAN : ADNPJ 6303 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Deepak R. Shah, AR Assessee by : Revenue by Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT…

JATIN DILIPBHAI JANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 891/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR and Shri ashokkumar Suthar, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

VISHNU KUMAR,BHARATPUR vs. ACIT OR JCIT OR DCIT OR ASST. CIT OR ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, BHARATPUR

ITA 85/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Dated 08.12.2023 Passed, U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “ The Act”), By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Whereby His Appeal Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 Has Been Dismissed. 2. The Assessee Was Before Learned Cit(A), Having Felt Dissatisfied With The Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, (CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

…rement, a reassessment order cannot be passed. In other words, requirement of 12 Sh. Vishnu Kumar issuance of such notice is a jurisdictional one. In this regard, reference may be made to decision in Principal CIT v. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd., (2017) 398 ITR 701 (Delhi). 18. Nothing to the contrary has been cited on behalf of the Revenue. 19. As regards significance of such a notice, it may be mentioned here that section 143(2) incorporates the rule of audi alteram partem i.e., no man should be condemned unheard. 20. Without service of such a notice, right of the asessee would get affected, the reason be…

FIXED & MOBILE PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3)(1) INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

ITA 767/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Fixed & Mobile Pte Ltd., Vs Acit, 1 Raffles Place, International Taxation, #28-01 One Raffles Place, Tower-2, Circle 1(3)(1), Singapore, Singapore 9999. New Delhi. Pan: Aabcf4910G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Vasant, Fca & Ms Poonam Ahuja, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Alok Vasant, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…448 (Delhi)  PCIT vs. Oberoi Hotels (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxmann.com 104 (Calcutta)  Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd. vs. DGIT [(2012) 341 ITR 247 (DHC)]  CIT vs. Rajeev Sharma [(2011) 336 ITR 0678 (ALL.)  PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. [2017] 398 ITR 701 (Delhi)  Indus Towers Ltd. v. DCIT [2017] 82 taxmann.com 430 (Delhi)  ADIT (Exemption), Hyderabad v. Vodithala Education Society [2014] 151 ITD 12 (Hyderabad Trib.)  CIT vs. Panorama Builders (P). Ltd. [(2014) 45 taxmann.com 159 (Gujarat)] 4. At outset we admit that additional ground as the same arises of admitted facts and being pure question…

SUBHASH GUJAR,JHAJJAR vs. ITO, WARD-4, ROHTAK

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 6053/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…any notice u/s 143(2) before assessing the income of the appellant u/s 143(3). 1.2 Appellant’s case is covered by following judgements:- 321 ITR 362 (SC) Hotel Blue Moon 383 ITR 448 (Del) Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. 383 ITR 455 (Del) Silver Line 398 ITR 701 (Del) Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. 323 ITR 249 (Del) Society for Wordwide Inter Bank Financial Telecom 1.3 In his written submission dt. 8.3.202, Ld. DR is trying to take shelter u/s 292BB of the Act. In this regard, it is to submit that non issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is a basic jurisdictional error and cannot be cured/ condoned by referr…

ACIT, CIRCLE-64(1), NEW DELHI vs. GURNIHAL SINGH PIRZADA, CHANDIGARH

ITA 3952/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 3947/Del/2019, A.Y. 2008-09 Ita No.3952/Del/2019, A.Y. 2013-14

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…2. ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 3. CIT vs. Delhi Kalyan Samiti (2016) 95 CCH 399 4. PCIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar traders (2016) 338 ITR 448 P. Ltd. 5. PCIT vs. Consortium Nussli Comfort (2022) 113 CCH 116 Net 6. PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech (2017) 398 ITR 701 Industries Ltd. 7. M/s. Halcrow Group Ltd. vs. ADIT ITA no.163/Del./2010 Dtd. 02.07.2018 8. ITO vs. Innovative Welfare and ITA No. 166/Del./2015 Educational Society dtd. 29.04.2022 9. U.P. State Industrial Development ITA No. 11/2015 dtd. Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT 11.07.2016” 9. Giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record and after co…

ACIT, CIRCLE-64(1), NEW DELHI vs. GURNIHAL SINGH PIRZADA, CHANDIGARH

ITA 3947/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 3947/Del/2019, A.Y. 2008-09 Ita No.3952/Del/2019, A.Y. 2013-14

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. PAN INTERNATIONAL, PUNE

ITA 175/PUN/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.175/Pun/2020 & Co No. 23/Pun/2022 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-2009 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-7, Pune . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Pan International, 347, Afl House, Off Dhole Patil Rd, Behind Hotel Meru, Pune – 411 001 . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Pan: Aabfp4234F & Cross Objector द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Sharad Vaze Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 09/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Revenue Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 06/11/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Quashing The Order Of Assessment Dt. 10/03/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Pune[For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2008-09 On Technical-Cum-Legal Ground.

For Appellant: Shri Sharad VazeFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 292BSection 40

…luding re-assessment jurisdiction fails and consequently any assessment or reassessment carried out turns contra-legem, this view finds fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “PCIT Vs Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd” reported in 398 ITR 701, wherein their lordship vide para 18-19 have categorically held that; “18. The wording of Section 143(2)(ii) of the Act, which is applicable in the present case, requires the AO to be satisfied on examining the return filed that prima facie the Assessee has “understated the income” or has “computed excessive loss” or has “underpaid the tax in any…

INDIAN CLOTHING LEAGUE(P) LTD.,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD-26(2), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 505/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Indian Clothing League (P) Ltd., Vs. Ito, Rupinder Kumar Aggarwal, Ward-26(2), Advocate, B-1A/22H, New Delhi. Sector-51, Noida. Pan: Aaccv3439R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2022 Order

For Appellant: Shri Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…. Hotel blue Moon 321 ITR 362 (SC); ii) CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal 417 ITR 325 (SC); iii) PCIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P) Ltd 383 ITR 448 (Del); iv) Pr. CIT v. Silver Line and Anr 383 ITR 455 (Del); v) PCIT v. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. 398 ITR 701 (Del) ; and vi) CIT v. Delhi Kalyan Samiti ITA No. 696/2015 (Del) dated 22.3.2016 8. Referring to the order of the CIT(A) at para 4.2.2., he submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has given a finding that issuance of notice u/s 143(2) was not needed as the return was not filed by the assessee. He submitted that the assessee has filed the return of income…

DART INFRABUILD PVT. LTD.(EARLIER KNOWN AS KIWI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-14(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8774/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 151Section 151(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…Court in the cases of PCIT vs. Silver line 383 ITR 455, CIT vs. Delhi Kalyan Samiti in ITA No. 696/2015, PCIT vs. Atlanta capital private limited in ITA No. 665/2015, PCIT vs. Shri Shawshankar traders 383 ITR 448 and PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech industries Ltd 398 ITR 701, any such assessment so framed without issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is illegal and without jurisdiction. 10. Per contra, it is the submission of the Ld. DR that the affixture of notice under section 148 of the Act was done at the last known address of the assessee because the new address of the assessee was furnished by the…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S C RAMAIAH REDDY

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

ITA/192/2012HC Karnataka24 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260Section 260ASection 292BSection 45(2)

…NDELWAL supra and decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. NORTAN MOTORS’, (2005) 275 8 ITR 595 (P&H), ‘ACIT VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON’, (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC), ‘PCIT VS. PARAMOUND BIOTECH INDUSTRIES LTD’, (2017) 398 ITR 701 (DELHI), ‘ PCIT VS. OBEROI HOTELS PVT LTD’, (2018) 409 ITR 132 (CAL), ‘ALPINE ELECTRONICS ASIA PVT LTD VS. DGIT AND OTHERS’, (2012) 341 ITR 247 (DELHI), ‘ PAL VINOD VS. DCIT (2013) 353 ITR 622 (KARNATAKA), ‘ CIT VS. RAJEEV SHARMA’, (2011) 336 ITR 678 (ALLAHABAD)’, ACITKL VS. GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY’, (2015) 379…