Areva T&D India Ltd. v. ACIT

294 ITR 233High Court2007#2672 most cited

What is Areva T&D India Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

When reassessment proceedings are initiated under Section 147 by issuing a notice under Section 148, and the assessee does not file a return in response, the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is a procedural irregularity that does not invalidate the reassessment.

44

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Areva T&D India Ltd. · 294 ITR 233 · Section 143(2) notice · Section 148 reassessment · non-issuance 143(2) · procedural irregularity · reassessment validity · no return under 148 · Madras High Court judgment · assessment not nullified

Judgments citing Areva T&D India Ltd. v. ACIT

DR. ARVIND TANEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-61(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9171/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmadr. Arvind Taneja, Vs. Acit, 75, Golf Links, Delhi Circle-61(1), New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aacpt0269N

For Appellant: Shri Bhupinder Jit Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…tage before the Ld.CIT(A), the asessee has raised the ground of disallowing the cost of building and land amounting to Rs.23,04,167/- only but not raised the ground of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act.. In the case of Madras High Court in Areva T and D India Ltd. 294 ITR 233 it is held that the non-issue of the notice under Section 143(2) was only a procedural irregularity and cannot nullify or invalidate the assessment. The assessee was given full opportunity to participate in the assessment proceedings, and therefore, the assessee cannot have any grievance in this behalf and should not be allowed to contend that th…

SMT. ANURADHA UPADHYAY,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 22/JAB/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR
Section 263Section 263(2)

…the AO to frame the assessment u/s. 147 upon verification of the assessee‟s claims (CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corp. Ltd. [2011] 337 ITR 389 (Del); CIT v. Ram Narain Bansal [2011] 202 Taxman 213 (P&H); CIT v. Areva T & D India Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 183 ([2007] 294 ITR 233) (Mad); K.J. Thomas v. CIT [2008] 301 ITR 301 (Ker)). That apart, the fact of non-issue of notice u/s. 143(2) itself is not conclusively established, i.e., as a fact, inasmuch as non-mention of issue of notice u/s. 143(2) in the order cannot by itself be regarded as conclusive of the said fact. It is only thereupon that we could proceed to examin…

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 21/JAB/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR
Section 263Section 263(2)

…the AO to frame the assessment u/s. 147 upon verification of the assessee‟s claims (CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corp. Ltd. [2011] 337 ITR 389 (Del); CIT v. Ram Narain Bansal [2011] 202 Taxman 213 (P&H); CIT v. Areva T & D India Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 183 ([2007] 294 ITR 233) (Mad); K.J. Thomas v. CIT [2008] 301 ITR 301 (Ker)). That apart, the fact of non-issue of notice u/s. 143(2) itself is not conclusively established, i.e., as a fact, inasmuch as non-mention of issue of notice u/s. 143(2) in the order cannot by itself be regarded as conclusive of the said fact. It is only thereupon that we could proceed to examin…

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 20/JAB/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR
Section 263Section 263(2)

…the AO to frame the assessment u/s. 147 upon verification of the assessee‟s claims (CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corp. Ltd. [2011] 337 ITR 389 (Del); CIT v. Ram Narain Bansal [2011] 202 Taxman 213 (P&H); CIT v. Areva T & D India Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 183 ([2007] 294 ITR 233) (Mad); K.J. Thomas v. CIT [2008] 301 ITR 301 (Ker)). That apart, the fact of non-issue of notice u/s. 143(2) itself is not conclusively established, i.e., as a fact, inasmuch as non-mention of issue of notice u/s. 143(2) in the order cannot by itself be regarded as conclusive of the said fact. It is only thereupon that we could proceed to examin…

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 19/JAB/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR
Section 263Section 263(2)

…the AO to frame the assessment u/s. 147 upon verification of the assessee‟s claims (CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corp. Ltd. [2011] 337 ITR 389 (Del); CIT v. Ram Narain Bansal [2011] 202 Taxman 213 (P&H); CIT v. Areva T & D India Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 183 ([2007] 294 ITR 233) (Mad); K.J. Thomas v. CIT [2008] 301 ITR 301 (Ker)). That apart, the fact of non-issue of notice u/s. 143(2) itself is not conclusively established, i.e., as a fact, inasmuch as non-mention of issue of notice u/s. 143(2) in the order cannot by itself be regarded as conclusive of the said fact. It is only thereupon that we could proceed to examin…

DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE & INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1005/KOL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

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

…in deleting the reopening assessment u/s. 147 of the I. T. Act without issuing a notice u/s. 143(2) as the assessee has not filed a Return in response to his notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The revenue has sought to rely on Madras High Court judgment reported at 294 ITR 233 (Areva T & D India Ltd. vs. ACIT where the view taken was that non- issuance of a notice under section 143(2) of the Act, will not make the reassessment null & void in law, which is validly initiated u/s. 148 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the reopening assessment u/s. 147 of the I. T. Act as notice u/s. 148 was issue…

SHRI NITIN SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 25/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 153DSection 263Section 7(1)

…60] 40 ITR 298 (SC), both by its’ larger benches, impinging on the matter. In fact, the courts of law have been regularly remitting back such matters to the file of the assessing authority for compliance with the procedure (viz. Areva T & D Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 294 ITR 233 (Mad)), i.e., raising objections to the issue of notice u/s. 148(1) before the AO, as was indeed the case in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC), laying down the said procedure. Why, an order passed without observing the principles of natural justice, makes it, in terms of settled law, erroneous, so that the normal course a…

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KUNJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1810/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1809-1810/Ahd/2017 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2854/Ahd/2016 With C.O. 13/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 D.C.I.T, M/S.Kunj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Zodiac Plaza, Cirle-2(1)(2), Vs. Ahmedabad. St. Xaviers Corner, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aadck1900D

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 5

…n light of provision of section 292-BB of the Act, the assessee claim is not tenable. The AO, further placed his reliance on Hon’ble Delhi HC judgment in case of MTNL vs. Chairman CBDT 246 ITR 173, Madras HC decision in case of Arvea T & D India ltd. vs. ACIT 294 ITR 233. 8.1 The ld CIT-A after considering the submission of assessee and remand report, rejected the contention of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 9. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in the CO before us. 10. The learned AR for the assessee before us reiterated the submissions as made before the lear…

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KUNJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1809/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1809-1810/Ahd/2017 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2854/Ahd/2016 With C.O. 13/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 D.C.I.T, M/S.Kunj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Zodiac Plaza, Cirle-2(1)(2), Vs. Ahmedabad. St. Xaviers Corner, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aadck1900D

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 5

…n light of provision of section 292-BB of the Act, the assessee claim is not tenable. The AO, further placed his reliance on Hon’ble Delhi HC judgment in case of MTNL vs. Chairman CBDT 246 ITR 173, Madras HC decision in case of Arvea T & D India ltd. vs. ACIT 294 ITR 233. 8.1 The ld CIT-A after considering the submission of assessee and remand report, rejected the contention of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 9. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in the CO before us. 10. The learned AR for the assessee before us reiterated the submissions as made before the lear…

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KUNJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 2854/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1809-1810/Ahd/2017 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2854/Ahd/2016 With C.O. 13/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 D.C.I.T, M/S.Kunj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Zodiac Plaza, Cirle-2(1)(2), Vs. Ahmedabad. St. Xaviers Corner, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aadck1900D

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 5

…n light of provision of section 292-BB of the Act, the assessee claim is not tenable. The AO, further placed his reliance on Hon’ble Delhi HC judgment in case of MTNL vs. Chairman CBDT 246 ITR 173, Madras HC decision in case of Arvea T & D India ltd. vs. ACIT 294 ITR 233. 8.1 The ld CIT-A after considering the submission of assessee and remand report, rejected the contention of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 9. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in the CO before us. 10. The learned AR for the assessee before us reiterated the submissions as made before the lear…

SYED RAHMAN SHARIFF,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 581/VIZ/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.577/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Smt. Sofia Sadique Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Legal Heir Of Late Syed Income Tax Mohammed Shariff Central Circle-1 C/O I.Kamasastry Visakhapatnam Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.578/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Yakub Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.579/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Ibrahim Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…ssessee. stating that non communication of reasons would tantamount to violation of natural justice and hence, it is a procedural mistake and there was no error regarding the jurisdiction. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Areva T&D India Ltd., Vs. ACIT 294 ITR 333 (Mad.) and the CIT(A) also viewed that as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO, the only requirement to be complied with by the AO is to supply the reasons, but does not make the orders passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) as invalid. 9. Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal b…

SYED IBRAHIM SHARIFF,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 579/VIZ/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.577/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Smt. Sofia Sadique Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Legal Heir Of Late Syed Income Tax Mohammed Shariff Central Circle-1 C/O I.Kamasastry Visakhapatnam Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.578/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Yakub Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.579/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Ibrahim Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…ssessee. stating that non communication of reasons would tantamount to violation of natural justice and hence, it is a procedural mistake and there was no error regarding the jurisdiction. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Areva T&D India Ltd., Vs. ACIT 294 ITR 333 (Mad.) and the CIT(A) also viewed that as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO, the only requirement to be complied with by the AO is to supply the reasons, but does not make the orders passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) as invalid. 9. Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal b…

SYED YAKUB SHARIFF,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 578/VIZ/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.577/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Smt. Sofia Sadique Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Legal Heir Of Late Syed Income Tax Mohammed Shariff Central Circle-1 C/O I.Kamasastry Visakhapatnam Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.578/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Yakub Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.579/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Ibrahim Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…ssessee. stating that non communication of reasons would tantamount to violation of natural justice and hence, it is a procedural mistake and there was no error regarding the jurisdiction. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Areva T&D India Ltd., Vs. ACIT 294 ITR 333 (Mad.) and the CIT(A) also viewed that as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO, the only requirement to be complied with by the AO is to supply the reasons, but does not make the orders passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) as invalid. 9. Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal b…

SYED MOHAMMED SHARIFF,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 577/VIZ/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.577/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Smt. Sofia Sadique Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Legal Heir Of Late Syed Income Tax Mohammed Shariff Central Circle-1 C/O I.Kamasastry Visakhapatnam Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.578/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Yakub Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.579/Viz/2013 (ननधधारण वर्ा/A.Y : 2007-08) Sri Syed Ibrahim Shariff Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of C/O I.Kamasastry Income Tax Sri Sai Lalitha Ramam Central Circle-1 9-16-29/1, Cbm Compound’ Visakhapatnam Near Rama Talkies Visakhapatnam

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…ssessee. stating that non communication of reasons would tantamount to violation of natural justice and hence, it is a procedural mistake and there was no error regarding the jurisdiction. The Ld.CIT(A) relied on the decision of Areva T&D India Ltd., Vs. ACIT 294 ITR 333 (Mad.) and the CIT(A) also viewed that as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs. ITO, the only requirement to be complied with by the AO is to supply the reasons, but does not make the orders passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) as invalid. 9. Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal b…

BRIJBASI EDUCATION AND WELFAREW SOCIETY,MATHURA vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, GHAZIABAD

In the result ITA number 4573/del/2017 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 4573/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 12Section 143Section 148Section 161Section 68Section 80

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4572 and 4573/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2007-08) Brijbasi Education and Welfare Vs. Addl. CIT, Society, Range-1, 20A, Govindnagar, Mathura, Ghaziabad Mathura, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Adv Revenue by: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04/07/2019 Date of pronouncement 18/09/2019 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These are the 2 appeals filed by the same assessee. The parti…

BRIJBASI EDUCATION AND WELFAREW SOCIETY,MATHURA vs. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, GHAZIABAD

In the result ITA number 4573/del/2017 filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007 – 08 is dismissed

ITA 4572/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 12Section 143Section 148Section 161Section 68Section 80

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4572 and 4573/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 and 2007-08) Brijbasi Education and Welfare Vs. Addl. CIT, Society, Range-1, 20A, Govindnagar, Mathura, Ghaziabad Mathura, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhary, Adv Revenue by: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04/07/2019 Date of pronouncement 18/09/2019 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These are the 2 appeals filed by the same assessee. The parti…

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. M/S KHOSLA INTERNATIONAL, BATALA

ITA 307/ASR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 307/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Avish Mahajan (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 14A

…n in Ram Narain Bansal (supra) and Tarsem Singla (supra), the latter rendered after a review of the judicial precedents, including Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. (supra). A similar view had earlier been taken in Areva T&D India Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [2007] 294 ITR 233 (Mad). There is in our view no ambiguity in law; the words used in sec. 148(1), the scope of which is judicially well-settled, being ‘so far as may be’. Even assuming one, the Apex Court in L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 12 (SC), a decision by its’ larger bench, explained that the exercise of power would be referable to a jurisdictio…

LATE RAM KISHAN MALL, L/H SHRI MAN MOHAN MALL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 62(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

ITA 701/KOL/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2004-05

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 158Section 292B

…jurisdiction and was, therefore, quashed. It is against this order that the revenue has come up. "We find no infirmity in the order under challenge. The appeal is as such dismissed. " The Revenue has sought to rely on a Madras High Court judgment reported at 294 ITR 233 (Areva T & D India Ltd. v. ACIT) where the view taken was that "the non-issuance of a notice under section 143(2) of the Act, will not make the reassessment nullity in law, which is validly initiated under section 148 of the Act". However, such judgment of the Madras High Court was noticed and discussed in a later judgment of the same Court repor…

BIRESWAR DUTT ESTATES PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 5(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

ITA 1567/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2011-12

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 158Section 292B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S, Godara, Judicial Member Assessment Year:2011-12 Bireswar Dutt Estates Pvt., Income Tax Officer, बनाम / 32A, Brabourne Road, Ward-5(3), Aayakar V/s. Kolkata-700001 Bhawan, C [PAN No.AABCB 1670 K] Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri I. Banerjee, CA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, SR-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 25-02-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 28-02-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, a…

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

…of CIT vs. T.C.P. Limited (2010) 235 CTR 414 Mad. Further, in any technical difficulty, the proceeding may be irregular but not invalid. The procedural irregularity can be rectified later as per the ratio laid down in the case of Areva T. & D. India vs. CIT; 294 ITR 233 Mad. Considering the above facts the appeal is dismissed. “ 6. Before us the ld. AR of the assessee filed a copy of the said remand report at pages 1-2 of the paper book and submits that the AO did not issue statutory notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act and without there being the same the AO cannot assume his jurisdiction to frame re-assessment u/s.1…

Showing 1–20 of 44 · Page 1 of 3

Areva T&D India Ltd. v. ACIT (294 ITR 233) — Cited in 44 Judgments | BharatTax