Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Alpine Electronics Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Director General of Income Tax come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(2), Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 144.

Alpine Electronics Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Director General of Income Tax (341 ITR 247)

Q: What is Alpine Electronics Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Director General of Income Tax authority for?

A notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act is mandatory even in reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 or Section 148. The proviso to Section 148(1) specifically extends the period for issuance of such a notice, affirming its necessity.

Q: How many judgments cite Alpine Electronics Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Director General of Income Tax?

91 judgments on BharatTax cite Alpine Electronics Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Director General of Income Tax (341 ITR 247), spanning 2015 to 2026.

VIDYA SHANKER JAISWAL, SARGUJA,SARGUJA vs. ITO, WARD-2, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 142/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.141 & 142/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: S/shri Yash Dhariwal &For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

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

…153A of the Act and in our view, the same is not applicable in the present case. This Court in several cases pertaining to proceedings under Section 147 has held that a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory. [See: Alpine Electronics Asia (P.) Ltd. v. DGIT: 341 ITR 247 (Del), DIT v. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication: 323 ITR 249 (Del), Pr. CIT v Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd.: 282 CTR 435 (Del) and CIT v. Rajeev Verma: 336 ITR (All)]. It is also relevant to note that clause (b) of the proviso to Section 148(1) of the Act also specifically extends the period for issuance of not…

VIDYA SHANKER JAISWAL, SARGUJA,SARGUJA vs. ITO, WARD-2, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 141/RPR/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.141 & 142/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: S/shri Yash Dhariwal &For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

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

…153A of the Act and in our view, the same is not applicable in the present case. This Court in several cases pertaining to proceedings under Section 147 has held that a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory. [See: Alpine Electronics Asia (P.) Ltd. v. DGIT: 341 ITR 247 (Del), DIT v. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication: 323 ITR 249 (Del), Pr. CIT v Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd.: 282 CTR 435 (Del) and CIT v. Rajeev Verma: 336 ITR (All)]. It is also relevant to note that clause (b) of the proviso to Section 148(1) of the Act also specifically extends the period for issuance of not…

MOHAMMED USMAN, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/RPR/2026[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mohammed Usman C/25, Nandini Road, Power House, Bhilai-490 011, Dist. Durg Pan: Aafpu9292H

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ot applicable in the present case. This Court in several cases pertaining to proceedings under Section 147 has held that a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory. [See: Alpine Electronics Asia (P.) Ltd. v. 9 Mohammed Usman Vs. ITO-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) DGIT: 341 ITR 247 (Del), DIT v. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication: 323 ITR 249 (Del), Pr. CIT v Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd.: 282 CTR 435 (Del) and CIT v. Rajeev Verma: 336 ITR (All)]. It is also relevant to note that clause (b) of the proviso to Section 148(1) of the Act also specifically extends the period for issuance of not…

RAMA AGRAWAL, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 490/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.490/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rama Agrawal 33A, I. E. Bhilai, S.O Industrial Estate, Durg-490 026 (C.G.) Pan: Acgpa8359N

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

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

…153A of the Act and in our view, the same is not applicable in the present case. This Court in several cases pertaining to proceedings under Section 147 has held that a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory. [See: Alpine Electronics Asia (P.) Ltd. v. DGIT: 341 ITR 247 (Del), DIT v. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication: 323 ITR 249 (Del), Pr. CIT v Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd.: 282 12 Rama Agrawal Vs. ITO-2(1), Bhilai CTR 435 (Del) and CIT v. Rajeev Verma: 336 ITR (All)]. It is also relevant to note that clause (b) of the proviso to Section 148(1) of the Act also specifically…

HARJEET SINGH CHHABRA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, RAIPUR (ERST. ITO-1(3), RAIPUR), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 469/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.469/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Harjeet Singh Chhabra H. No.84, Las Vista, Mahaveer Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Adkpc0408P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Central Circle-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 4

…153A of the Act and in our view, the same is not applicable in the present case. This Court in several cases pertaining to proceedings under Section 147 has held that a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory. [See: Alpine Electronics Asia (P.) Ltd. v. DGIT: 341 ITR 247 (Del), DIT v. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication: 323 ITR 249 (Del), Pr. CIT v Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd.: 282 CTR 435 (Del) and CIT v. Rajeev Verma: 336 ITR (All)]. It is also relevant to note that clause (b) of the proviso to Section 148(1) of the Act also specifically extends the period for issuance of not…

SATYA ENTERPRISES,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 396/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.396/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Satya Enterprises Ward No.3, Shanti Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Adcfs1415L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 292B

…153A of the Act and in our view, the same is not applicable in the present case. This Court in several cases pertaining to proceedings under Section 147 has held that a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory. [See: Alpine Electronics Asia (P.) Ltd. v. DGIT: 341 ITR 247 (Del), DIT v. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication: 323 ITR 249 (Del), Pr. CIT v Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd.: 282 CTR 435 (Del) and CIT v. Rajeev Verma: 336 ITR (All)]. It is also relevant to note that clause (b) of the proviso to Section 148(1) of the Act also specifically extends the period for issuance of not…

RAJULHOUBIENUO ANGAMI,NAGALAND vs. ITO WARD 2, DIMAPUR

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 26/GTY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: This Hon'Ble Tribunal Assailing The Order Dated 24.06.2024 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Ld. Cit(A)"]. That The Due Date For Filing The Appeal Was 24Th August, 2024. However, There Has Been An Unintentional Delay Of 166 Days (Upto 13Th February, 2025), In Filing The Present Appeal, For Which The Appellant, With Utmost Humility, Seeks The Indulgence Of This Hon'Ble Tribunal For Condonation Of The Said Delay On The Grounds Set Forth Herein. 2. It Is Submitted That The Mr. Shivendu Maharaj Is The Accountant Of The Appellant Who Looks After The Tax Portal & Email Updates. The Accountant Also Forwards The Needful To The Chartered Accountant, Mr. Ajit Jain, To Take Necessary Action In Response To Any Notice That Is Received.

Section 10(26)Section 147Section 250Section 69A

…e context of the assessment under Section 147 courts have taken the view that notice under Section 147(2) is required to be issued to the assessee. See in this connection, the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd. v. DGIT [2012] 341 ITR 247/205 Taxman 190/18 taxmann.com 246 vide paragraph 24 thereof. 10. Section 143(2) shows that the purpose of issuing a notice thereunder is to require the assessee to produce, or cause to be produced, any evidence on which the assessee may rely, in support of the return filed by him. That a notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory requirement and…

ANIL KUMAR PAREKH, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.194/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Anil Kumar Parekh C/O. Madhu Traders, Station Road, Dhamtari (C.G.)-493 773 Pan: Akepp0240E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…153A of the Act and in our view, the same is not applicable in the present case. This Court in several cases pertaining to proceedings under Section 147 has held that a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory. [See: Alpine Electronics Asia (P.) Ltd. v. DGIT: 341 ITR 247 (Del), DIT v. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication: 323 ITR 249 (Del), Pr. CIT v Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd.: 282 CTR 435 (Del) and CIT v. Rajeev Verma: 336 ITR (All)]. It is also relevant to note that clause (b) of the proviso to Section 148(1) of the Act also specifically extends the period for issuance of not…

KRISHAN KUMAR MAKRANIA PRO. M/S. MAKRANIA OIL MILL,,BHIWANI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, GURGAON

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 3214/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & AnkitFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…153A of the Act and in our view, the same is not applicable in the present case. This Court in several cases pertaining to proceedings under Section 147 has held that a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory. [See: Alpine Electronics Asia (P.) Ltd. v. DGIT: 341 ITR 247 (Del), DIT v. Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication: 323 ITR 249 (Del), Pr. CIT v Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd.: 282 CTR 435 (Del) and CIT v. Rajeev Verma: 336 ITR (All)]. It is also relevant to note that clause (b) of the proviso to Section 148(1) of the Act also specifically extends the period for issuance of not…

MAHENDRA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 654/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…d)\n\n1.6That issue of a notice u/s143(2) of the Act, is mandatory even in a reassessment\nproceeding initiated u/s 148 of the Act has been clearly laid down by the Hon'ble\nDelhi High Court in the case of M/s. Alpine Electronics Asia PTE Ltd. V/s DGIT\n&Ors.,341 ITR 247(Del) considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the\ncase of Hotel Blue Moon (supra) at para 24ofthejudgmenttheirLordships\nheldthatSection143(2) was applicable to a proceedings u/s 147/148 also, since\nproviso to section148 of the Act, granted certain specific liberties to the revenue,\nwith regard to extension of time for serving suc…

VISHNU KUMAR,BHARATPUR vs. ACIT OR JCIT OR DCIT OR ASST. CIT OR ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, BHARATPUR

ITA 85/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal, Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Dated 08.12.2023 Passed, U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “ The Act”), By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Whereby His Appeal Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16 Has Been Dismissed. 2. The Assessee Was Before Learned Cit(A), Having Felt Dissatisfied With The Assessment Order Dated 29.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Soni, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, (CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o aJh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 85/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sh. Vishnu Kumar cuke ACIT/JCIT/DCIT/Asst.CIT/ITO, E221, RIICO Industrial Area, Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. Bharatpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AIAPK7814L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri Mukesh S…

NETHERLANDS OPERATING COMPANY B.V.,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INT. TAXATION 2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1198/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1198/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. Netherlands Operating Company B.V. The Acit, Rmz Millenia (Phase-1), International Taxation -2(1), Business Park, 4Th Floor, Campus 1C, Chennai. 11, Dr. M.G.R. Road, Kandanchavadi, Perungudi, Chennai-600 096. [Pan: Aabcl 0573 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)(b)Section 147Section 148

…6 Taxman 103 (Mad.) and the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ACIT v. Hotel Blue Moon reported in [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC) as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Alpine Electronics Asia Pte. Ltd. reported in [2012] 341 ITR 247 (Delhi), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Alpine Electronics Asia Pte. Ltd. (supra) held as under: 24. Section 143(2) is applicable to proceedings under sections 147/148 of the Act. Proviso to Section 148 of the Act protects and grants liberty to the Revenue to serve notice under section 143(2) of the Act before passing of the assessment…

FIXED & MOBILE PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3)(1) INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

ITA 767/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Fixed & Mobile Pte Ltd., Vs Acit, 1 Raffles Place, International Taxation, #28-01 One Raffles Place, Tower-2, Circle 1(3)(1), Singapore, Singapore 9999. New Delhi. Pan: Aabcf4910G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Vasant, Fca & Ms Poonam Ahuja, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Alok Vasant, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…CIT & ANR. vs. Hotel Blue Moon [(2010) 321 ITR 0362 (SC)]  PCIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd. [2016] 383 ITR 448 (Delhi)  PCIT vs. Oberoi Hotels (P.) Ltd. [2018] 96 taxmann.com 104 (Calcutta)  Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd. vs. DGIT [(2012) 341 ITR 247 (DHC)]  CIT vs. Rajeev Sharma [(2011) 336 ITR 0678 (ALL.)  PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. [2017] 398 ITR 701 (Delhi)  Indus Towers Ltd. v. DCIT [2017] 82 taxmann.com 430 (Delhi)  ADIT (Exemption), Hyderabad v. Vodithala Education Society [2014] 151 ITD 12 (Hyderabad Trib.)  CIT vs. Panorama Builders (P). Ltd. [(2014) 45 taxmann.c…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. INDIA FINSEC LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3591/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 158Section 158BSection 68

…no notice u/s 143(2) was 3 KNS Infracon Pvt. Ltd. issued to the assessee before completion of the assessment proceedings. On this issue, we are guided by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Alpine Electronics Asia Pte. Ltd. Vs DGIT (2012) 341 ITR 247 wherein it was held as under: "Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is applicable to proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act. The proviso to section 148 of the Act grants liberty to the Revenue to serve notice under section 143(2) of the Act before passing the assessment order for returns furnished on or before October 1, 2005. In re…

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 38/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw

Section 80Section 80I

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, अहमदाबादनयायपीी IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’A’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos. 37 & 38/AHD/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/s Venus Infrastructure and Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. PAN: AAHCS6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date…

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 37/AHD/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw

Section 80Section 80I

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, अहमदाबादनयायपीी IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’A’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos. 37 & 38/AHD/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/s Venus Infrastructure and Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. PAN: AAHCS6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date…

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

…Act, we hold that there was total failure on the part of the Revenue from complying with the procedure laid down under Section 143(2) of the Act, which is mandatory one as held by the Apex Court.” 12.7 Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd. vs. DGIT &Ors: [(2012) 341 ITR 247 (Del) Held: “The service of notice u/s 143(2) within the statutory time limit is mandatory and is not an inconsequential procedural requirement. Omission to issue notice u/s 143 (2) is not curable and the requirement cannot be dispensed with. S. 143(2) is applicable to proceedings u/s 147 & 148.” 12.8 CIT vs. Pawan Gupta &Ors. [(2009) 318 ITR…

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

…Act, we hold that there was total failure on the part of the Revenue from complying with the procedure laid down under Section 143(2) of the Act, which is mandatory one as held by the Apex Court.” 12.7 Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd. vs. DGIT &Ors: [(2012) 341 ITR 247 (Del) Held: “The service of notice u/s 143(2) within the statutory time limit is mandatory and is not an inconsequential procedural requirement. Omission to issue notice u/s 143 (2) is not curable and the requirement cannot be dispensed with. S. 143(2) is applicable to proceedings u/s 147 & 148.” 12.8 CIT vs. Pawan Gupta &Ors. [(2009) 318 ITR…

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

…e Act, we hold that there was total failure on the part of the Revenue from complying with the procedure laid down under Section 143(2) of the Act, which is mandatory one as held by the Apex Court.” 5.7 Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd. vs. DGIT & Ors: [(2012) 341 ITR 247 (Del) Held: “The service of notice u/s 143(2) within the statutory time limit is mandatory and is not an inconsequential procedural requirement. Omission to issue notice u/s 143 (2) is not curable and the requirement cannot be dispensed with. S. 143(2) is applicable to proceedings u/s 147 & 148.” 5.8 CIT vs. Pawan Gupta & Ors. [(2009) 318 ITR 322…

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

…e Act, we hold that there was total failure on the part of the Revenue from complying with the procedure laid down under Section 143(2) of the Act, which is mandatory one as held by the Apex Court.” 5.7 Alpine Electronics Asia Pte Ltd. vs. DGIT & Ors: [(2012) 341 ITR 247 (Del) Held: “The service of notice u/s 143(2) within the statutory time limit is mandatory and is not an inconsequential procedural requirement. Omission to issue notice u/s 143 (2) is not curable and the requirement cannot be dispensed with. S. 143(2) is applicable to proceedings u/s 147 & 148.” 5.8 CIT vs. Pawan Gupta & Ors. [(2009) 318 ITR 322…

Alpine Electronics Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Director General of Income Tax

What is Alpine Electronics Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Director General of Income Tax authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Alpine Electronics Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Director General of Income Tax

VIDYA SHANKER JAISWAL, SARGUJA,SARGUJA vs. ITO, WARD-2, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

VIDYA SHANKER JAISWAL, SARGUJA,SARGUJA vs. ITO, WARD-2, AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

MOHAMMED USMAN, BHILAI,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

RAMA AGRAWAL, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(1), BHILAI, DURG

HARJEET SINGH CHHABRA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, RAIPUR (ERST. ITO-1(3), RAIPUR), RAIPUR

SATYA ENTERPRISES,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

RAJULHOUBIENUO ANGAMI,NAGALAND vs. ITO WARD 2, DIMAPUR

ANIL KUMAR PAREKH, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

KRISHAN KUMAR MAKRANIA PRO. M/S. MAKRANIA OIL MILL,,BHIWANI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, GURGAON

MAHENDRA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

VISHNU KUMAR,BHARATPUR vs. ACIT OR JCIT OR DCIT OR ASST. CIT OR ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, BHARATPUR

NETHERLANDS OPERATING COMPANY B.V.,CHENNAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INT. TAXATION 2(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

FIXED & MOBILE PTE. LTD.,SINGAPORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3)(1) INT. TAXATION, NEW DELHI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. INDIA FINSEC LIMITED, DELHI

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

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

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

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