389 ITR 314 (Punjab & Haryana), (ii) Padinjarekara Agencies (P.) Ltd. v. CIT(A)

398 ITR 381High Court2017#20737 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing 389 ITR 314 (Punjab & Haryana), (ii) Padinjarekara Agencies (P.) Ltd. v. CIT(A)

Anil Nachrani, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 47/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 47/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

…de irregular-depending upon the nature of the provision not complied with -but certainly not void or illegal. 16. Ld. CIT DR further placed before us the order of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Padinjarekara Agencies (P.) Ltd, reported in [2017] 398 ITR 381, wherein Hon’ble High court has held as under: 11. However, in so far as this case concerned, Question to be considered is whether the omission to mention Section 143(2) literally in any one of the notices issued to the assessee would invalidate the assessment order. While in this context, it is relevant to take note of the Division Bench judgmen…

Khanapur Maralingappa Jayashree, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 655/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Mrs. Khanapur Maralingappa Jayashree, Vs. Ito, No.135/A, Ganganagar, Ward – 6(3)(1), Bengaluru – 560 032. Bengaluru. Pan : Abipj 6465 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. H. Guruswamy, Itp Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2023

For Appellant: Shri. H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

…e u/s. 143(2) was a mandatory requirement of law without which the assessment would not survive. Page 2 of 4 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Padinjarekara Agencies Pvt Ltd (2017) 398 ITR 381 (KER) which was distinguishable on facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- merely on the ground of non response to the Notices dtd: 19-03-2020, 14-01-2021, 27-09-2022 and 04-11- 2022 issued by the AO without adjudicating the addition on merits of the case. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ha…

Sh. Yogeshwar Goel, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6990/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiyogeshwar Goel, Vs. Acit, C/O Kapil Goel, Adv, F-26/124, Central Circle, Sector-7, Rohini, Noida New Delhi Pan: Acvpg7964N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR

Section 153A

…sentative) – 6 New Delhi. She referred to para number 3 of that letter and response to the assessing officer in para number 4. 11. She further relied upon the following judicial precedents to support the case of the revenue a. Padinijrekara Agencies P Ltd VIT 398 ITR 381 b. Sumitra Menon V CIT 315 ITR 111 c. Josh Builders & Developers P Ltd V PCIT 9/9/2016 d. Ashok Chaddha V ITO 337 ITR 399 e. DCIT V K M Nagraj 82 taxann.com 170 f. CIT V Harsingha Gutkha P Ltd 44 taxmann.com 101 g. P M Abdulla ITA 1224/Bang/2012 h. Tarsem Singla V DCIT 385 ITR 138 ( P & H ) 12. She further stated that the honourable Karnataka Hig…

The ACIT, Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Clp Power India Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1127/AHD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Dave, Sr. D.R

Section 143(2)Section 292B

…ground of belated service of notice under s.143(2) of the Act. For this proposition, the learned DR relied upon; (i) Josh Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT [2016] 389 ITR 314 (Punjab & Haryana), (ii) Padinjarekara Agencies (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT(A) [2017] 398 ITR 381 (Kerala) & (iii) CIT vs. Mrs. C. Malathy [2007] 294 ITR 532 (Madras). 5. Since, the preliminary objection towards validity of assessment owing to belated service of notice under s.143(2) of the Act is in question which goes to the root of the matter, we shall proceed to deal with the jurisdictional question raised before us at the outset. 6. Fe…