What is Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI authority for?

Reassessment proceedings are invalid if the assessment order is passed within four weeks of the disposal of objections, as this does not provide the assessee with adequate time. The assessment order is bad in law and void in such circumstances.

How many judgments cite Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI?

35 judgments on BharatTax cite Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI (378 ITR 596), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 10(38), Section 133(6).

Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI (378 ITR 596)

Jasmin K Ajmera (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7367/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar

Section 147Section 68Section 69

…ngineers v. ACIT [352 ITR 549 (Guj.)] (iii) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [354 ITR 244 (Guj.) (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. ITO [287 ITR 337 (Del.)] (v) Hotel Regal International & Anr.v. ITO & Anr. [37 DTR (Cal) 360] (vi) Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI [378 ITR 596 (BOm)] (vii) Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors. [358 ITR 102 (BOM). (viii) Ankita A. Choksey v. Income Tax Officer in W.P. NO. 3344 of 2018 dated 10.01.2019. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that identical issue has come up in the case of Jiten K. Ajmera (HUF) v. DCIT in ITA.No. 4999/Mum/2018 dated 08.12.2020 and T…

Jiten K Ajmera (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed as indicated above

ITA 7366/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Department by Shri Brajendra Kumar

Section 147Section 68Section 69

…ngineers v. ACIT [352 ITR 549 (Guj.)] (iii) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. DCIT [354 ITR 244 (Guj.) (iv) Smt. Kamlesh Sharma v. ITO [287 ITR 337 (Del.)] (v) Hotel Regal International & Anr.v. ITO & Anr. [37 DTR (Cal) 360] (vi) Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI [378 ITR 596 (BOm)] (vii) Dynacraft Air Controls v. Smt. Sneha Joshi & Ors. [358 ITR 102 (BOM). (viii) Ankita A. Choksey v. Income Tax Officer in W.P. NO. 3344 of 2018 dated 10.01.2019. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that identical issue has come up in the case of Jiten K. Ajmera (HUF) v. DCIT in ITA.No. 4999/Mum/2018 dated 08.12.2020 and T…

M/S. Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1388/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1388/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Cuke M/S Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, D.C.I.T., 2Nd Floor, Somani Building, S.C. Link Vs. Circle-3, Road, Loha Mandi, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadfb 2375 A Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Mahendra Gargieya & Shri Dewang Gargieya (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69

…s. Having regard to the factual statements in para 12 of the Writ Petition and there being absolutely no reply thereto in the affidavit in reply, this contention of the Respondents cannot be accepted.” 1.4 In Bharat Jayantilal Patel vs. Union of India (2015] 378 ITR 596 (Bom.) it was held that: “Where Assessing Officer passed assessment order within period of four weeks from date of rejection of assessee's objections to reopening of assessment, order so passed being invalid, deserved to be set aside” 1.5 In some other cases i.e. Jayanti Natarajan (Ms.) vs. ACIT (2018) 401 ITR 215 (Mad.) & Mayer Material Scienc…

Fgr Logistics Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-9(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 4560/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Sri Prakash Dubey, Sr.DR

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…i in the 14 ITA.No.4560/Del./2019 FGR Logistics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. case of Smt. Kamlesh Goel, Delhi vs., ITO, Ward 59(3), New Delhi (supra) in which the Tribunal has followed the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bharat Jayantilal Patel 378 ITR 596 (Bom.) in which the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd., vs., ITO [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC) is also considered. Thus, following the same we hold that re- assessment order Dated 28.12.2017 framed under section 147/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is bad in Law and deserves to be quashed. In view of the above ,…

Kuber Khanpan Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 580/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishikuber Khanpan Udyog Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 1/8, West Patel Nagar, New Central Circle-30, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Kuber Food Products India Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd, Central Circle-30, C/O. Ravi Gupta, Advocate, E- New Delhi 6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri PC Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 153CSection 68

…N Drive Shaft reported in 259 ITR 19(SC). It is submitted that in the following cases it has been held that if the AO could not wait for four weeks after the disposal of objection of the assessee then the action of 147 is bad in law. a. Jyanti Lal Shah Vs UOI 378 ITR 596(B0M) b. Meta Plast Engeineering Vs ITO –ITA No-5780/Del/2014 c. Kamlash Goel A Bench- ITA No 5730 of 2017 dated 30.08.2017 d. KARTI P. CHIDAMBARAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-402 ITR 488 (Mad) e. Conclave publisher Vs Union of India and ors-W.P No-284 of 2019- dated 01.02.2019 27. It is next submitted that the AO has categorically m…

Kuber Food Products India P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, both these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 322/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Delhi22 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishikuber Khanpan Udyog Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 1/8, West Patel Nagar, New Central Circle-30, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Kuber Food Products India Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd, Central Circle-30, C/O. Ravi Gupta, Advocate, E- New Delhi 6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri PC Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 153CSection 68

…N Drive Shaft reported in 259 ITR 19(SC). It is submitted that in the following cases it has been held that if the AO could not wait for four weeks after the disposal of objection of the assessee then the action of 147 is bad in law. a. Jyanti Lal Shah Vs UOI 378 ITR 596(B0M) b. Meta Plast Engeineering Vs ITO –ITA No-5780/Del/2014 c. Kamlash Goel A Bench- ITA No 5730 of 2017 dated 30.08.2017 d. KARTI P. CHIDAMBARAM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-402 ITR 488 (Mad) e. Conclave publisher Vs Union of India and ors-W.P No-284 of 2019- dated 01.02.2019 27. It is next submitted that the AO has categorically m…

Shri Shravan Choudhary, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 517/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…in law and deserves to be quashed. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Asian Paints Ltd. vs. DCIT, 308 ITR 195 (Bom) as well as decision in case of Bharat Jayantilal Patel vs. Union of India, 378 ITR 596 (Bom.) and contended that the AO should have allowed four weeks time to the assessee to seek legal remedy after rejection of objections of the assessee but no such time was granted to the assessee by the AO before passing the reassessment order in question. Therefore, the said order is bad in law. He has also relied upon the decision dated 30th…

Income Tax Officer-16(1)(5), Mumbai vs. M/S.Re N Raga Media Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6311/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer - 16(1)(5) V. M/S. Re N Raga Media Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 439, 4Th Floor Bungalow No. A/8, Svp Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nr. Mhada Telephone Exchange, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053

For Appellant: Shri Birju S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari

Section 131Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer - 16(1)(5) v. M/s. Re n Raga Media Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 439, 4th Floor Bungalow No. A/8, SVP Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nr. Mhada Telephone Exchange, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053 PAN: AAKCS 8934 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Birju S. Shah Department by : Shri D.G. Pansari Date of Hearing : 09.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 09.05.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the R…

ITO 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Parekh Pipes P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be partly allowed and the cross-objection of the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 5847/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5847/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-4(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Parekh Pipes Pvt. Ltd. 158/160, Laxmi Bhuvan, 1St Room No.648, 6Th Floor, Vs. Floor, Opp. Coton Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Exchange, Kalbadevi, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400002. Co. No.207/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita. No. 5847/Mum/2016) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) बिधम/ M/S. Parekh Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Ito-4(3)(1) 158/160, Laxmi Bhuvan, 1St Room No.648, 6Th Floor, Vs. Floor, Opp. Coton Exchange, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400002 Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcp9904A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Pradip Kapasi (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/02/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2019

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyen (DR)

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

…also argued that on account of change of opinion the provision u/s 147/148 of the Act is not liable to be invoked and in support of this contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has relied upon the law settled in the case of Bharat Jayantilal Patel, 378 ITR 596 (Bom) and Kelvinator of India Ltd., 320 ITR 561 (SC). On the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has refuted the said contention. It is a case in which the assessment of the assessee was reopened on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai of Income Tax Department in which it was conveyed that the…

Vipul Vijay Chopda, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2883/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K. SrinivasanFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

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

…date of receipt of service of the said order on objections, on 4 ITA No. 2883/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2009-10 the assessee. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has reiterated the same proposition in the case of Bharat Jayantilal Patel Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported as 378 ITR 596. 3.1 The ld. AR further submitted that reassessment proceedings are bad in law as no valid mandatory notice u/s. 143(2) was ever served to the assessee. The ld. AR pointed that the assessee vide communication dated 20-10-2014 (at page 5 of the paper book) has brought to the notice of Assessing Officer that the assessee has not received notice u/s…

Kamlesh Goel, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-59(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5730/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Smt. Kamlesh Goel Vs. The I.T.O 22, 2Nd Floor, Chitra Vihar Ward 59(3) Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aghpg 4212 H [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2018 Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Rawat, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…assessee. 4 5. The answer is given by the coordinate bench in the case of Metaplast Engineering P. Ltd in ITA No. 5780/DEL/2014 wherein the co- ordinate bench has considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bharat Jayantilal Patel 378 ITR 596. The relevant finding reads as under: “Further, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bharat Jayant Patel (supra) , learned AO should have allowed four weeks’ time to the assessee to seek their legal remedies after rejection of the objections of the assessee. In view of the fact that the AO has disposed of the o…

M/S. Pradnya Sudhir Thakur, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1322/PUN/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1296/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Income Tax Officer, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 1(3), Kolhapur …. Vs. Kusum Sitaram Thakur L/H Of Late Shri Sitaram V. Thakur, A/P Nitawade, Tal: Bhudargad, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dist: Kolhapur Pan: Aawpm3998H आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1326/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2001-02 Kusum Sitaram Thakur L/H Of Late Shri Sitaram V. Thakur, A/P Nitawade, Tal: Bhudargad, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist: Kolhapur …. Pan: Aawpm3998H Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1(3), Kolhapur

For Respondent: Dr. Vivek

Section 143(3)Section 148

…. Thus four weeks time was the minimum reasonable period required for reassessment after hearing the assessee. Reference can be made to decision of Hon. Bombay High Court in Asian Paint Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT 296 ITR 96 (Bom.), Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI (2015) 378 ITR 596 (Bom) (HC). 4. When original order was passed by ACIT in our opinion change of jurisdiction case to ITO 1(4) is unauthorized as the income assessed was more than Rs.10 Lakhs and as per delegation of authority such case and should have found continued jurisdiction with ACIT. 5. Without prejudice to our rights even if merits of the case are conside…

Income-Tax Officer vs. Shri Sitaram V. Thakur, Kolhapur

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed and all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1296/PUN/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1296/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2001-02 The Income Tax Officer, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 1(3), Kolhapur …. Vs. Kusum Sitaram Thakur L/H Of Late Shri Sitaram V. Thakur, A/P Nitawade, Tal: Bhudargad, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Dist: Kolhapur Pan: Aawpm3998H आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1326/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2001-02 Kusum Sitaram Thakur L/H Of Late Shri Sitaram V. Thakur, A/P Nitawade, Tal: Bhudargad, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist: Kolhapur …. Pan: Aawpm3998H Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1(3), Kolhapur

For Respondent: Dr. Vivek

Section 143(3)Section 148

…. Thus four weeks time was the minimum reasonable period required for reassessment after hearing the assessee. Reference can be made to decision of Hon. Bombay High Court in Asian Paint Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT 296 ITR 96 (Bom.), Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI (2015) 378 ITR 596 (Bom) (HC). 4. When original order was passed by ACIT in our opinion change of jurisdiction case to ITO 1(4) is unauthorized as the income assessed was more than Rs.10 Lakhs and as per delegation of authority such case and should have found continued jurisdiction with ACIT. 5. Without prejudice to our rights even if merits of the case are conside…

Mr.Aslam Zackria Sait, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed

ITA 453/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G. S, CA and Shri. Nitish Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 54

…e was placed on the following decisions: CIT vs. Mrs. Shakuntala Devi 389 ITR 366 (Kar) Pr. CIT vs. C. Gopalaswamy, 384 ITR 307 (Kar) CIT vs. B S Shanthakumari, 126 DTR 436 (Kar) 6. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Fibre Boards (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 378 ITR 596 in support of the proposition that the exemption under section 54 cannot be denied merely for the reason that the developer did not utilise the amount invested by the appellant. On other hand, the learned Standing Counsel vehemently contended that the appellant had failed to discharge the onus of proving the real substance of the transaction in…

M/S. Richa Industries Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

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

ITA 1476/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singh & Sh.Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 36Section 80I

…THERS [2016] 382 ITR 93 (Bom) 34. SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD.(Earlier known as Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.) us.DCIT AND ANOTHER[2016] 381 ITR 387 (Del) 35. BHARAT JAYANTILAL PATEL vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS S.C. DHARMADHIKARI and A. K.MENON JJ. [2015] 378 ITR 596 (Bom) 37. CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES (INDIA) P. LTD. us.DCIT [2015] 378 ITR 318 (Del) 40. GLOBAL SIGNAL CABLES (INDIA) P. LTD. us.DCIT [2014] 368 ITR 609 (Del) 41. BBC WORLD NEWS LTD.(formerly known as BBC World Ltd.) vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX [2014] 362 ITR 577 (Del) JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WRT TO PARA 3C ABOVE Judgement Judgem…

Bharat Jayantilal Patel v. UOI