ABAD (2004) 72 CCH 1099 AIIHC (2005) 196 CTR 0416, (2006) 280 ITR 0396 Bhagwan Devi Saraogi v. ITO

118 ITR 906High Court1979#22138 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2023.

Judgments citing ABAD (2004) 72 CCH 1099 AIIHC (2005) 196 CTR 0416, (2006) 280 ITR 0396 Bhagwan Devi Saraogi v. ITO

Late Mr. Shankar Mukund Shenai Through His Legal Heir Sangeetha Samir Koppikar, Mum vs. ITO-23(3)(3), Mum

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3241/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T.Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं/I.T.A. No.3241/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम Late Shri Shankar Mukund Income Tax Officer, 23 (3) Shenai (3) Vs. (Through His Legal Heir Room No.108, Sangeetha Samir Koppikar) Matrumandirtardeo, Grant Flat No. 1202, Anish Tower Road Senapatibapat Marg, Next To Mumbai-400 007 Ruparel College Matunga (W) Mumbai-400 018 स्थधयीलेखधसं/.जी. आइ. आर. सं/.Pan/Gir No.Aahps4468D अपीलार्थी / Appellant .. प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Puru Jain & Shri RajendrakumarFor Respondent: Shri Anil K. Das

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…ith law, the assessment would be illegal and without jurisdiction. f. SRI NATH SURESH CHAND RAM NARESH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (2004) 72 CCH 1099 AIIHC (2005) 196 CTR 0416, (2006) 280 ITR 0396 Bhagwan Devi Saraogi vs. ITO (1979) 118 ITR 906 (Cal) quoted following passage from it: “…………If the authority concerned does not acquire jurisdiction in the absence of a valid notice being served, the entire proceeding will be without jurisdiction and void, and even the consent on the part of the assessee would confer no jurisdiction on the ITO." In the present case, the notice is improperly i…

Vidyavihar Containers Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 7469/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Vidyavihar Containers Ltd. Dcit, Circle-10(2) Bajaj Bhawn, 3Rd Floor, Jumnalal Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Bajar Marg, 226, Nariman Point Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aaacn0291R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ms. S. Padmaja

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain , Judicial Member M/s. Vidyavihar Containers Ltd. DCIT, Circle-10(2) Bajaj Bhawn, 3rd Floor, Jumnalal Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Bajar Marg, 226, Nariman Point Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400021 PAN – AAACN0291R Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri J.D. Mistri Respondent by: Shri Ms. S. Padmaja Date of Hearing: 16.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 23.12.2016 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boaz, A.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)- 22, Mumbai dated 16.07.201…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/7/2006HC Delhi08 Feb 2012

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 260A

…of the opinion that the failure to mention the status in the notice for reassessment was not a mere procedural or a technical defect but a substantive defect. 38. In Bhagwan Devi Saraogi and Others versus Income Tax Officer, ‘E’ Ward and Others, [1979] 118 ITR 906 (Cal.) the notice for reopening did not mention that the income was being assessed in the status of association of persons and, therefore, was treated as null and void. 39. In Jayanthi Talkies Distributors versus Commissioner of Income Tax, [1979] 120 ITR 576 (Mad.), notice was served 2012:DHC:871-DB ITA Nos. 7/2006 + connected matters…