153C of the Act. (iii) CIT v. Sohan Lal Sewa Ram Jaggi

222 CTR 412High Court2009#9563 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 124(3)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 120Section 124(1)Section 139Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 115wfsection 124(3)(a)section 115wdsection 124(3)section 124section 120section 127chief commissionersection 132aservice of noticesection 153csection 12

Judgments citing 153C of the Act. (iii) CIT v. Sohan Lal Sewa Ram Jaggi

KUSUM DUBE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7444/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 54F

…learly held that jurisdiction cannot be called in question into by the assessee after expiry of one month from the date of service of notice. Similar view has been further taken by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT v. Sohal Lal Sewa Ram Jaggi [2009] 222 CTR 412. Reference in this regard may also be made to the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -6(1), Chandigarh v. Punjab Urban Development Authority, Mohali (2014] 42 taxmann.com 160 (Chandigarh - Trib.) wherein Hon’ble ITAT held that once a notice under section 143(2) is issued by a partic…

ACIT CIRCLE-1(2), NEW DELHI vs. ASSOCIATED TECHNO PLASTICS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7444/DEL/1992[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2025AY 1989-90

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh(), Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishrakusum Dube Vs. Ito Ward 2(3) C/O Kapil Goel Adv. Gurgaon, Income Tax F-26/124 Sector 7, Rohini Department, Phase V, Delhi - 110085 Udyog Vihar, Sector 19, Gurugram, Haryana 122016 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aewpd9787R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 54F

…learly held that jurisdiction cannot be called in question into by the assessee after expiry of one month from the date of service of notice. Similar view has been further taken by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT v. Sohal Lal Sewa Ram Jaggi [2009] 222 CTR 412. Reference in this regard may also be made to the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle -6(1), Chandigarh v. Punjab Urban Development Authority, Mohali (2014] 42 taxmann.com 160 (Chandigarh - Trib.) wherein Hon’ble ITAT held that once a notice under section 143(2) is issued by a partic…

STAARK ACCESSORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 13(2)(2)

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2418/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Staark Accessories Pvt. Ltd., A-20, Virwani Industrial Estate Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400063, Pan: Aatcs1816J ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-13(2) (2), Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin S. Chhag, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Ld. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Staark Accessories Pvt. Ltd., A-20, Virwani Industrial Estate Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400063, PAN: AATCS1816J ...... Appellant Vs. ACIT-13(2) (2), Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020 ..... Respondent Appellant by : Shri Ashwin S. Chhag, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Ld. DR Date of hearing : 09/01/2024 Date of pronouncement : 06/02/2024 O R D E R PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Nationa…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE vs. SRI C T RAVI , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are dismissed as indicated above

ITA 286/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…any objections to the same. In our humble view, the above judicial pronouncement is not relevant to the issue on hand as the said decision was rendered in the context of section 147 and not section 153C of the Act. (iii) CIT Vs. Sohan Lal Sewa Ram Jaggi in 222 CTR 412 (All). This case deals with the delay in issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act and is not applicable to the case on hand. ITA Nos. 272 to 274/Bang/2018 ITA Nos. 282 to 286/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 41 (iv) CIT Vs. British India Corporation Ltd., in 337 ITR 64 (All). (v) Vaishali Builders & Colonizers Vs. Addl. CIT (138 ITD 227) (ITAT – Jod…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE vs. SRI C T RAVI , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are dismissed as indicated above

ITA 285/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…any objections to the same. In our humble view, the above judicial pronouncement is not relevant to the issue on hand as the said decision was rendered in the context of section 147 and not section 153C of the Act. (iii) CIT Vs. Sohan Lal Sewa Ram Jaggi in 222 CTR 412 (All). This case deals with the delay in issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act and is not applicable to the case on hand. ITA Nos. 272 to 274/Bang/2018 ITA Nos. 282 to 286/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 41 (iv) CIT Vs. British India Corporation Ltd., in 337 ITR 64 (All). (v) Vaishali Builders & Colonizers Vs. Addl. CIT (138 ITD 227) (ITAT – Jod…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI C T RAVI , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are dismissed as indicated above

ITA 284/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…any objections to the same. In our humble view, the above judicial pronouncement is not relevant to the issue on hand as the said decision was rendered in the context of section 147 and not section 153C of the Act. (iii) CIT Vs. Sohan Lal Sewa Ram Jaggi in 222 CTR 412 (All). This case deals with the delay in issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act and is not applicable to the case on hand. ITA Nos. 272 to 274/Bang/2018 ITA Nos. 282 to 286/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 41 (iv) CIT Vs. British India Corporation Ltd., in 337 ITR 64 (All). (v) Vaishali Builders & Colonizers Vs. Addl. CIT (138 ITD 227) (ITAT – Jod…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI C T RAVI , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are dismissed as indicated above

ITA 283/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…any objections to the same. In our humble view, the above judicial pronouncement is not relevant to the issue on hand as the said decision was rendered in the context of section 147 and not section 153C of the Act. (iii) CIT Vs. Sohan Lal Sewa Ram Jaggi in 222 CTR 412 (All). This case deals with the delay in issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act and is not applicable to the case on hand. ITA Nos. 272 to 274/Bang/2018 ITA Nos. 282 to 286/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 41 (iv) CIT Vs. British India Corporation Ltd., in 337 ITR 64 (All). (v) Vaishali Builders & Colonizers Vs. Addl. CIT (138 ITD 227) (ITAT – Jod…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI C T RAVI , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are dismissed as indicated above

ITA 282/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…any objections to the same. In our humble view, the above judicial pronouncement is not relevant to the issue on hand as the said decision was rendered in the context of section 147 and not section 153C of the Act. (iii) CIT Vs. Sohan Lal Sewa Ram Jaggi in 222 CTR 412 (All). This case deals with the delay in issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act and is not applicable to the case on hand. ITA Nos. 272 to 274/Bang/2018 ITA Nos. 282 to 286/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 41 (iv) CIT Vs. British India Corporation Ltd., in 337 ITR 64 (All). (v) Vaishali Builders & Colonizers Vs. Addl. CIT (138 ITD 227) (ITAT – Jod…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, BANGALORE vs. SMT.PALLAVI RAVI , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are dismissed as indicated above

ITA 274/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…any objections to the same. In our humble view, the above judicial pronouncement is not relevant to the issue on hand as the said decision was rendered in the context of section 147 and not section 153C of the Act. (iii) CIT Vs. Sohan Lal Sewa Ram Jaggi in 222 CTR 412 (All). This case deals with the delay in issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act and is not applicable to the case on hand. ITA Nos. 272 to 274/Bang/2018 ITA Nos. 282 to 286/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 41 (iv) CIT Vs. British India Corporation Ltd., in 337 ITR 64 (All). (v) Vaishali Builders & Colonizers Vs. Addl. CIT (138 ITD 227) (ITAT – Jod…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, BANGALORE vs. SMT.PALLAVI RAVI , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are dismissed as indicated above

ITA 273/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…any objections to the same. In our humble view, the above judicial pronouncement is not relevant to the issue on hand as the said decision was rendered in the context of section 147 and not section 153C of the Act. (iii) CIT Vs. Sohan Lal Sewa Ram Jaggi in 222 CTR 412 (All). This case deals with the delay in issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act and is not applicable to the case on hand. ITA Nos. 272 to 274/Bang/2018 ITA Nos. 282 to 286/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 41 (iv) CIT Vs. British India Corporation Ltd., in 337 ITR 64 (All). (v) Vaishali Builders & Colonizers Vs. Addl. CIT (138 ITD 227) (ITAT – Jod…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, BANGALORE vs. SMT.PALLAVI RAVI , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are dismissed as indicated above

ITA 272/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…any objections to the same. In our humble view, the above judicial pronouncement is not relevant to the issue on hand as the said decision was rendered in the context of section 147 and not section 153C of the Act. (iii) CIT Vs. Sohan Lal Sewa Ram Jaggi in 222 CTR 412 (All). This case deals with the delay in issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act and is not applicable to the case on hand. ITA Nos. 272 to 274/Bang/2018 ITA Nos. 282 to 286/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 41 (iv) CIT Vs. British India Corporation Ltd., in 337 ITR 64 (All). (v) Vaishali Builders & Colonizers Vs. Addl. CIT (138 ITD 227) (ITAT – Jod…

153C of the Act. (iii) CIT v. Sohan Lal Sewa Ram Jaggi (222 CTR 412) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax