Ashok Devichand Jain v. Union of India

452 ITR 43High Court2023#3139 most cited

What is Ashok Devichand Jain v. Union of India authority for?

An Income Tax Officer issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, must have jurisdiction, and such jurisdiction can be affected by CBDT instructions regarding the territorial jurisdiction of income-tax authorities.

38

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Ashok Devichand Jain · Union of India · Section 148 · Section 143(3) · Section 143(2) · Section 127 · jurisdiction · reassessment · CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011

Also reported as

151 Taxmann.com 70

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 143(2)Section 147Section 127Section 250Section 124(3)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 124(3)section 124(1)section 127(1)section 124section 124(3)(a)section 2(7a)computer assisted scrutiny selectionsection 119(2)(a)section 120section 163section 66section 116

Judgments citing Ashok Devichand Jain v. Union of India

Suraj Durobuild (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Ciorcle-24(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 777/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148

…. 30 lakhs, the assumption of jurisdiction is invalid and hence the whole proceedings are illegal and unsustainable in law. The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the following judgements in support of his contentions: 1.Ashok Devichand Jain Vs. UOI 452 ITR 43 (Bom.) [2023] 2.M/s Boutique International Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO In ITA No. 831/DEL/2017 3.YKM Holding vs ACIT ITA No. ITA No. 1020/Del/2019 Dtd. 29.04.24 4.M/s Monarch & Qureshi Builders Vs. ACIT ITA No.2026/Mum/2023 Dtd.21.12.23 5.Sharda Export-A.Y.06-07 ITA No. 39/DDN/2022 Dtd. 15.09.23 6.Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs ACIT 161 Taxmann.com 255 (Raj) 4…

Gajgamini Investment & Finance P. Ltd.. (Successor to Viloma Equity Services P. Ltd.), Andheri (East) vs. ITO Ward 11(3)(3), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5951/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Gosaingajgamini Investment & Vs. Ito, Ward 11(3)(3) Finance P. Ltd., 429, 4Th Floor, Aaykar (Successor To Viloma Equity Bhavan, Mk Road, Services P. Ltd) Mumbai – 400020. Office No. 102, A Wing, 1St Floor, Mittal Commercial, Near Mittal Indl. Estate, Andheri Kurla Road – 400059. Pan/Gir No. Aabcg3951A (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…tains to jurisdiction based on income. According to this circular, jurisdiction of corporate assessee’s, whose income exceeds 30 lakhs lies with ACIT / DCIT. In this regard we place reliance upon the decision in the case of Ashok Devichand Vs. Union of India (452 ITR 43) (Bom), wherein it was held as under: Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 30th March, 2019 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for A.Y. 2012-13 and order passed on 18th November, 2019 rejecting Petitioner's objection to reopening on various grounds. 2. The primary ground that has been raised is that the Income Tax O…

Arjun Rishi, Sainik Farms vs. ITO Ward 28(1), ITO Office Civic Centre

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

ITA 3020/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanarjun Rishi, Vs. Ito, Ward 28 (1), F – 79/18, Sainik Farms, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 062. (Pan : Agvpr4625D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arun Kishore, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 Date Of Order : 09.07.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 01.09.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. I) That The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) Nfac Delhi Confirming The Addition Of Rs.9,81,173/- Made By Ld. Ao Ward 28(1) Delhi Is Illegal, Unjust, Opposed To Facts & Suffers From The Vice Of Arbitrariness. Ii) That All Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudice To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kishore, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 124(3)Section 127Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Arjun Rishi, vs. ITO, Ward 28 (1), F – 79/18, Sainik Farms, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 062. (PAN : AGVPR4625D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Arun Kishore, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 24.04.2025 Date of Order : 09.07.2025 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [he…

Surya Land Developers, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(4), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 328/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Judicial Ember

For Appellant: Shri Vikaas S. Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr.-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR “SMC” BENCH :: RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL EMBER I.T.A.No. 328/RPR/2025 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Surya Land Developers, vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Raipur. C/o Shri Ashok Khemka, Satyanarayan Dharamshala, Station Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh PAN : AAYFS 5301 E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vikaas S. Sharma, CA For Revenue : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr.-DR Date of Hearing : 02.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 03.07.2025 ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of Ld. Commissioner…

Bms Tradewings Pvt. Ltd., Jagdalpur vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 539/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 539/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…s: Resultant assessment order illegal and without jurisdiction. Reliance on: -  ACIT vs. Rajdhani Jewellers and Gems Pvt. Ltd. in ITA no. 79/RPR/2020 vide order dt. 24.01.2024, relevant finding at para no. 13.  Ashok Devichand Jain vs Union of India (2023) 452 ITR 43 (Born.).  Peter Vaz vs CIT (2021) 436 ITR 616 (Born.), relevant para no. 44.  CIT vs Ramesh D. Patel (2014) 362 ITR 492 (Guj.). Jurisdiction wrongly assumed. Consequent assessment order illegal and unsustainable. Reliance on: -  Ashok Devichand Jain vs. Union of India (2023) 452 ITR 43 (Bom.).  Pr. CIT vs Shree Shoppers Ltd. ITAT no. 39 of 20…

Smt. Basanti Bai Agrawal, Mahasamund vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Mahasamund, Mahasamund

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.259/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. Basanti Bai Agrawal Proprietor: Shri Narayan Rice Industries, Main Road, Samhar B.O, Samhar, P.O. Bagbahra, Dist.: Mahasamund-493 449 Pan: Acopa8043K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Mahasamund (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 120Section 131Section 142(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 2

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.259/RPR/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Smt. Basanti Bai Agrawal Proprietor: Shri Narayan Rice Industries, Main Road, Samhar B.O, Samhar, P.O. Bagbahra, Dist.: Mahasamund-493 449 PAN: ACOPA8043K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Mahasamund (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel…

Venetian Ldf Projects LLP, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 3534/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Venetian Ldf Projects Vs. Acit, Llp, Circle-4(1), 83 Avenue, Sector-83, Gurgaon Vill.- Sihi, Gurgaon, Haryana Pan: Aajfv6462C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Sh. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Department By Sh. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 01.05.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Assessee’S Twin Appeals

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ee for A.Y. 2015- 16 in as much as the returned income for A.Y. 2015-16 had exceeded Rs.30,00,000/-. We find that the issue in dispute is no longer res integra by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Devichand Jain vs. UOI reported in 452 ITR 43 (Bom). In this case, very same issue was addressed in the light of CBDT Instruction No.1/2011[F. No.187/12/2010-IT(A-I)] Dated 31.01.2011. For the sake of convenience, the entire order is reproduced hereunder: “1. Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 30th March, 2019 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for A.Y. 2012-13…

Manoj Kumar Pandey, Katni vs. Income Tax Officer -3, Katni

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

ITA 122/JAB/2023[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur08 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2009-10 Manoj Kumar Pandey V. Ito-3, Katni Diamond English Medium Income Tax Officer, Higher Secondary School, Jabalpur Road, Katni- Madhav Nagar, Katni-483504. 483501. Pan:Amtpp9385Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rahul Bardia, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 01 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 151

…assessment order. “Thereafter the case has been transferred to this office by ITO ward1, Kati vide his letter F.No.ITO/W-1/Katni/Transfer of records /2015-16 dated 17.06.2016.” Assesses relies upon: Ashok Devichand Jain Vs UOI & Others (High Court of Mumbai) 452 ITR 43. Chowaram Dhiwar Vs ITO ITAT Raipur 37 NYPTTJ 5 (Raupur) ITA No. 31/Rpr/2022. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal Ve ITO ITA Noa 321 /JP/3021 -196 ITD 32(JP). ITO Vs Naseman Farm Pvt Ltd ITAT Delhi 134 TTJ 472. Charu K bagadia Ve ACIT High Court of Madra 327 CTR (Mad) 419. Vedanta Resource Ltd Vs ACIT (International Tax) & Anr 333 CTR 432 Ground No.2 Page 3 of…

Dombivali Daivdnya Nagari Sahakari Patpedhi (Maryadit), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Kalyan

Appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 1930/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…he defects cannot be cured and hence submitted that illegal assessment order passed by the Ld. AO should be quashed. For this proposition, Ld. AR of the appellant relied on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ashok Devichand Jain (452 ITR 43) (Bom), where the Hon'ble High Court has quashed the notice of reopening the assessment because it was not in accordance with the pecuniary jurisdiction as provided in the Instruction No. 1/2011. Second decision relied upon by Ld. AR of the appellant is the Coordinate Bench decision in the case of Monarch and Qureshi Builders Vs. ACIT (161 taxman.…

Changaai Mangalote Ibrahim, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

ITA 1405/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Ravi Shankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Sri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 250Section 54F

….NO. 187/12/2010-IT(A-I), dated 31/01/2011 placed on page 98 of the paper book filed by the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee highly relied on the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Ashok Devichand Jain v. Union of India [2023] reported in 452 ITR 43 (Bom) as well as Order of the coordinate bench of ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Changaai Mangalote Ibrahim, Bangalore Page 8 of 14 Krishnendu Chowdhury v. Income Tax Officer reported in [2017] 78 taxmann.com 89 (Kolkata- Trib). 6.2 The ld. DR on the other hand although accepted that there is a defect in issuing Notice U/s 143(2) of the Act in term…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel Circle Panvel vs. Outabox Media Solutions LLP, Ghatkopar Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 177/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan H KakkadFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…ssued the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act, therefore, such order passed by the ACIT, Panvel Circle becomes a nullity. For the above proposition, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the following decisions: i) Ashok Devichand Jain vs. Union of India [2023] 452 ITR 43 (Bombay) 8 ii) ITO vs. Watermark Systems (I) P Ltd [ITA No. 4836/4827/ 4828/4833/4834/4830/4831/4832/Mum/2016] (Mumbai Tribunal order dated 27.02.2023) iii) ACIT vs. Rajdhani Jewellers and Gems (P) Ltd [2024] 163 taxmann.com 444 (Raipur - Trib.) iv) ACIT vs. Aananda Devcon (P) Ltd [2024] 163 taxmann.com 372 (Raipur - Trib.) v) Monarch & Qureshi B…

Rohit Baid, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 15/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.15/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rohit Baid………………………..…………………… ........................……Appellant Nokha House, 190B, S P Mukherjee Road, Kalighat, Kolkata – 700026. [Pan: Adppb7719R] Vs. Ito, Ward-36(1), Kolkata…...................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Bikash Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ito Ward 36(1) Kolkata Was Not Vested With The Pecuniary Jurisdiction Over The Case Of The Assessee For The Year Under Consideration, Therefore, The Notice U/S 148 Dated 3 1.03.2021 Issued By Non-Jurisdictional Ao Does Not Have Legal Sanctity & Thus Subsequent Proceedings & Assessment Dated 07.11.2023 Cannot Be Sustained & Is Liable For Being Struck Down, Thus Bad In Law & Void.

Section 120Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 292B

…ices are to be treated as non-est. The assessment carried out in such cases will be bad in law. Reliance in this respect can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of ‘Ashok Devichand Jain vs. Union of India and Others’ reported in 452 ITR 43 dated 08.03.2022, wherein, in para 5 of the order, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held as under: “5. The notice under section 148 of the Act is jurisdictional notice and any inherent defect therein is not curable. In the facts of the case, notice having been issued by an officer who had no jurisdiction over the Petitioner, such notice in our v…

Ajay Paliwal, Panipat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1243/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.1243/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2017-18) Ajay Paliwal, Paliwal Nagar, G.T Road, Panipat, Haryana 132103 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Acwpp-2890-B बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent C.R Building, Ito, I.P Estate, Delhi 110002 अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Amit Kaushik, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/08/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 23.02.2024, For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Primarily Raised Two Issues. In Ground No. 1 Of Appeal The Assessee Has Assailed The Jurisdiction Of Assessing Officer (Ao) & In Ground No. 2 To 5 Of Appeal The Assessee Has Assailed Addition Of Rs 21,00,000/- U/S. 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act').

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kaushik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

…placed reliance on the following decisions:- i. J Mitra and Bros Double Storey Market vs. ACIT, Circle 50(1), ITA No. 3643/Del/2023 ii. Ketan Tokershi Shah vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, ITA No. 1107/Mum/2023 iii. Ashok Devichand Jain vs. Union of India, [2023] 452 ITR 43 (Bom) 4. Shri Kanv Bali, representing the department controverting submissions of the assessee on legal ground placed on record excerpts from copy of jurisdiction chart in Delhi w.e.f 15.11.2014. Referring to the jurisdiction table, he submitted that the assessee is a director of M/s Haro Paliwal P. Ltd. since April 1986. The said company is asses…

Ykm Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1020/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. M. Balaganeshykm Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Signature Tower – A, Circle – 4(1) 14Th Floor, South City New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana Pan No. Aaacy 0460 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajkumar, C.A. Shri J. P. Sharma, C.A. Revenue By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024 Order Per M. Balaganesh: 1. This Appeal In Ita No.1020/Del/2019 For A.Y. 2015-16 Arises Out Of The Order By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Gurgaon In Appeal No. 314/17-18 Dated 20.11.2018 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld Cit(A) In Short) Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As Act) Dated 14.12.2017 By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld. Ao). 2

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)

…see for A.Y. 2015-16 in as much as the returned income for A.Y. 2015-16 had exceeded Rs.30,00,000/-. We find that the issue in dispute is no longer res integra by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Devichand Jain vs. UOI reported in 452 ITR 43 (Bom). In this case, very same issue was addressed in the light of CBDT Instruction No.1/2011[F. No.187/12/2010-IT(A-I)] Dated 31.01.2011. For the sake of convenience, the entire order is reproduced hereunder: “1. Petitioner is impugning a notice dated 30th March, 2019 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for A.Y. 2012-13…

Shri Manoj Ramsakal Rai, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-3, Kalyan

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

ITA 4093/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Blemanoj Ramsakal Rai V. Acit – Circle – 3 Harikunj, Santosh Nagar 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion Tisgaon, Kalyan (E)-421306 Murbad Road Kalyan (W)-421301 Pan: Aaopr1362Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Dr. P. Daniel Department Represented By : Smt Mahita Nair

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 69

…Hotel Blue Moon (supra) is that issue of notice is mandatory under section 143(2) of the Act and the notice has been issued in the present case. The decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Ashok Devichand Jain v. UOI [(2023) 452 ITR 43 (Bom)] is dealt on different facts and in that case the Income Tax Officer in his affidavit has stated that since the assessment was getting barred by limitation the time available with the Income Tax Officer was too short to migrate the Permanent account number after obtaining administrative approval from the higher authorities, which means that…

Rajat Commercial Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 11(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 30/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 7

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM ITA No. 30/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Rajat Commercial Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. A-401, Pearl Arcade, Off J P Road, Dawood Baug Lane, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 058 (Appellant) Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11(1)(1) Room No. 204, Aaykar Bhavan M.K. road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) PAN No. AABCR5631E Assessee by Shri Ashok Bansal, AR Revenue by Smt. Mahita Nair, DR Date of hearing: 09.01.2024 Date of pronouncement : 21.03.2024 ORDER PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal i…

Bharat Bhushan Verma, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of the observations above

ITA 236/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 236/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bharat Bhushan Verma Main Road, Verma Transport Bharat, Baikunth, P.O.-Baikunth, Raipur (C.G.)-493 116 Pan : Acdpv7254J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Oficer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

….2023 (iv) Sudhir Kumar Agrawal Vs. ITO, ITA No.158/RPR/2017 dated 17.10.2022 (v) Durga Manikanta Traders Vs. ITO, ITA No.59/RPR/2019 dated 12.12.2022 (vi) Bhagyalaxmi Conclave P. Ltd., ITA No.2517/Kol/2019 dated 03.02.2021 (vii) Ashok Devichand Jain Vs. UOI, 452 ITR 43 ( Bom HC) (viii) Pankajbhai Jaysukhlal Shah Vs. ACIT (2020) 425 ITR 70 (Guj HC) 9. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short, ‘DR’) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. The Ld. DR took me through the “Written submissions” filed by the ITO-1(2), Raipur, dated 11.09.2023. For 7 Bharat Bhushan Verma Vs. ITO-1(2), Raipur cl…

Ravi Sherwani, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 64/RPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 64/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ravi Sherwani H-26, Rajeev Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Azbps6703J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…1 could not be sustained and was liable to be struck down had relied on a host of judicial pronouncements, as under: Sr. Particulars No. 1. Bhagyalaxmi Conclave PL (2021) ITANo.2517/Ko1/2019 (Kol-Trib) dated 03-02- 2021 2. Ashok Devichand Jain Vs. UOI (2023) 452 ITR 43 (Bom.) 3. Pankajbhai Jaysukhlal Shah Vs. ACIT (2020) 425 ITR 70 ( Guj.) 4. DCIT Vs. Parmar Built Tech, ITA No.4124/Mum/2012, dated 12.09.2022 5. Mateshwari Construction Vs. ACIT, ITA No.245/Pat/2018 dated 16.06.2022 6. JR Roadlines P Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No.2534/KOl/2019 dated 27.05.2022 7. Anderson Printing House PL (2021)134 taxmann.com 4(Kol-Trib…