What is 165 Taxman 95 (Del); (ii) CIT v. Atedhsy Films P. Ltd. authority for?

If a second notice for reassessment is issued and the assessee appears without objecting to the service of the first notice for 30 days, it is a valid presumption that the first notice was duly served. Repeated appearances of an authorized representative further corroborate valid service.

How many judgments cite 165 Taxman 95 (Del); (ii) CIT v. Atedhsy Films P. Ltd.?

35 judgments on BharatTax cite 165 Taxman 95 (Del); (ii) CIT v. Atedhsy Films P. Ltd. (306 ITR 309), spanning 2011 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 165 Taxman 95 (Del); (ii) CIT v. Atedhsy Films P. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 144, Section 147, Section 148, Section 153(2), Section 271(1)(c).

165 Taxman 95 (Del); (ii) CIT v. Atedhsy Films P. Ltd. (306 ITR 309)

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 772/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…to her CA. From these facts, it is evident that the notice under section 148 sent through speed post stand duly been served on the assessee in the eyes of law. It has been held by the hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Yamu Industries Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 309 (Delhi), if it is assumed that first notice was not served on the assessee then in second notice if the assessee appeared and did not raise any objection after 30 days of issuance of notice, then and it is a valid presumption under law that no notice is served. This fact is further corroborated by repeated appearance of authorised representative…

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 771/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…to her CA. From these facts, it is evident that the notice under section 148 sent through speed post stand duly been served on the assessee in the eyes of law. It has been held by the hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Yamu Industries Ltd. [2008] 306 ITR 309 (Delhi), if it is assumed that first notice was not served on the assessee then in second notice if the assessee appeared and did not raise any objection after 30 days of issuance of notice, then and it is a valid presumption under law that no notice is served. This fact is further corroborated by repeated appearance of authorised representative…

RAMAKRISHNA MURALI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 975/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271D

…d, the service is deemed to have been effected at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. For this proposition, we place reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs,. Madhsy Films P. Ltd. (2008) 301 ITR 69 (Del) (SC). In the present case, the penalty order sent by AO has not been received back, it is to be presumed that, it has been served on assessee. 6.8 Further, where service is effected by registered post, the mere fact that the physical delivery of the notice was made to a person other than the addressee and a person who had no authority to rec…

JAGBIR SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6389/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 148Section 151

…f of the assessee was filed. Since this is a time barring case and the undersigned is left with no option but to pass the best judgment assessment order u/s 144 of the IT Act guided by judicial pronouncement in the case of CIT Vs. Yamu Industries Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 309 (Del) and as held by the Supreme Court in the case of BrijBhushanLalPradumankumar Vs. CIT (1978) 115 ITR 524 (SC) and the Calcutta High Court in Anand Rice and Oil Mills Vs. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 372 (Cal.) As, considering the above the assessee not produced any explanation in this matter. The undersigned have no alternative left but to decide the…

RANBIR SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6387/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 148Section 151

…f of the assessee was filed. Since this is a time barring case and the undersigned is left with no option but to pass the best judgment assessment order u/s 144 of the IT Act guided by judicial pronouncement in the case of CIT Vs. Yamu Industries Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR 309 (Del) and as held by the Supreme Court in the case of BrijBhushanLalPradumankumar Vs. CIT (1978) 115 ITR 524 (SC) and the Calcutta High Court in Anand Rice and Oil Mills Vs. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 372 (Cal.) As, considering the above the assessee not produced any explanation in this matter. The undersigned have no alternative left but to decide the m…

AZAD SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 42(1), DELHI

ITA 5372/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Azad Singh Vs Ito Village- Hiron Kudna, Ward-42(1) New Delhi Civic Centre, Jln Marg, Bzxps4944Q New Delhi Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 12.01.2022

Section 148Section 151

…ssee was filed. Since this is a time barring case and the undersigned is left with no other option but to pass the best judgment assessment order u/s 144 of the assessee IT Act guided by judicial pronouncement in the case of CIT Vs Yamu Industries Ltd, (2008)306 ITR 309(Del) and as held by the Supreme Court in the ease of Brij Bhushan Lai Praduman Kumar Vs CJT(197S) 115 ITR 524 (SC) and the Calcutta High Court in Anand Rice and Oil Mills Vs. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 372 (Cal.) As. considering the above the assessee not produced any explanation in this matter. The undersigned have no alternative left but to decide the…

SH. SUKHPAL CHOWDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 342/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri T. R. Talwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaudhary

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69

…n and same had not been received back, it could be presumed that it had reached assessee, particularly when no affidavit had been filed by assessee to effect that notice was not received by it. 2. CIT Vs Yamu Industries Ltd [20081 167 Taxman 67 (Delhi)/[20081 306 ITR 309 (Delhi)/(2008) 214 CTR 445 (Delhi) (Copy Enclosed) where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that where notice under section 143(2) sent by registered post at correct address of assessee had not been received back 'unserved’ within period of thirty days of its issuance, there was a presumption under law that said notice had been duly served upon asses…