5.3 DCIT v. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd.

107 ITD 457Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#9314 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

section 292bbsection 292bsection 292section 29service of noticecommissioner (appeals)reason to believesection 142section 139notice under section 148reassessment proceedingssection 142(1)

Judgments citing 5.3 DCIT v. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd.

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IN- SITU), CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR, JABALPUR vs. MANISH KUMAR SAROGI, KATNI

Accordingly, the appeals in I.T.A.No.39/JAB/2023, 21/JAB/2019 and 62/JAB/2019 of the Revenue are dismissed for having become in-fructuous

ITA 39/JAB/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 1Section 143(2)Section 153A

…was issued on 23-03-2000 while the return was filed on 27-03-2000. Even if it was issued on 27-03-2000 without examining the return, it was invalid. The notice was invalid and so was the assessment.” 12.3 DCIT vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd. [(2007) 107 ITD 457 (Chennai)] Validity of reassessment order - Non-service of notice under s.143(2) – “The amended Proviso to s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was not applicable in case where the assessee was not served a notice under s.143(2) of the Act. The reassessment made in such a case was invalid S.143(2) and s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961.” 12.4 CIT vs.…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE, JABALPUR vs. SHRI MANISH KUMAR SARAOGI, KATNI

Accordingly, the appeals in I.T.A.No.39/JAB/2023, 21/JAB/2019 and 62/JAB/2019 of the Revenue are dismissed for having become in-fructuous

ITA 62/JAB/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 1Section 143(2)Section 153A

…was issued on 23-03-2000 while the return was filed on 27-03-2000. Even if it was issued on 27-03-2000 without examining the return, it was invalid. The notice was invalid and so was the assessment.” 12.3 DCIT vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd. [(2007) 107 ITD 457 (Chennai)] Validity of reassessment order - Non-service of notice under s.143(2) – “The amended Proviso to s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was not applicable in case where the assessee was not served a notice under s.143(2) of the Act. The reassessment made in such a case was invalid S.143(2) and s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961.” 12.4 CIT vs.…

JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 64/JAB/2018[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147

…2) was issued on 23-03-2000 while the return was filed on 27-03-2000. Even if it was issued on 27-03-2000 without examining the return, it was invalid. The notice was invalid and so was the assessment.” 5.3 DCIT vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd. [(2007) 107 ITD 457 (Chennai)] Validity of reassessment order - Non-service of notice under s.143(2) – “The amended Proviso to s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was not applicable in case where the assessee was not served a notice under s.143(2) of the Act. The reassessment made in such a case was invalid S.143(2) and s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961.” 5.4 CIT vs. M/…

JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 63/JAB/2018[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147

…2) was issued on 23-03-2000 while the return was filed on 27-03-2000. Even if it was issued on 27-03-2000 without examining the return, it was invalid. The notice was invalid and so was the assessment.” 5.3 DCIT vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd. [(2007) 107 ITD 457 (Chennai)] Validity of reassessment order - Non-service of notice under s.143(2) – “The amended Proviso to s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was not applicable in case where the assessee was not served a notice under s.143(2) of the Act. The reassessment made in such a case was invalid S.143(2) and s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961.” 5.4 CIT vs. M/…

JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 62/JAB/2018[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147

…2) was issued on 23-03-2000 while the return was filed on 27-03-2000. Even if it was issued on 27-03-2000 without examining the return, it was invalid. The notice was invalid and so was the assessment.” 5.3 DCIT vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd. [(2007) 107 ITD 457 (Chennai)] Validity of reassessment order - Non-service of notice under s.143(2) – “The amended Proviso to s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was not applicable in case where the assessee was not served a notice under s.143(2) of the Act. The reassessment made in such a case was invalid S.143(2) and s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961.” 5.4 CIT vs. M/…

JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 61/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147

…2) was issued on 23-03-2000 while the return was filed on 27-03-2000. Even if it was issued on 27-03-2000 without examining the return, it was invalid. The notice was invalid and so was the assessment.” 5.3 DCIT vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd. [(2007) 107 ITD 457 (Chennai)] Validity of reassessment order - Non-service of notice under s.143(2) – “The amended Proviso to s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was not applicable in case where the assessee was not served a notice under s.143(2) of the Act. The reassessment made in such a case was invalid S.143(2) and s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961.” 5.4 CIT vs. M/…

TODAY REALTY P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-25(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4029/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…urt of India in the case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (Supra), the various High Courts/ Tribunal has declared assessment/reassessment as invalid on account of non-service of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. DCIT vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd. [(2007) 107 ITD 457 (Chennai)] Validity of reassessment order - Non-service of notice under s.143(2) – “The amended Proviso to s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was not applicable in case where the assessee was not served a notice under s.143(2) of the Act. The reassessment made in such a case was invalid S.143(2) and s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961.” CIT vs. M/s Pa…

TODAY REALTY PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-25(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4028/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…urt of India in the case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (Supra), the various High Courts/ Tribunal has declared assessment/reassessment as invalid on account of non-service of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. DCIT vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd. [(2007) 107 ITD 457 (Chennai)] Validity of reassessment order - Non-service of notice under s.143(2) – “The amended Proviso to s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was not applicable in case where the assessee was not served a notice under s.143(2) of the Act. The reassessment made in such a case was invalid S.143(2) and s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961.” CIT vs. M/s Pa…

SIYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 865/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 865/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Up-12, Pitampura, Ward-8(4), New Delhi-110034 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics7889N Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.12.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 865/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, UP-12, Pitampura, Ward-8(4), New Delhi-110034 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAICS7889N Assessee by : Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 21.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2017 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 21.12.2012 of ld. CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi. 2. Following grounds have been raised in thi…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RAVNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objection of the Assessee is allowed and Appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 4889/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…e the return was filed on 27-03-2000. Even if it was issued on 27-03-2000 without examining the return, it was invalid. The notice was invalid and so was the assessment.” DCIT vs. Indian Syntans Investments DCIT vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd. [(2007) 107 ITD 457 DCIT vs. Indian Syntans Investments DCIT vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd. [(2007) 107 ITD 457 (P) Ltd. [(2007) 107 ITD 457 (P) Ltd. [(2007) 107 ITD 457 (Chennai)] (Chennai)] (Chennai)] (Chennai)] Validity of reassessment order - Non-service of notice under s.143(2) – “The amended Proviso to s.148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 was not applicab…

ZAKIA BEGUM,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3002/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. WA Khan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 44A

…143(2) was issued on 23-03-2000 while the return was filed on 27-03-2000. Even if it was issued on 27-03-2000 without examining the return, it was invalid. The notice was invalid and so was the assessment.” DCIT vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd. [(2007) 107 ITD 457 DCIT vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd. [(2007) 107 ITD 457 DCIT vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd. [(2007) 107 ITD 457 DCIT vs. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd. [(2007) 107 ITD 457 (Chennai)] (Chennai)] (Chennai)] (Chennai)] Validity of reassessment order - Non-service of notice under s.143(2) – “The amended Proviso to s.148 of the…

5.3 DCIT v. Indian Syntans Investments (P) Ltd. (107 ITD 457) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax