375 (SC); Mrs. Vanitha Gopal Shetty v. ACIT

444 ITR 420High Court2022#14584 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 112(1)Section 132Section 153ASection 158BCSection 292BSection 68Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 133(a)warrant of authorisationsection 292bbsection 158bcshare capital and share premiumsection 292bsection 292panchnamasection 29section 132(1)section 158bsection 158

Judgments citing 375 (SC); Mrs. Vanitha Gopal Shetty v. ACIT

ARIMILLI RAMA KRISHNA,WEST GODAVARI DIST vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 639/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194JSection 2(22)(e)Section 263

…frame the assessment cannot be condoned by referring to section 292BB of the Act. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), vs. Cherian Abraham (2022) 444 ITR 420 (Karnataka)/(2022) 137 taxman.com 73 (Karnataka), wherein it is held that a notice under section 143(2) of the Act issued beyond the period of limitation partakes the character of absence of notice itself in the eyes of law, and thus, section 292BB of the Act would not save such a notice de hors the limitation prescribed. Accordingly, the Hon’ble…

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1311/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 37(1)

…le High Court of Delhi in the case of Shaily Juneja vs. ACIT (2022) 476 ITR 665 (Delhi) and that of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Principal 15 Sanghi Textiles Privarte Limited vs. ITO Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Cherian Abraham (2022) 444 ITR 420 (Karnataka). Apart from that, the Ld. AR had relied on the order of the ITAT (Special Bench), Delhi, in the case of Raj Kumar Chawla vs. ITO (2005) 1 SOT 934 (Delhi) (SB). The Ld. AR submitted that as the framing of the assessment under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 30/03/2022, presupposes the issuance of notice under section 143(2) of…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI vs. FOCUS BUILDWELL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2273/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

…ave been issued. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgments in the case of PCIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (2019) 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC); Mrs. Vanitha Gopal Shetty Vs. ACIT (2021) 129 taxmann.com 163 (Karnataka); and PCIT Vs. Cherian Abraham (2022) 444 ITR 420 (Karnataka). In the context of section 292BB of the Act, it was held that the said section only deals with the limited aspect of service of a notice. It was thus held that the section 292BB of the Act, does not confer the AO with any kind of jurisdiction where it legally does not exist. 16. Thus, the findings of the ld.CIT(A) require no interfer…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI vs. FOCUS BUILDWELL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2272/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

…ave been issued. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgments in the case of PCIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (2019) 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC); Mrs. Vanitha Gopal Shetty Vs. ACIT (2021) 129 taxmann.com 163 (Karnataka); and PCIT Vs. Cherian Abraham (2022) 444 ITR 420 (Karnataka). In the context of section 292BB of the Act, it was held that the said section only deals with the limited aspect of service of a notice. It was thus held that the section 292BB of the Act, does not confer the AO with any kind of jurisdiction where it legally does not exist. 16. Thus, the findings of the ld.CIT(A) require no interfer…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 15, NEW DELHI vs. FOCUS BUILDWELL PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2271/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Ms Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 68

…ave been issued. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgments in the case of PCIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (2019) 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC); Mrs. Vanitha Gopal Shetty Vs. ACIT (2021) 129 taxmann.com 163 (Karnataka); and PCIT Vs. Cherian Abraham (2022) 444 ITR 420 (Karnataka). In the context of section 292BB of the Act, it was held that the said section only deals with the limited aspect of service of a notice. It was thus held that the section 292BB of the Act, does not confer the AO with any kind of jurisdiction where it legally does not exist. 16. Thus, the findings of the ld.CIT(A) require no interfer…

RAKESH KUMAR BANSAL,GUJRAT vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CERCLE , GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 2516/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2515/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Geeta Bansal Dcit Ch. No. 206-207, Vs. Central Circle Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ghaziabad. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 Pan No. Aispb9075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2516/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Rakesh Kumar Bansal Dcit Ch. No. 206-207, Vs. Central Circle Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ghaziabad. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 Pan No. Abwpb1370M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 292CSection 69

…ssessee before I.T.A.Nos.2515 & 2516/Del/2022 completion of assessment. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: 1. CIT(Central) Kanpur Vs. Moins Iqbal [ITA No. 168/Del/2009 dated 28.07.2017] (Allah.) (HC); 2. Pr. CIT (Central) Vs. Cherian Abraham [444 ITR 420] (Karn.); 3. Pr. CIT Vs. N.S. Software [403 ITR 259]. 16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that notice u/s 153C of the Act and consequent proceedings are beyond jurisdiction of Assessing Officer being jurisdiction assumed based on the order u/s 127 of the Act which itself is void ab initio. Reliance was placed on the following d…

GEETA BANSAL,GUJRAT vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 2515/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2515/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Geeta Bansal Dcit Ch. No. 206-207, Vs. Central Circle Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ghaziabad. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 Pan No. Aispb9075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2516/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Rakesh Kumar Bansal Dcit Ch. No. 206-207, Vs. Central Circle Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ghaziabad. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 Pan No. Abwpb1370M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 292CSection 69

…ssessee before I.T.A.Nos.2515 & 2516/Del/2022 completion of assessment. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: 1. CIT(Central) Kanpur Vs. Moins Iqbal [ITA No. 168/Del/2009 dated 28.07.2017] (Allah.) (HC); 2. Pr. CIT (Central) Vs. Cherian Abraham [444 ITR 420] (Karn.); 3. Pr. CIT Vs. N.S. Software [403 ITR 259]. 16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that notice u/s 153C of the Act and consequent proceedings are beyond jurisdiction of Assessing Officer being jurisdiction assumed based on the order u/s 127 of the Act which itself is void ab initio. Reliance was placed on the following d…