42. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anand and Company

207 ITR 418High Court1994#13735 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 192BSection 271(1)(a)Section 282Section 292B

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(a)section 282section 149(1)(b)section 192section 149(1)section 271bsection 292bsection 34section 292section 149section 148asection 29

Judgments citing 42. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anand and Company

M/S Vibhuti Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 689/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the Assessing Officer by stating that the assessee received Rs.10,00,000/- from M/s Gajgamini Commodities on account of sale of shares. However, the Assessing Officer without doing any verification on the evidences furnished by the assessee which comprises of ledger account, bank statement, ITR, Balance Sheet etc. of Gajgamini Commodities Pvt. Ltd. The ld AO came to the conclusion that the assessee has not prove the genuineness of the transaction and consequently added amount to the income

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…s that the person that purported to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him had in fact exercised that jurisdiction and signed the said notice. The said test has not been satisfied in the case on hand. Unlike the judgment of this court in Anand and Co. [1994] 207 ITR 418 relied upon by the Revenue the case on hand is not one where the authenticity of the show-cause notice is in question. In the case on hand as held by the fact-finding authority the show-cause notice has not been signed by any person and the place intended for signature was kept blank. 16. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken a similar view in…

Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 919/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2 Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan P-7, Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Bose Road, Kolkata-700026, Vs. 700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaecr8231M Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…s that the person that purported to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him had in fact exercised that jurisdiction and signed the said notice. The said test has not been satisfied in the case on hand. Unlike the judgment of this court in Anand and Co. [1994] 207 ITR 418 relied upon by the Revenue the case on hand is not one where the authenticity of the show-cause notice is in question. In the case on hand as held by the fact-finding authority the show-cause notice has not been signed by any person and the place intended for signature was kept blank. 16. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken a similar view in…

Manoj Jain, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-29(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/KOL/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…s that the person that purported to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him had in fact exercised that jurisdiction and signed the said notice. The said test has not been satisfied in the case on hand. Unlike the judgment of this court in Anand and Co. [1994] 207 ITR 418 relied upon by the Revenue the case on hand is not one where the authenticity of the show-cause notice is in question. In the case on hand as held by the fact-finding authority the show-cause notice has not been signed by any person and the place intended for signature was kept blank. 16. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken a similar view in…

M/S. Gyanshankar Investment & Trading Co. P. Ltd.(Before Amalgamation M/S. Stellar Credit& E-Trading P. Ltd), Mumbai vs. The DCIT Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1584/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…e. 15. The following paragraphs from Jagat Novel Exhibitors (P.) Ltd. (supra) on objective behind issue of notice, in consequential defect and purpose behind 292-8 of the Act are also relevant:— '42. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anand and Company (1994) 207 ITR 418 (Cal.), it has been observed as under:— 9 M/s. Gyanshankar Investment & Tradinv Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Before Amalgamation M/s. Stellar Credit & E-Trading Pvt. Ltd.) In our view, the Tribunal has taken an unduly technical view of the whole matter. The judiciary in this country has never gone on technical triviality. Even in the litigation of private pa…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Sudev Industries Ltd

ITA/805/2005HC Delhi31 May 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 230A(1)Section 260ASection 282(2)

…Page 16 of 29 18. Thereafter, in M/s Jagat Novel Exhibitors Private Limited (supra), reference was made to some other judgments, which are to the following effect:- “42. In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anand and Company (1994) 207 ITR 418 (Cal.), it has been observed as under:- “In our view, the Tribunal has taken an unduly technical view of the whole matter. The judiciary in this country has never gone on technical triviality. Even in the litigation of private parties, the courts have shown a wide measure of forgiveness in similar acts of omission or failure as pointed o…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Sudev Industries Limited

ITA-805/2005HC Delhi31 May 2018
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 230A(1)Section 260ASection 282(2)

…Page 16 of 29 18. Thereafter, in M/s Jagat Novel Exhibitors Private Limited (supra), reference was made to some other judgments, which are to the following effect:- “42. In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anand and Company (1994) 207 ITR 418 (Cal.), it has been observed as under:- “In our view, the Tribunal has taken an unduly technical view of the whole matter. The judiciary in this country has never gone on technical triviality. Even in the litigation of private parties, the courts have shown a wide measure of forgiveness in similar acts of omission or failure as pointed o…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/7/2006HC Delhi08 Feb 2012
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…ain Seth, Director of the respondent company appeared before the Assessing Officer. The respondent had also filed some details before the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order. 42. In Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Anand and Company (1994) 207 ITR 418 (Cal.), it has been observed as under:- “In our view, the Tribunal has taken an unduly technical view of the whole matter. The judiciary in this country has never gone on technical triviality. Even in the litigation of private parties, the courts have shown a wide measure of forgiveness in similar acts of omission or failure as pointed ou…

42. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anand and Company (207 ITR 418) — Cited in 7 Judgments | BharatTax