ACIT v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority

Q: How many judgments cite ACIT v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority?

21 judgments on BharatTax cite ACIT v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (379 ITR 14), spanning 2016 to 2022.

379 ITR 14High Court2015#5520 most cited

What is ACIT v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority authority for?

Service of notice under Section 148(1) is a mandatory condition precedent for making an assessment order. Once a notice is issued within the limitation period, the Income-Tax Officer gains jurisdiction to proceed with reassessment.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority · 379 ITR 14 · Section 148 · notice · condition precedent · assessment · jurisdiction · reassessment · service of notice · mandatory requirement · Income-Tax Officer

Judgments citing ACIT v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority

Shivaji S Desai, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 22(3)4, Mumbai

In the result, the assessment order is quashed and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2272/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthy: A.Y : 2009-10 Shivaji S. Desai Vs. Income Tax Officer – 22(3)(4), Sagar Darshan Chs, Tower No. 2, Mumbai. (Respondent) Flat No. 1001, 10Th Floor, Sector-18, Nerul (W), Navi Mumbai. (Appellant) Pan : Affpd3240K Appellant By : Shri Prakash Pandit Respondent By : Shri Abhijeet Chaudhary & Shri Mehul Jain Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/09/2022

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Abhijeet Chaudhary &

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…2016) 47 CCH 0603 Asr Trib; iii) Chandra Agencies vs Income Tax Officer, 89 ITD Page 1 ; iv) CIT vs Kishan Chand, 328 ITR 173 (P&H); v) Travancore Diagnostics P. Ltd. vs ACIT, 390 ITR 167 (Ker); and, vi) ACIT vs Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, 379 ITR 14 (All). 5. Per contra, Shri Abhijeet Chaudhary & Shri Mehul Jain representing the Department vehemently defended the contents of the Affidavit filed by the Assessing Officer. The ld. DR submitted that effort was made to serve the assessee on the address, i.e. Shop no. 3/4, Plot No. C-10, Shiv Parvati, Sector- 10, Nerul (W), Navi Mumbai. The notice…

Shri Govind Narain Johari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 287/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Although The Second Round Of Assessment Was Completed At The Directions Of Hon’Ble Itat.

For Appellant: Shri Hanif Khan (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Manisha Choudhary (JCIT)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…is mandatory and the Assessing Officer has no other option but to issue the notice before commencing the jurisdiction. Here, we draw support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asstt. CIT v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority [2015] 379 ITR 14 (All.), wherein it was held as under: "Section 148(1) provides for service of notice as a condition precedent to making the order of assessment. Once a notice is issued within the period of limitation, jurisdiction becomes vested in the Income-tax Officer to proceed to reassess. The mandate of section 148(1) is that reassessment shall not be made…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Indrani Prasad, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed”

ITA 467/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri K.Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

Section 113Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 158Section 271

…is mandatory and the Assessing Officer has no other option but to issue the notice before commencing the jurisdiction. Here we draw support from. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asstt. CIT v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority [2015J 379 ITR 14 (All.), wherein it was held as under: "Section 148(1) provides for service of notice as a condition precedent to making the order of assessment. Once a notice is issued within the period of limitation, jurisdiction becomes vested in the Income-tax Officer to proceed to reassess. The mandate of section 148(1) is that reassessment shall not be made…

Indrani Prasad, New Delhi vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed”

ITA 409/HYD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri K.Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

Section 113Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 158Section 271

M/S. Sjp Infracon Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT (TDS), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3102/DEL/2016[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2022

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3102/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S Sjp Infracon Ltd., Vs Dcit, A-133, Sector-63, Tds, Noida-201301 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaocs6480K Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 194Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 3102/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/s SJP Infracon Ltd., Vs DCIT, A-133, Sector-63, TDS, Noida-201301 Noida (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAOCS6480K Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 07.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 11.03.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Noida dated 29.02.2016…

Commissioner of Income vs. M/S C Ramaiah Reddy

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

ITA/192/2012HC Karnataka24 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260Section 260ASection 292BSection 45(2)

…TRONICS ASIA PVT LTD VS. DGIT AND OTHERS’, (2012) 341 ITR 247 (DELHI), ‘ PAL VINOD VS. DCIT (2013) 353 ITR 622 (KARNATAKA), ‘ CIT VS. RAJEEV SHARMA’, (2011) 336 ITR 678 (ALLAHABAD)’, ACITKL VS. GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY’, (2015) 379 ITR 14 (ALLAHABAD), ‘ACIT VS. GENO PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,’, (2013) 214 TAXMAN 83 (BOMBAY), ‘ CIT VS. GITSONS ENGINEERING CO.’, (2015) 370 ITR 87 (MADRAS), ‘PCIT VS. RAVNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,’, (2017) 399 ITR 567 (DELHI), ‘CIT VS. BIHARI LAL AGRAWAL’, (2012) 346 ITR 67 (ALLAHABAD), ‘NAWAL KISHORE AND SONS JEWELLERS VS. CIT’, (2012) 79 DTR (ALL…

Flovel Energy Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-9(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6485/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ratchi Bimal, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Flovel Energy Pvt. Ltd., Vs ACIT, C/o RRA TAXINDIA, Circle-9(1), D-28, South Extn. Part-I, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AABCF0582E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Kailash Mittal, Advocate Shri Priyansh Jain, CA & Shri Deepesh Garg, Advocate Revenue by : Ms Ratchi Bimal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2019 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assess…

Mukand Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3670/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Mukund Limited V. Dy. Cit-3(2)(1) Aayakar Bhavan Bajaj Bhavan, 3Rd Floor M.K. Road 226 Nariman Point New Marine Lines Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacm5008R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kirit Kamdar Department By : Shri Ajay K. Ojha

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay K. Ojha

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

…ted submits that there is no direction in the order sheet for issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of ACIT v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority [379 ITR 14] submits that it is mandatory requirement for initiation of assessment proceedings to issue notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act and in the absence of issue of notice u/s.143(2) the assessment made u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 is invalid and void ab-initio. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of ACIT v. Geno Pharmaceuti…

Sakun Gems, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 3432/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Uttam Chand BothraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 292B

…see submits that there is no direction in the order sheet for issue of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the assessee referring to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of ACIT v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority [379 ITR 14] submits that it is mandatory requirement for initiation of assessment proceedings to issue notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act and in the absence of issue of notice u/s.143(2) the assessment made u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 is invalid and void ab-initio. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of ACIT v. Geno Pharmaceuti…

Sakun Gems, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 3431/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Uttam Chand BothraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 292B

Shumbhlaxmi Dyetex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 3256/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ld. Cit(A). Thus Assessee Request To Raise This Legal Point As Additional Ground.

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFOREHON’BLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM& HON’BLE SH.RAMIT KOCHAR, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3256/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) ACIT Cen Cir 3(3) ShubhlaxmiDyetex Pvt. R. No. 401, Aayakar Ltd. Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 401/A, Oberoi Chambers, बिधम/ New Link Road, Opp- Vs. SAB TV office, Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 053 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AADCS3613D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant Ms. HemaKataria,AR : by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 27.06.2019 Date of Hea…

M/S. Kaizen Organics Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 834/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: The Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri A.K. Mahala (JCIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

Lalji & Sons, Bankura vs. ACIT, Circle - Bankura, Bankura

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 220/KOL/2016[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Sen, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl, CIT, ld.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…notice being served, the assessing officer had no jurisdiction to make assessment. Absence of notice was not curable u/s 292BB of the Act. 6.5 He further relied on the decision in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority [2015] 379 ITR 14 (All), where, it is held that since the assessing officer failed to issue notice within the specified period u/s 143(2) of the Act, the assessing officer had no jurisdiction to assume jurisdiction u/s 143(2) of the Act and this defect could not be cured by recourse to the deeming fiction provided u/s 292BB of the Act. 6.6 The Id Counsel for the as…

B.Malathi, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 9(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2097/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.N.Madhavan, ACIT, D.RFor Respondent: 13.11.2017

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…statute only with effect from 01.04.2008 and not applicable to the proceedings for assessment year 2007-08. For this purpose, he relied on the judgement of Allahabad High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority in [2015] 379 ITR 14 (All) and also the judgement of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Abacus Distribution Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.1382 of 2014 dated 07.02.2017. 5. On the other hand, ld.D.R relied on the order of Ld.CIT(A). 8 6. I have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The issuance notice u/s.148 of the Act refers to a…

Ramesh Salecha HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3312/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 690

Alok Mittal, Durgapur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Durgapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 526/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

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

…year: 2008-2009 Page 5 of 6 statutory requirement is not covered under section 292BB. In support of this contention, he has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of ACIT –vs.- Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority [379 ITR 14], wherein it was held that the deeming fiction under section 292BB of the Act is with regard to “service of notice” and since the initial requirement of “issuance of notice” was not met by the Assessing Officer, the deeming fiction under section 292BB is not applicable. It was held that there was a defect on the part of the Assessing Officer in fa…

Ricky Construction (P) Ltd., Hooghly vs. ITO, WD-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1286/KOL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1286/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2004-05 Ricky Construction (P)Ltd. -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-3(3), Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 1789 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri A.K.Sinha, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Sinha, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…e before the completion of reassessment within the stipulated time , then such reassessment was not sustainable in law. We also find that the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of ACIT vs Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority reported in (2015) 379 ITR 14 (All) had held as under :- “The jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to make an assessment under section 143(3)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is based on the issuance of a notice under section 143(2)( ii) of the Act. The proviso to clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 3 4 Ricky Construction (P)Ltd. A.Yr.2004-05 143 clearly stipulates tha…

Orissa Mining Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Dict, Bhubaneswar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 371/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Jul 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Kumar Panda, DGM, OMCFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT, DR

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

…Asse ssment Years: 200 8-0 9,2 010 -11 & 20 11- 12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.371, 374 & 375/CTK/2015 Assessment Years:2008-09,2010-11 & 2011-12 Orissa Mining Corporation, Vs. DCIT, Circle -1(1), OMC House, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rajat Kumar Panda, DGM, OMC Revenue by : Shri Kunal Singh, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 05/07/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : 06 /07/ 2017 O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM These are appeals filed by the as…

Renuka G., Bellary vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K. Garodiaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S. Venkatesan, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT-III(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 292B

…the invalid notice issued after the prescribed period deserves to be quashed. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of ACIT v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, 379 ITR 14 (All) in which Their Lordships have held that if notice u/s. 143(2) was not issued in time, the assessment framed consequent thereto is not a valid assessment and deserves to be quashed. Page 4 of 13 4. The ld. DR, on the other hand, has contended that the AO has categorically observed in his order that notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on 13.09.2…

DCIT vs. M/S Asha Business Centre Ltd

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands allowed, while the appeal by the department is dismissed

ITA 1577/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…ssee has preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri A. Shankar, relied on the following decisions:- i) CIT v. Mukesh Kumar Agarwal [2012] 345 ITR 29 (All) ii) ACIT v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority [2015] 379 ITR 14 (All) iii) Principal CIT v. Silver Line (2016) 129 DTR 191 (Del) iv) CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Company [2015] 370 ITR 87 ITA Nos.1577 & 1400/Bang/2013 Page 5 of 6 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala relied on the decisions in the case of Aravali Engineers P. Ltd. Vs CIT, (2011) 11 TAxmann.com 291 and K.J. Thomas, 301 ITR…