CIT(A) v. Rajendra G. Shah

158 ITD 843Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2016#13107 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also reported as

247 ITR 772

Sections most often in play

Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234A

Issues it is cited on

escapement of incomereason to believenotice under section 148section 142section 139(1)reassessment proceedingssection 139section 142(1)section 143(2)section 13section 148section 147

Judgments citing CIT(A) v. Rajendra G. Shah

DCIT, GURUGRAM vs. RAJESH KUMAR, SONEPAT

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 82/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 41(1)Section 43BSection 68

…ct, when there is a pendency of the Return before the Assessing Officer. The reasons given by the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence and we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference". [2016] 158 ITD 843 (CHANDIGARH) 4 . Vardhman Holding Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Ludhiana We do not find the act of the Assessing Officer in issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, within the time limit available for issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act being as per law. The Income Tax Act is a self contained Act, whereby provisions are made for differ…

RAJESH KUMAR,SONEPAT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, GURGAON

In the result, cross-appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 61/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Rajesh Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Central Circle-2, Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Gurgaon. Delhi Road Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Dcit, Vs Rajesh Kumar, Gurgaon. C/O-Shiva Constructions Co., Plot No.69, Sidharth Enclave, Delhi Road,Sonipat, Haryana-131001. Pan-Bkspk2518K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Umesh Takkar, Ca & Shri Saurabh Nagpal, Ca Respondent By Shri P N Barnwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : These Two Cross-Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-3, Gurgaon Dated 31.10.2022 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Both Appeals Of The Assessee & The Revenue Are Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By Way Of Common Order For The Sake Of Brevity.

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 40Section 41(1)Section 43BSection 68

…ct, when there is a pendency of the Return before the Assessing Officer. The reasons given by the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence and we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the Tribunal so as to warrant interference". [2016] 158 ITD 843 (CHANDIGARH) 4 . Vardhman Holding Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle 1, Ludhiana We do not find the act of the Assessing Officer in issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, within the time limit available for issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act being as per law. The Income Tax Act is a self contained Act, whereby provisions are made for differ…

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

ITA 694/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 234ASection 250

…18 ITA Nos. 693 & 694/Bang/2023 10. Reliance was placed on the following decisions in support of the above arguments. 1. Qatalys Software Technologies [2009] 308 ITR 249 (Mad HC) [Pg. 70 of the common case law paper book]. 2. Vardhaman Holdings Ltd., [2016] 158 ITD 843 (Chandigarh Trib) [Pg. 73 of the common case law paper book]. 3. M/s L T Karle & Co., ITA No.354/Bang/2009, dt:11.02.2011 [Pg. 8i and 84 of the Common case law paper book]. 11. On the contrary, the Ld.DR placed reliance on the observations fo the Ld.AO/Ld.CIT(A) on this issue. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light o…

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

ITA 693/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V
Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 234ASection 250

…18 ITA Nos. 693 & 694/Bang/2023 10. Reliance was placed on the following decisions in support of the above arguments. 1. Qatalys Software Technologies [2009] 308 ITR 249 (Mad HC) [Pg. 70 of the common case law paper book]. 2. Vardhaman Holdings Ltd., [2016] 158 ITD 843 (Chandigarh Trib) [Pg. 73 of the common case law paper book]. 3. M/s L T Karle & Co., ITA No.354/Bang/2009, dt:11.02.2011 [Pg. 8i and 84 of the Common case law paper book]. 11. On the contrary, the Ld.DR placed reliance on the observations fo the Ld.AO/Ld.CIT(A) on this issue. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light o…

SH. KRISHAN KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee dismissed

ITA 139/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Manjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 69

…llowing decisions : (i) Union of India & Others vs. Rai Singh Deb Singh Bist & Another [1973] 88 ITR 200 (SC). 11 ITA.No.139/Del./2016 Mr. Krishna Kumar, New Delhi. (ii) Order of ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Vardhman Holdings Ltd., vs. AC, Ludhiana 158 ITD 843. (iii) Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. V. Ramaiah [2019] 262 Taxman 16. (iv) Judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Courtin the case of Pr. CIT vs. V. Ramaiah 409 ITR 580 (Karnataka). 5. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. produced the record and also filed copy of the letter submitted by assessee before A.O. along with other ma…

KISHOR V. SONI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-30(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 3934/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri B. Yadagiri
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…is wrong against the law and facts. Therefore, the assessment is not liable to be sustained in the eyes of law. Specifically in view of the law settled in CIT(A) vs. Rajendra G. Shah 247 ITR 772 and Vardhaman Holdings Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Ludhiana [2016] 158 ITD 843/69 txmann.com 376 (Chandigarh-Trib.). With due consideration of the arguments advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perusing the record, we noticed that the assessee filed the return of income on 26/03/2013. The time to serve notice u/s 143(2) was yet to expired on 30/09/2013 meaning thereby the period of scrutiny assessment was p…

KISHOR V. SONI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-30(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 3933/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri B. Yadagiri
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…is wrong against the law and facts. Therefore, the assessment is not liable to be sustained in the eyes of law. Specifically in view of the law settled in CIT(A) vs. Rajendra G. Shah 247 ITR 772 and Vardhaman Holdings Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Ludhiana [2016] 158 ITD 843/69 txmann.com 376 (Chandigarh-Trib.). With due consideration of the arguments advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perusing the record, we noticed that the assessee filed the return of income on 26/03/2013. The time to serve notice u/s 143(2) was yet to expired on 30/09/2013 meaning thereby the period of scrutiny assessment was p…

SHRI GURUCHARAN SINGH,BHOPAL vs. THE ITO 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for A

ITA 377/IND/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं./ I.T. A. No.377 & 378/Ind/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: 2007-08 & 2008-09 Shri Gurucharan Singh V. Ito 3(1) Indore Marwah, Prp. M/S Janta Goods Transport, House No.11 P.N.B. Colony, Idgah Hills, Bhopal "था.ले.सं./Pan:Buzps8087D अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

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

…u/s 143(1) but the proceedings cannot be said to have terminated, action u/s 147 could not be initiated. The same view has been expressed by Calcutta High Court in the case of CESC Ltd. vs. DCIT (2003) 263 ITR 402 and also in case of CIT vs. Rajendraji Shah 247 ITR 772 and Vipin Khanna vs. CIT 255 ITR 220. In view of above, the notice issued and served by the Ld. AO was abinitio void, invalid and bad in law as the time of regular assessment was not elapsed and the proceedings consequent to such invalid notice was bad in law and, therefore, deserves to be quashed. The assessee has also placed reliance on the…

CIT(A) v. Rajendra G. Shah (158 ITD 843) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax