(1973) 89 ITR 0136 (All.) CIT v. Satya Narain Poddar

110 ITR 27High Court1977#18706 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Judgments citing (1973) 89 ITR 0136 (All.) CIT v. Satya Narain Poddar

Kailash Chand Yadav, 100, Kalu Baba Ki Dhani, Sheoshinghpur, Akoda, Phulera-303338 vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 82/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

…titions filed by the assessee, the High Court held that there was no proper service on the assessee and the orders of the CIT pursuant thereto could not be sustained, (viii) Similar view was expressed in the case of Jagannath Prasad &Ors, Vs, CIT &Ors, (1977) 110 ITR 27 (All), In that case it was observed that according to section 11 Kailash Chand Yadav vs. ITO 282 of the Income-tax Act, a notice has to be served, either by post or as if it were a summons issued by a court under the CPC, The following observations were also made in that case: "When service by affixture can be restored under Income-tax Act? Accor…

Shri Sanjeev Patni, Indore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-3(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 62/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjeev Patni Indore Pan:Aftpp6237Q : Appellant

Section 10Section 139Section 143Section 144Section 147Section 69

…nesses who have identified the house of the assessee and in whose presence the notice was affixed. Further, the affidavit in assessment records is missing thus in contravention of Rule 20 of Order V of CPC 1908. We find that in case of Jagannath Prasad [1977] 110 ITR 27 (ALL.), the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held as under: “the report given by the process server was to the effect that he had made enquiries at a number of places but could not find out the assessee. After this report the ITO passed an order for affixture. From the mere fact that the process server could not find out the assessee it would not le…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-3 (1), Indore vs. Shri Sanjeev Patni, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjeev Patni Indore Pan:Aftpp6237Q : Appellant

Section 10Section 139Section 143Section 144Section 147Section 69

Smt. Nalini Shyam Moundekar, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward- 4(1), Nagpur

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand allowed as above

ITA 516/NAG/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe

Section 144Section 148Section 5

…1 ITA Nos. 516,517&518/Nag/2014. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER.. I.T.A. Nos. 516, 517 & 518/Nag/2014. Assessment Year : 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06. Late Shri Shyam Anand Moundekar, The Income-tax Officer, L/H Smt. Nalini Shyam Moundekar, Vs. Ward-4(1), Nagpur. Nagpur. PAN AICPM6255D. Appellant. Respondent. Appellant by : Shri K.P. Dewani. Respondent by : Shri A.R. Ninawe. Date of Hearing : 23-03-2017. Date of Pronouncement : 27th March, 2017. O R D E R. PER BENCH: At the outset we note that there is…