Bombay and Calcutta High Courts in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramsukh Motilal

27 ITR 54High Court1955#12570 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2023.

Judgments citing Bombay and Calcutta High Courts in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramsukh Motilal

DEEPAK GARG,HARYANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, KRNAL, HARYANA

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

ITA 1046/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 69

…e validity of the proceedings taken by the Income-tax Officer without a notice or in pursuance of an invalid notice would be llegal and void. That is the view taken by the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts in Commissioner of Income- tax v Namsukh Molilal [1955] 27 ITR 54 and R.K. Das & Co. v Commissioner of Income-tax [1956] 30 ITR 439 and we think that that view is right" CIT vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala [1971] 82 ITR 821 (SC) 8. Ld. Counsel without prejudice to the above it is submitted that despite several requests to the Id. AO during the assessment proceedings to provide copy of the sanctioned for…

RAKESH VAID,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 62(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

ITA 7821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…(SC) iii) CIT Vs Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC) iv) CIT Vs Kurban Hussain lbrahimji Mithi borwala (1971) 82ITR 821 (SC) 11 Rakesh Vaid Vs. ITO v) Vijay Kumar Jain Vs CIT (1975) 99 ITR 349, 353 (Punj) vi) CIT Vs Ramsukh Motilal (195) 27 ITR 54 (Bom) vii) R.K. Das & Co. Vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 439 (Cal) viii) Tansukhrai Bodulal Vs ITO (1962) 46 ITR 325 (Assam-FB) ix) Sewlal Daga Vs CIT (1965) 55 ITR 406 (Cal) 3.8 It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CWT Vs.KundanLal Behari Lal (1975) 99 ITR 581 (SC) wherein it has been held that the word ‘issue’ meant ‘serve’ an…

SEEMA SINGHAL,HAPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 3(5), HAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2441/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi(Through Video Conferencing) Seema Singhal, Hapur Vs. Ito C/O. Pradeep & Co., Ward – 3(5) 7, Navyug Market, Hapur Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201 001 Pan : Awpps 0757 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satyajeet Goel, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) Seema Singhal, Hapur Vs. ITO C/o. Pradeep & Co., Ward – 3(5) 7, Navyug Market, Hapur Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh – 201 001 PAN : AWPPS 0757 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Satyajeet Goel, C.A. Revenue by Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 28.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 25.11.2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.12.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Muzaffar Naga…

ITO, WARD- 2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ALMAK FINANCE PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 4504/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Mrs. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 120Section 124(1)Section 127Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…It is the assessing officer, who has jurisdiction over the assessee and records reasons, who can issue notice u/s 148 of the Act. It is well settled that consent cannot confer jurisdiction upon the AO nor waiver by the assessee [CIT v. Ramsukh Motilal [1955] 27 ITR 54( Bom.)In the instant case, indisputably ITO Ward-11(4), New Delhi had jurisdiction over the assessee company and the assessee is filing return in that ward regularly. The ITO Ward-2, Gurgaon, who did not have jurisdiction over the assessee, issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of information from DIT(Investigation) that the assessee was…

I.T.O., WARD-30(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI PARTHA SARATHI MITRA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1624/KOL/2014[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 29Section 292B

…f the proceedings 4 Partha Sarathi Mitra, AY- 2003-04 taken by the Income-tax officer without a notice or in pursuance of an invalid notice would be illegal and void. That is the view taken by Bombay and Calcutta High Courts in CIT Vs Ramsukh Motllal (1955) 27 ITR 54 and R K Das and Co Vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 439 (Calcutta) and we think that the view is right". 7. Madras High Court in the case of Thangam Textiles Vs First ITO (1973) 90 ITR 412,415 Paragraph 7 held that: "In Y. Narayana Chetty Vs ITO (1959) 35 ITR 388, the Supreme Court held that the service of a requisite notice on the assessee, is a condition pr…

THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SMT. GHATTY VENKATA RAJYA SESHA SRI,, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 39/VIZ/2017[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleito, Ward-4(1), Vs. Smt. Ghatty Venkata Rajya Visakhapatnam. Sesha Sri, D.No. 45-47-14/3, Narasimha Nagar, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aarpg 6268 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri C. Kameswara Rao – FCAFor Respondent: Shri T. Satyanandam – Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 50C

…edings against him. If no notice is issued or if the notice issued is shown to be invalid then the validity of the proceedings taken by the ITO without a notice or in pursuance of an invalid notice would be illegal and void – CIT vs. Ramsukh Mothilalal (1955) 27 ITR 54 and R.K. Das & Co. vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 439 approved; Y. Narayana Chetty & Ors. vs. ITO & Ors. (1954) 26 ITR 310 (Mad) : TC51R.1798 affirmed." The Hon'ble High Court of Assam in Tansukhrai Bodulal v. ITO (46 ITR 325 Gau FB) held that the jurisdiction upon the ITO to proceed to assess or reassess the income is conferred only after the notice has bee…

THE ITO-2(2), BHOPAL vs. SHRI SANDEEP KUMAR DUBEY, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed on both

ITA 391/IND/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…. It is the assessing officer ,who has jurisdiction over the assessee and records reasons, who can issue notice u/s 148 of the Act. It is well settled that consent cannot confer jurisdiction upon the AO nor waiver by the assessee[CIT v. Ramsukh Motilal [1955] 27 ITR 54( Bom.) 5.1 In the instant case, indisputably ITO Ward-11(4),New Delhi had jurisdiction over the assessee company and the assessee is filing return in that ward regularly. The ITO Ward-2,Gurgaon,who did not have jurisdiction over the assessee, issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on the basis of information from DIT(Investigation) that the assessee 6…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VISION INC

The appeals of the Revenue are disposed of accordingly

ITA/1142/2009HC Delhi25 May 2012

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 260ASection 68

…ity of the proceedings taken by the Income-tax Officer without a notice or in pursuance of an invalid notice would be illegal and void. That is the view taken by the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramsukh Motilal, (1955) 27 ITR 54 and R. K. Das & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1956) 30 ITR 439 and we think that that view is right.” It was therefore held by this Court and rightly, if we may say so with respect, that since there was no proper service of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, the entire reassessment proceedings were invalid. Secondly, the…