How many judgments cite CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co.?

68 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co. (370 ITR 87), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 148A, Section 151, Section 143(2).

CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co.

370 ITR 87High Court2015#1686 most cited

What is CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co. authority for?

The issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory, and its non-service or invalidity is not a curable procedural irregularity, rendering subsequent assessment proceedings void. Objections regarding non-service of notice, being a jurisdictional issue, can be raised for the first time before the Tribunal.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co. · Section 143(2) notice · mandatory notice · non-service of notice · assessment void ab initio · procedural irregularity · non est assessment order · objection before Tribunal · Section 263 revision · Section 147 · Section 148

Also reported as

53 Taxmann.com 108231 Taxmann 506

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 148A Section 151 Section 143(2)Section 263 Section 127(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 120(1)section 2(7a)section 120 section 292bb section 148(2)section 124 section 292b assistant director service of notice income escaping assessment mere change of opinion section 148a(b)

Judgments citing CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co.

JYOTI SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 29,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue

ITA 2278/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Jyoti Shroff Dcit, Circle-29, Kolkata

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, Sr. DR

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

…ity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. Further, we also take note of the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax -vs.- Gitsons Engineering Company, reported in [2015] 370 ITR 87, wherein it was held that the word 'shall' employed in Section 143(2) of the Act, contemplates that the assessing officer should issue notice to the assessee so as to ensure that the assessee has not understated income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under paid the tax in any manner. It was further held that when the assessing office…

MERCY EDUCATION TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(6), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2231/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2231/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mercy Education Trust, The Income Tax Officer, No.66, Sree Gokulam Towers, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 19(6), Arcot Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. Pan: Aactm 6190M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.CIT

Section 10Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(2)(e)Section 273B

…suance to the barred notice had no legs to stand as the same was non est in the eyes of law. All proceedings subsequent to the said notice are of no consequence. Further, the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. 370 ITR 87 (Mad) clearly holds that the objection in relation to non service of notice could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal as the same was legal, which went to the root of the matter. 19. While exercising powers u/s 263 Id. Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order which is non est in the eye of law because it would prejudice the rig…

THOMAS VICTOR,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORP WARD 19(6), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2987/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr.R. Venkata Raman, CA

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 271D

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed in above terms

ITA 759/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: \nShri D K Parikh, ARFor Respondent: \nShri Sher Singh, CIT.DR

Section 12Section 147Section 263

…nce to the barred notice had no legs to stand as the some was\nnon est in the eyes of law. All proceedings subsequent to the said notice are of\nno consequence. Further, the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the\ncase of CIT Vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. 370 ITR 87 (Mad) clearly holds that\nthe objection in relation to non service of notice could be raised for the first\ntime before the Tribunal as the some was legal, which went to the root of the\nmatter.\n19. While exercising powers u/s 263 Id. Commissioner cannot revise an\nassessment order which is non est in the eye of law because it would prejudice\nth…

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. PR.CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 758/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR

Section 12Section 147Section 263

…suance to the barred notice had no legs to stand as the some was non est in the eyes of law. All proceedings subsequent to the said notice are of no consequence. Further, the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. 370 ITR 87 (Mad) clearly holds that the objection in relation to non service of notice could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal as the some was legal, which went to the root of the matter. 19. While exercising powers u/s 263 Id. Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order which is non est in the eye of law because it would prejudice the righ…

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, INT.TAX.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 339/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR

Section 12Section 147Section 263

MR. ARPANBHAI VIRAMBHAI DESAI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, INT.TAX., AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 338/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri D K Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT.DR

Section 12Section 147Section 263

MEENA SWARUP,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3(1)(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2050/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Mrs. Meena Swarup, Vs Dcit, 397, Mandakini Enclave, Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi-110019. Intl. Tax., Pan-Amrps5792E New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Ahuja, Ca & Shri P.S.Sodhi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…rregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. Further, we also take note of the decision in the case of CIT v. Gitsons Engineering Co. [2015] 53 taxmann.com 108/231. Taxman 506/370 ITR 87 (Mad.), wherein it was held that the word 'shall' employed in section 143(2) of the Act, contemplates that the assessing officer should issue notice to the assessee so as to ensure that the assessee has not understated income or has not computed excessive loss or has not under paid the tax in any manner. It was further held that when the assessing…

THE CHENNAI CO-OP. SOCIETIES EMPLOYEES CO-OP. AND SOCIETY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-8, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1157/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.B. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N., CIT

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 148Section 151ASection 263Section 80ASection 80P

VINOD KUMAR GIRI,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD 47(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue

ITA 716/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No. 716/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Vinod Kumar Giri,…………………….…………..Appellant 158/2/1, Belilious Road, Kadamtala, Howrah-711101, West Bengal [Pan:Adxpg2995E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………......Respondent Ward-47(1), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Vikash Surana, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: July 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: August 11, 2025 O R D E R

Section 119Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

NEHA GOEL,FARIDABAD vs. PCIT , FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 2624/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Neha Goel, Vs. Pcit, H. No. 585 Sector 15 Faridabad. Faridabad 121007. Pan No.Ahcpg6493Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 263

…suance to the barred notice had no legs to stand as the some was non est in the eyes of law. All proceedings subsequent to the said notice are of no consequence. Further, the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. 370 ITR 87 (Mad) clearly holds that the objection in relation to non service of notice could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal as the some was legal, which went to the root of the matter. 19. While exercising powers under s. 263 learned Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order which is non est in the eye of law because it would prejudice…

OMM DHANA LAXMI JEWELLERS,ANGUL vs. PCIT, INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 249/CTK/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Omm Dhanalaxmi Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1. Jewellers, Bazar Chowk, Main Road, Angul-759122 Pan/Gir No.Aagfd 8791 D (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/9/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/9/2024 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld Pr.Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 U/S.263 Of The Act Dated 30.3.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1) That The Ld. Pr Cit Bhubaneswar Has Erred In Law By Utilizing Section 263 For Directing The Assessing Officer To Do Necessary Verification As Per The Order Of Hon'Ble Itat Cuttack Bench Vide Order Dated 01-10-2019 Which Was Already Barred By Limitation. Provisions Of 263 Does Not Allow To Proceed For A Matter Which Was Already Barred By Limitation. Hence, The Order Passed Us 263 Needs To Be Quashed In To.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254Section 263

…suance to the barred notice had no legs to stand as the same was non est in the eyes of law. All proceedings subsequent to the said notice are of no consequence. Further, the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. 370 ITR 87 (Mad) clearly holds that the objection in relation to non service of notice could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal as the same was legal, which went to the root of the matter. 19. While exercising powers under s. 263 learned Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order which is non est in the eye of law because it would prejudice…

PURUSHOTTAM DAYAL TULSHYAN,SAMBALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/CTK/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack11 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.50/Ctk/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Purushottam Dayal Tulshyan, Vs Ito, Ward-2(1), Sambalpur Khetrajpur, Balmukund Dora Lane, Sambalpur-768003 Pan No. :Aakpt 1711 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/07/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Passed U/S.263 Of The Act, Dated 18.12.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 31.12.2015. Thereafter The Case Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S.148 Of The Act Dated 31.03.2021 & The Reassessment Order Was Passed U/S.147 R.W.S.144B Of The Act On 28.03.2022. Thereafter The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Found The Said Order Erroneous As Well As Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Revised The Said Order Wherein He Has Enhanced The Income Of The Assessee By Rs.4,02,90,000/- On Account Of Addition U/S.68 Of The Act. Against The Said Order, The Assessee Is In Present Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263Section 68

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं/ITA No.50/CTK/2024 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Purushottam Dayal Tulshyan, Vs ITO, Ward-2(1), Sambalpur Khetrajpur, Balmukund Dora Lane, Sambalpur-768003 PAN No. :AAKPT 1711 B (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 11/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of…

S S BRAHMA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MAYURBHANJ vs. PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PCIT, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack05 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 263Section 69

…suance to the barred notice had no legs to stand as the some was non est in the eyes of law. All proceedings subsequent to the said notice are of no consequence. Further, the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. 370 ITR 87 (Mad) clearly holds that the objection in relation to non service of notice could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal as the some was legal, which went to the root of the matter. 19. While exercising powers under s. 263 learned Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order which is non est in the eye of law because it would prejudice…

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 35/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263

ITO, WARD-6(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S DANIEL COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 645/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata………..…….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…..........…..........................…..…..... Respondent 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] C.O. 4/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd…………….....................…..…..... Cross-Objector 6, Lyons Range, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaccd9344F] Vs Ito, Ward-6(1), Kolkata …………….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 23, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 263

…suance to the barred notice had no legs to stand as the same was non est in the eyes of law. All proceedings subsequent to the said notice are of no consequence. Further, the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. 370 ITR 87 (Mad) clearly holds that the objection in relation to non service of notice could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal as the same was legal, which went to the root of the matter., I.T.A. No.645/Kol/2020 & C.O. 4/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Daniel Commodities Pvt. Ltd 19. While exercising powers u/s 263 Id. Commissioner can…

J MITRA AND BROS,, DOUBLE STOREY MARKET vs. ACIT CIRCLE 50(1), CIVIC CENTRE

In the result, Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3643/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Ita No. 3643/Del/2023, (A.Y. 2015-16) J Mitra & Bros Vs. Acit Double Storey Market, Circle 50(1) New Rajinder Nagar, Civic Centre, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaafj0083C Appellant Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 37Section 37(1)

…&H). b) Decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority reported in 347 ITR 14 (All). c) Decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitson Engineering Company reported in 370 ITR 87 (Mad). 10 M/s J. Mitra & Bros. Vs. ACIT d) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Laxman Das Khadelwal reported in 266 taxman 171 (SC). 8. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions and in view of the fact that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been issued in the instant case by an officer not having jurisdiction over the ass…

KEVIN INTERNATIONAL,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE HARIDWAR, HARIDWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5363/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun22 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Kevin International, Vs. Dy. Cit, C/O. Balesh Bhargava-Adv, Circle, Haridwar 56, Niranajani Akhara, Mayapur, Haridwar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aajfk4514C

For Appellant: Shri. K. K. Juneja, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Poonam Sharma, Add. CIT

Section 119Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

…&H). b) Decision of the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority reported in 347 ITR 14 (All). c) Decision of the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitson Engineering Company reported in 370 ITR 87 (Mad). d) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Laxman Das Khadelwal reported in 266 taxman 171 (SC). M/s. Kevin International 8. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions and in view of the fact that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been issued in the instant case by an officer not having jurisdiction over the assessee and…

M/S. TOKAI RIKA MINDA INDIA PVT. LTD,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 781/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

…suance to the barred notice had no legs to stand as the same was non est in the eyes of law. All proceedings subsequent to the said notice are of no consequence. Further, the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. 370 ITR 87 (Mad) clearly holds that the objection in relation to non-service of notice could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal as the same was legal, which went to the root of the matter. 19. While exercising powers u/s 263 ld. Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order which is non est in the eye of law because it would prejudice the rig…

ANIL NACHRANI,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

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

ITA 47/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 47/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

…suance to the barred notice had no legs to stand as the same was non-Est in the eyes of law. All proceedings subsequent to the said notice are of no consequence. Further, the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gitsons Engineering Co. 370 ITR 87 (Mad) clearly holds that the objection in relation to non-service of notice could be raised for the first time before the Tribunal as the same was legal, which went to the root of the matter. While exercising powers u/s 263 Id. Commissioner cannot 19. revise an assessment order which is non-Est in the eye of law because it would prejudice the rig…

Showing 1–20 of 68 · Page 1 of 4