How many judgments cite CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh?

36 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh (219 ITR 737), spanning 2009 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 142(1), Section 292B, Section 143(2), Section 148, Section 170.

CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh

219 ITR 737Supreme Court of India1996#3313 most cited

What is CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh authority for?

A procedural defect in serving notices, such as issuing them after the assessee's death without proper service on legal representatives, can invalidate reassessment proceedings and render assessment orders void. However, an omission or defect in serving notices does not erase a tax liability created by substantive provisions, though it may render an order irregular.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh · section 148 · section 142(1) · section 143(2) · service of notice · legal representative · death of assessee · reassessment proceedings · invalid notice · assessment order void

Also reported as

85 Taxmann 407

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 142(1)Section 292B Section 143(2)Section 148 Section 170 Section 144 Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

section 292bb legal representative section 292b section 17 section 292 section 29 section 16 service of notice amalgamation section 142 reassessment proceedings notice under section 148

Judgments citing CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh

MADAN LAL TOMAR,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 51/AGR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sarvesh Devi Vs. Ito, (Legal Heir Of Late Madan Lal Ward-2(1)(1), Tomar, 51, Keshav Kunj, Agra Pratap Nagar, Agra, 282 001, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpt3982D Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2025 O R D E R 1. The Appeal In Ita No. 51/Agr/2025 For Ay 2009-10, Arises Out Of The Order Of The Ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Nfac’, In Short] Dated 09.12.2024 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 25.07.2019 By The Ito, Ward-4(2), Agra (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’).

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 292B

…delve into that aspect of the matter having regard to the reasons which have weighed us in the earlier part of this judgment. 32. On behalf of the Revenue, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh [1996] 85 Taxman 407/219 ITR 737. That was a case where the assessee did not file a return for three assessment years and died in the meantime. His son who was one of the legal representatives filed returns upon which the assessing officer issued notices under Section 142 (1) and Section 143 (2). These were complied with and no objections were raised to the assessment proceeding…

SARVESH DEVI (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MADAN LAL TOMAR),AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 311/AGR/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sarvesh Devi (Legal Heir Vs. Income Tax Officer, Of Late Madan Lal Tomar), Ward-4(3)(1), 51, Keshavkunj Pratap Hathras Nagar, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Eshpd4540M Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 292B

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BENGALURU

ITA 767/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

…ce to assessee under section 148 after his death and, in such a\ncase, it could not have been validly served upon assessee, said notice being invalid,\nwas to be quashed.\"\n7.13\nThe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Prakash\nSingh reported in 219 ITR 737 held that “an omission to serve or any\ndefect in the service of notices provided by procedural provisions does\nnot efface or erase the liability to pay tax where such liability is\ncreated by distinct substantive provisions, any such omission or\ndefect may render the order irregular-depending upon the nature of\nthe provision not complied with…

ACIT-16(2), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. FAKHRUDDIN TAIYEBALI PADARIA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5500/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit- 16(2), Mumbai Fakhruddin Taiyebali Padaria 5Th Floor, Shabbir Place, 80 Vs. Dr. A.L. Nair Road, Mumbai- 400008. Pan: Abdpp 7103 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Dinesh A Chourasia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh A Chourasia, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 159Section 250Section 292BSection 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 ACIT- 16(2), Mumbai Fakhruddin Taiyebali Padaria 5th Floor, Shabbir Place, 80 vs. Dr. A.L. Nair Road, Mumbai- 400008. PAN: ABDPP 7103 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Dinesh A Chourasia, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 07.01.2025 O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 05.09.2024 o…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, FOURTH FLOOR, J.P. BHAVAN, DAKBUNGLOW CHAURAHA, PATNA vs. TULSHYAN METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is vacated

ITA 340/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: FixedITAT Patna27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.339&340/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1, Patna……..........................................................……….……Appellant Vs. Tulshyan Metals Pvt. Ltd…………………………...............……...…..…..Respondent 3D, Shakambari Complex, Sabji Bazar Chowk, Nagla Bihar-800008. [Pan: Aacct2904K] Appearances By: Shri Ashok Kumar Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Goel, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 27, 2024 Order Per Sanjay Awasthi: 1. The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Even Date 30.01.2024 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’) For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since, The Substantive Issues Are Common In Both The Assessment Years & The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, Therefore, The Two Appeals Are Being Disposed Of Through This Single Order. 2. However, In Both The Cases, The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act Through Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Has Been In Dispute, Whereby, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Held That Since Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Not Issued For Both The Years, Following The Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Then The Subsequent Orders Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144, R.W.S 144B Of The Act Would Be Null & Void. However, For The Sake Of Record, The Grounds In Both The Cases Are Extracted As Under:

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…the prescribed period. Speaking for the Division Bench of this Court, I had occasion to observe in CIT v. Shanker Lal Ved Prakash [2007] 212 CTR (Delhi) 47 : [2008] 300 ITR 243 (Delhi) the decision in CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh [1996] 132 CTR (SC) 262 : [1996] 219 ITR 737 (SC) to the effect that failure to serve a notice under section 143(2) would not render the assessment as null and void but only as irregular. The decision of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Gyan Prakash Gupta [1986] 54 CTR (Raj) 69: [1987] 165 ITR 501 (Raj) opining that an assessment order completed without service of notice under section 143…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, FOURTH FLOOR, LOKNAYAK JAY PRAKASH BHAWAN, DAKBUNGLOW CHAURAHA, PATNA vs. TULSHYAN METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is vacated

ITA 339/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Patna27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

RAMESH SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 1071/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ramesh Singh Vs. Ito L/H Of Late Shri Pitam Ward-2 (1) Singh C/O Shri Sandeep Ghaziabad Sapra, Advocate, C-763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan No.Gmgps9615M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Sh. Somil Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By Sh. P.N. Baranwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/06/2024

Section 133Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 250

…oned. The order of the CIT(A) also shows that during the appellate proceedings also complete details of rest of legal heirs were called but not provided and thus, relying on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jayprakash Singh (1996) 219 ITR 737 (SC), this objection was rejected and the appeal was dismissed without entering on merits. 7. We are of the considered view that plea that due to lack of impleading all the legal heirs, the case of deceased assessee was not properly represented for which now additional evidences are also filed before us claiming that the land which deceased had…

LATE SH. BIRDI CHAND THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MUKESH SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 502/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292BSection 54F

…g name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected under section 292B of the Act. 6.6 Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong v. Jai Prakash Singh, [1996] 219 ITR 737, 17 Late Sh. Birdi Chand vs. ITO wherein the assessee did not file returns for three assessment years and died in April 1967, leaving behind him, in all, ten legal heirs. The eldest son Jai Prakash Singh filed the returns for the three assessment years. Such returns were signed by him alone and not by the other legal representatives. Scrutiny a…

ACIT, CIRCLE-64(1), NEW DELHI vs. GURNIHAL SINGH PIRZADA, CHANDIGARH

ITA 3952/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 3947/Del/2019, A.Y. 2008-09 Ita No.3952/Del/2019, A.Y. 2013-14

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

…ar. (viii) The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in quashing the reassessment proceeding despite the binding emphasisTaid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Jai Prakash Singh (1996) 219 ITR 737 examining the validity of the assessment where notice u/s 143(2) was not issued and served on the Assessee has held that an omission to issue or serve or any defect in the service of notices: provided by procedural provisions does efface or erase the liability to pay; tax where such liability is created by charging section. Further the Hon’ble Ap…

ACIT, CIRCLE-64(1), NEW DELHI vs. GURNIHAL SINGH PIRZADA, CHANDIGARH

ITA 3947/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 3947/Del/2019, A.Y. 2008-09 Ita No.3952/Del/2019, A.Y. 2013-14

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

SAURABH SINGHAI L/H LATE SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3 SAGAR, SAGAR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5/JAB/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon‟Ble

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 263

…The function of a notice is to put the assessee to notice, explained per a series of decisions by the Apex Court, toward which we may refer to the decisions in CST v. Subash & Co. (CA No. 1374/2003, dated 17/2/2003), as indeed CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh [1996] 219 ITR 737 (SC), itself rendered upon considering the law explained per judicial precedents. The same, sure, did not find favour with the Hon'ble Court in Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (supra), but that was only for the reason that the notice u/s. 143(2), on the basis of which jurisdiction stood assumed, was issued in the name of the amalgamating company, no longer in…

PIRAMAL ENTERPRISE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PIRAMAL HEALTHCARE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 7, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the specific terms indicated above

ITA 2489/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…ITA No. 2489/Mum/19 Assessment year: 2012-13 Page 1 of 16 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI C BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Justice P P Bhatt (President) and Pramod Kumar (Vice President)] ITA No. 2489/Mum/19 Assessment year: 2012-13 Pirmal Enterprises Limited (formerly Piramal Healthcare Limited) ……………….………Appellant Piramal Ananta, Agastaya Corporate Park, Kamani Junction, LBS Marg, Kurla (West) Mumbai 400 070 [PAN: AAACN4538P] Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(3)(2), Mumbai ……………………Respondent Appearances by J D Mistry, along with Madhur Agarwal, Ronak Doshi and Manshi Padhiar for the appellant…

LATE SHRI NAVINCHANDRA SAKALCHAND DALAL, LEGAL HERI DIPAK N. DALAL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(3)., AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 415/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 415/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divatia, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 148

…ed unless it is covered by the exception. The failure to implead all the LRs is not irregularity but illegality and vitiate the assessment. ITA No. 415/Ahd/18 [Late Shri Navinchandra Sakalchand Dalal vs. ITO] A.Y. 2012-13 - 6 – In CIT v Jai Prakash Singh's (219 ITR 737)(SC), it was held that the fact of the death of the assessee and the names often legal representatives were intimated to the ITO and still the assessment was completed without bringing all the legal representatives on record and without service of notice upon all of them. On appeal, it was contended that the assessment was wholly invalid and with…

RAJESH LADHANI,FAIZABAD vs. DCIT CC , AGRA

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 106/AGR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaita No. 106,107 & 108/Agra/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2011-12 Vs. Dy. C.I.T. –Central Circle, Rajesh Ladhani, 259, Savera Bhawan, Ram Nagar Colony, Agra. Faizabad. Pan: Abapl5646C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153D

…ment invalid. The act of Administrative Approval by Additional CIT does not take away the quasi-judicial powers which still vests in AO and therefore Administrative act cannot invalidate the assessment”. Reliance was also placed to ‘CIT Vs Jai Prakash Singh’, 219 ITR 737 (S.C) for the proposition that charging sections fix the liability to tax and any violation of machinery section will not render the assessment order void. Reliance was also placed to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Dr. Pranoy Roy Vs DCIT’, in W.P (C) 4742/2018 & CM Appl.18248-18249/2018 to demonstrate as to what constitutes Judicial…

ANURAG MITTAL ,FIROZABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 136/AGR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra06 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra Before Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member ITA No. 135 & 136/Agr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Anurag Mittal, L/H Late Shri Pramod vs. Dy.C.I.T. Central Kumar Mittal, 50-Bagh, Chhingamal, Circle, Agra. Firozabad (U.P) PAN: ABWPM1080B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Anurag Sinha, Advocate Respondent by Shri. Sunil Bapayee CIT, DR Shri. Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR 16/10/2019 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 06/11/2019 ORDER Per Bench.: These two appeals are directed by the assessee, against th…

STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,BHUBANESWAR vs. ITO, WARD-5(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and stay petition of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.08/Ctk/2018 & रोक आवेदन सं./Stay Application No.12/Ctk/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.08/Ctk/2018) (ननिाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) State Pollution Control Board, Vs. Ito, Ward-5(2), Bhubaneswar- Plot No.A-118,Paribesh 751007 Bhawan, Nilakantha Nagar, Unit-Viii, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar-751012 स्थायी लेखा सं./Panno. : Aaals 2490 J (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2019 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar, Dated 31.10.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. The Assessee Has Also Filed Stay Petition Seeking Stay Of Outstanding Demand Of Rs.20,74,92,600/-. 2. Ld. Ar, At The Outset, Submitted That Appeal May Be Heard & Decided Along With The Stay Petition. On The Other Hand, Ld. Dr Has No Objection To The Above Contention Of Ld. Ar. Accordingly, With The Consent Of Both The Parties Appeal Is Heard Finally.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR

Section 10(2)Section 10(46)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…eedings no grievance was also sought on this ground, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to raise this issue before the Tribunal. In support of this, ld. DR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jai Prakash Singh [1996] 219 ITR 737 (SC) and in the case of CR Foods (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO [2012] 26 taxmann.com 241 (All). Ld. DR also submitted that the case laws relied on by the ld. AR of the assessee is not applicable in the present case because there was jurisdiction of ITO, Bhadrak Ward at the time of issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act as is evident from the sys…

SIEMENS POWER ENGINEERING P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1772/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Siemens Power Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax – Circle – (Now Merged With M/S. 8(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan Room No.624, 6Th Floor Siemens Limited) 130, Pandurang Budhkar M.K.Road, Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Worli, Mumbai – 400 019 Pan/Gir No.Aaccs5323F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM M/s. Siemens Power Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax – Circle – (now merged with M/s. 8(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan Room No.624, 6th Floor Siemens Limited) 130, Pandurang Budhkar M.K.Road, Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Worli, Mumbai – 400 019 PAN/GIR No.AACCS5323F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue by Shri Anand Mohan Date of Hearing 26/07/2019 Date of Pronouncement 15/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.1772/Mum/2015…

MAJOR SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the afore-said terms

ITA 426/ASR/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Jul 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 426/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

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

…herefore the issue under reference is squarely covered. This is precisely what stands clarified in the context of different notices, including u/s. 23(2) (under the I.T. Act, 1922, corresponding to s.143(2) under the Act, (viz. CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh [1996] 219 ITR 737 (SC); Estate of Late Rangalal Jajodia v. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 505 (SC). De hors its jurisdictional aspect, s. 143(2) notice is toward verification of return of income. The function of a notice, explained in many a case by the Hon’ble Apex Court, viz. (CST v. Subhash & Co., in C.A. No. 1374 of 2003, dated 17/2/2003); Jai Prakash Singh (supra); Estate…

SHRI H.K. GANDOTRA,GURGAON vs. THE INOCME-TAX OFFICER, JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 594/ASR/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 246Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…e purport of a notice, i.e., generally speaking, as explained per its’ several decision by the Hon’ble Apex Court, to some of which reference is being made here (CST v. Subhash & Co., in C.A. No. 1374 of 2003, dated 17/2/2003); CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh [1996] 219 ITR 737 (SC); Estate of Late Rangalal Jajodia v. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 505 (SC)), is to put the assessee (noticee) to notice about the contemplated proceedings; in the present case seeking explanation as to why, in view of being unable to explain the source of investment, i.e., to the extent of Rs.10.20 lacs, as well as the expenditure incurred on the marria…

SH. JASPAL SINGH S/O SH. SWARAN SINGH,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 445/ASR/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 445/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 144Section 154

…ed, affording him an opportunity to comply with the said notice as well as to present his case in the matter. Lack of notice, as explained in Estate of Late Rangalal Jajodia v. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 505 (SC), noted with approval in CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh [1996] 219 ITR 737 (SC), to which reference was made by the Bench during hearing, rendered after a review of the judicial precedents, including Maharaja of Patiala vs. CIT (1943) 11 ITR 202 (Bom), also quoting therefrom, would not annul the proceedings but render the same procedurally infirm, i.e., a curable defect, so that the proceedings would have to be restored…

Showing 1–20 of 36 · Page 1 of 2