Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 58 SOT 135 (Cut) (Uro) Gobindpada Bhanja Chowdhury v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(1), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 148A, Section 149.

58 SOT 135 (Cut) (Uro) Gobindpada Bhanja Chowdhury v. ITO

Q: How many judgments cite 58 SOT 135 (Cut) (Uro) Gobindpada Bhanja Chowdhury v. ITO?

25 judgments on BharatTax cite 58 SOT 135 (Cut) (Uro) Gobindpada Bhanja Chowdhury v. ITO (352 ITR 273), spanning 2016 to 2026.

352 ITR 273High Court2013#4755 most cited

What is 58 SOT 135 (Cut) (Uro) Gobindpada Bhanja Chowdhury v. ITO authority for?

Intimations under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are invalid and cannot be enforced if they have not been communicated to the assessee. Communication is a mandatory requirement for the validity of such intimations.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Gobindpada Bhanja Chowdhury v. ITO · 352 ITR 273 · Section 143(1) · uncommunicated intimation · communication to assessee · validity of intimation · ITBA screen · ITBA notice

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 148A Section 149 Section 250 Section 37BA

Issues it is cited on

section 35e section 282a section 145(2)section 244 section 148 notice section 199 section 282 section 244a section 35 icds advance tax tax deducted at source

Judgments citing 58 SOT 135 (Cut) (Uro) Gobindpada Bhanja Chowdhury v. ITO

JAYESH DARBI COLLECTION,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 769/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli

Section 143Section 143(1)

…gainst the amount of Rs 99,984/- claimed by the appellant. 5.4 Thus, considering the facts of the case, the AO is directed to grant the appellant an opportunity of being heard, in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court of its own motion V/s CIT 352 ITR 273 and Instructions of CBDT, New Delhi and verify the TCS made in the appellant's case which is relatable to the income offered for taxation for A.Y. 2022-23 with respect to TDS claimed by the appellant and Form 26AS of the appellant and any other material which is relevant for the verification of TCS credit and thereafter grant the credit of TCS, i…

ASSAM GAS COMPANY LIMITED,DULIAJAN vs. DCIT/ ACIT, CIRCLE 1/DBR, DIBRUGARH

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 66/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 438Section 43B

…Finance Ltd. (2005) 275 ITR 451 (SC) has held that TDS credit must be allowed if the claim is supported by valid evidence and the deductor has duly deposited the tax with the government. Similarly, the Delhi High Court in Court on its Own Motion v. CIT (2013) 352 ITR 273 (Del) emphasized the importance of ensuring that genuine TDS credits are not denied due to technical mismatches. 4.3.6 Given the above, it is reasonable to allow the appellant's claim for TDS credit, subject to verification. The AO is directed to verify the details provided by the appellant with the TRACES Portal records/ 25 AS. If the appellant'…

UPASANI SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 901/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

…owever, is unmistakable TDS credit must follow the income, so that the person in whose hands income is assessed to tax is not deprived of the corresponding credit. 19. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in its celebrated judgment in Court on Its Own Motion v. CIT (352 ITR 273), dealt extensively with the hardship caused to genuine taxpayers on account of mismatch between TDS entries and Form 26AS. The Court observed (at para 49) that denial of credit to the assessee, who has suffered tax deduction at source, despite the Revenue having received the tax, amounts to unjust harassment and inequity. The Court trenchantly n…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. RBA BUILDTECH PVT. LTD, NOIDA

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6044/DEL/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 6044/Del/2024 (A.Y 2016-17) Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Rba Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1 A-66, Sector-63, Noida- Noida 201301, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aagcr9285F Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Virsain Agarwal, Adv& Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv Revenue By Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

…creen simpliciter (even before its despatch) is to be held to be issued does not persuade the Court and is contrary to the judgment relied upon by the said party. 25.15. This Court in the case of Court On its Own Motion v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2013) 352 ITR 273, while dealing with Section 143(1) of the Act of 1961, has held that the law requires that, the intimation under Section 143(1) should be communicated to the assessee. The uncommunicated orders or intimations cannot be enforced and are not valid. The relevant extract of the aforesaid decision is reproduced hereinunder: “… 33. The second grievance…

RBA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,UTTAR PRADESG vs. DCIT,ACIT, CEN CIRCLE, NOIDA

ITA 4651/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292BSection 68

…creen simpliciter (even before its despatch) is to be held to be issued does not persuade the Court and is contrary to the judgment relied upon by the said party. 25. 15. This Court in the case of Court On its Own Motion v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2013) 352 ITR 273, while dealing with Section 143(1) of the Act of 1961, has held that the law requires that, the intimation under Section 143(1) should be communicated to the assessee. The uncommunicated orders or intimations cannot be enforced and are not valid. The relevant extract of the aforesaid decision is reproduced hereinunder: “ 33. The second grievance…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. RBA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee in ITA No 4651/Del is

ITA 4472/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 4651/Del/Del/2024 (A.Y 2017-18) Rba Buildtech Private Limited Vs Dcit/Acit A-66, Sector 63, Noida, Central Circle-1, 2Nd Floor, Uttar Pradesh Arto Complex, Ssector- Pan: Aagcr928Sf 33, Noida, Uttar Pradesh Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292BSection 68

VELLALA KRISHNANAND ARUNKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 360/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Shree Raksha, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)(a)Section 44A

…ter examining the details, observed at para 5.4 as under: “5.4 Thus, considering the facts of the case, the AO is directed to grant the appellant an opportunity of being heard, in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court of its own motion V/s CIT 352 ITR 273 and Instructions of CBDT. New Delhi and verify the TDS made in the appellant's case which is relatable to the income offered for taxation for A.Y. 2020-21 with respect to TDS claimed by the appellant and Form 26AS of the appellant and any other material which is relevant for the verification of TDS credit and thereafter grant the credit of TDS, i…

ADITYA RAMNIWAS DHOOT,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 313/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Milwani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 192Section 201Section 250

…ner, who by considering the claim of the Assessee, directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to grant the Assessee an opportunity of being heard in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on its own motion vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Delhi HC) 352 ITR 273 and instruction of the CBDT New Delhi and to verify the TDS made in the Assessee's case whether it is relatable to income offered for taxation in the year under consideration qua TDS claimed by the Assessee and Form 26AS and any other material relevant for verification of TDS credit and thereafter to grant the credit of TDS on finding the claim o…

NORTECH POWER PROJECTS (P) LTD,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, GUWAHATI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 63/GTY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 14A

…laim of TDS on the basis of TDS certificate which may be filed by the assessee before the AO pursuant to direction of Tribunal and credit may be allowed in terms of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Court of its Own Motion vs. CIT [2013] 352 ITR 273 (Delhi). Accordingly we direct the AO to decide the issue and allow the credit to the assessee of TDS of Rs. 7,08,549/- after following the decision in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Court of its own motion (supra). The ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical pu…

MACHINE TOOLS INDIA LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 403/KOL/2022[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jan 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 154

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘‘बी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"यके सम" [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 403/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Machine Tools India Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata (PAN:AABCM 9740 R) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / ( !यथ") 01.12.2022 Date of Hearing / सुनवाई क$ "त&थ Date of Pronouncement/ 04.01.2023 आदेश उ)घोषणा क$ "त&थ For the Appellant/ Mita Rizvi, CA "नधा"/रती क$ ओर से For the Respondent/ Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CITDR र…

PRAKASH SUNRISE HEALTHCARE LIMITED,MEERUT vs. CIRCLE-1(2)(1), MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 778/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Singh, Sr.DR

Section 154Section 199

…prejudice to above, the Id. CIT(A) ought to have directed the Id. A.O. (CPC) to allow credit of TDS under reference of Rs.5,60,390/- following the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case ofCourt on its own motion vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2013) 352 ITR 273 (Del) and other judicial pronouncements on the issue. 3. That the observation of the Id. CIT(A) that “in such case as per rule 37BA(3)(ii), the appellant can claim TDS credits in respective years, in which the income has been offered to tax” is unjust & impractical, as the appellant is unable to claim tax credit of such TDS in the year, in which…

BSR INFRATECH INDIA LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 697/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R

Section 199Section 234ASection 270ASection 43Section 43C

…tor pertaining to current year Income 8.11 In case where TDS certificates are not available on default of the deductor then TDS credit cannot be denied to the assessee. 8.12 Ld. A.R. submitted that the Delhi High Court has in Court On Its Own Motion Vs. CIT 352 ITR 273 directed the department to ensure that credit is given to the assessee even where the deductor had failed to upload the correct details in BSR Infratech India Ltd., Bangalore Page 32 of 38 Form 26AS on the basis of evidence produced before the department. 8.13 Therefore, Ld. A.R. requested that the department is required to give credit for TDS…

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 526/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

…Infrastructure Limited in ITA No.362/Bang/2022 315 8 for AY 2020-21 VI Interest under section 244A to be allowed when assessee is not at fault and on the amount of tax refund due 36. Delhi High Court in the case of Own Motion Vs 317-359 341,342, 16,18,26 CIT(352 ITR 273) 346,347, 27,33,34 355-356, 49,50 & 358-359 57 37. Circular No.20-D (XXII-22) dated August 20, 360 360 1968 CBDT Instruction No. 7/2013, dated 15-7-2013 361-362 361-362 38. 7. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act has been passed on 28.4.2020, which has been served to the assessee on 30.4.2020. The refund has been cred…

GMR ENERGY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 513/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Jagdish K. Jogi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

M/S DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 127/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sunil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT -DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 234CSection 244ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA No.127/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/s.Delhi International Airport The Joint Commissioner of Limited (formerly known as Delhi Income-tax, Central Circle 2(2) v. Bangalore. International Airport Private Ltd.) No.25/1, Skip House, Museum Road Bengaluru – 560 025. PAN : AACCD3570F. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Sunil Jain, CA Respondent by : Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl.CIT -DR Date of Pronouncement : 09.06.2022 Date of Hearing : 02.06.2022 O R D E R Per George George K,…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MMTC LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No. 5 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2981/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit, Vs. Mmtc Ltd, Circle-16(2), Core-1, Scope Complex-7, New Delhi Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacm1433E (Appellant) (Respondent) Mmtc Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, Core-1, Scope Complex-7, Range-5, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaacm1433E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sohail Malik, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 35ASection 80GSection 92C

…the fact that the claim for TDS of Rs.3,65,51,193/- made in the return of income was based upon, amongst others, the TDS certificates filed before AO and AO should have also been directed to consider those TDS certificates in view of Delhi High Court judgment 352 ITR 273.” 4. The brief fact of the case shows that the assessee is a government of India public sector enterprises functioning under Ministry of Commerce. It is a trading organization involved in import and export of various bulk commodities such as metals/ minerals, non-ferrous metals, fertilizers, agro products etc. It is also involved in import of go…

MMTC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No. 5 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2074/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2021AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sohail Malik, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 35ASection 80GSection 92C

M/S. DAYANAND CONTRACTOR,ROHTAK vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, original

ITA 2807/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

…) Dwivedi ITA No. 5125/Mum/2013 dated 10.4.2015 M/s Kroner Investments Ltd vs DCIT. ITA No. 735/D/2015 dated 2.8.2016 Vikas Yadav v. ITO iii) 58 SOT 135 (Cut) (Uro) Gobindpada Bhanja Chowdhury v. ITO iv) 36 taxmann.com 371 (Guj) Vaghibhai v. Bishnoi v. ITO v) 352 ITR 273 (Del) Court on its Own Motion v. CIT vi) 365 ITR 143 (All) Rakes Kumar Gupta v. UOI vii) ITANo. 1331/D/2015 Praveen Kumar Jain v ITO dated viii) 22.1.2015 ITA No. 3534/D/2014(Del Tri) Munni Devi vs ITO68 STO 197 (Del) ix) Bir Bahadur Singh Sijawali 57 ITR 532 (SC) Parimisetti Setharamamma vs. CIT x) 159 ITD 329 (Asr) Sh. Amrik Singh vs ITO xi) 1…

M/S. DAYANAND CONTRACTOR,ROHTAK vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

In the result, original

ITA 2806/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

M/S. DAYANAND CONTRACTOR,ROHTAK vs. ITO, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2027/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, & Sh. Lalit Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR

Section 144A

…i) Dwivedi ITA No. 5125/Mum/2013 dated 10.4.2015 M/s Kroner Investments Ltd vs DCIT ITA No. 735/D/2015 dated 2.8.2016 Vikas Yadav v. ITO iii) 58 SOT 135 (Cut) (Uro) Gobindpada Bhanja Chowdhury v. ITO iv) 36 taxmann.com 371 (Guj) Vaghibhai v. Bishnoi v. ITO v) 352 ITR 273 (Del) Court on its Own Motion v. CIT vi) 365 ITR 143 (All) Rakes Kumar Gupta v. UOI vii) ITANo. 1331/D/2015 Praveen Kumar Jain v ITO dated viii) 22.1.2015 ITA No. 3534/D/2014(Del Tri) Munni Devi vs ITO68 STO ix) 197 (Del) Bir Bahadur Singh Sijawali 57 ITR 532 (SC) Parimisetti Setharamamma vs. CIT x) 159 ITD 329 (Asr) Sh. Amrik Singh vs ITO xi) 1…

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2