How many judgments cite CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal?

225 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal (417 ITR 325), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(2), Section 148, Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 292BB, Section 142(1).

CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal

417 ITR 325Supreme Court of India2019#390 most cited

What is CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal authority for?

Issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory requirement for completing an assessment when a return is filed, including reassessment under Section 147/143(3). The complete absence of this notice renders the assessment invalid and is not curable by Section 292BB.

225

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Laxman Das Khandelwal · Section 143(2) notice mandatory · non-issuance of notice · assessment invalid · Section 292BB · curative provision · service of notice · Section 147 reassessment · Section 143(3) assessment · Hotel Blue Moon affirmed

Also reported as

108 Taxmann.com 183266 Taxmann 171310 CTR 8

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 148 Section 147 Section 143(3)Section 292BB Section 142(1)Section 139 Section 144

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 292bb section 292b section 124(3)section 292 section 120 section 29 section 124 section 158bc service of notice section 127 section 139(4)section 158

Judgments citing CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal

SITANSHU GUPTA,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEHRADUN

In the result, this appeal is allowed

ITA 67/DDN/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.67/Ddn/2026 निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sitanshu Gupta, Income Tax Officer, बिधम 100/100, Block 2, Ward 2(4), Dehradun, Vs. Lunia Mohalla, Dehradun, Uttrakhand. Uttrakhand 248001. Pan No.Bdmps2841B अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr 06.04.2026 सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date Of Hearing: 15.04.2026 उद्घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per Sanjay Awasthi:

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 292B

…ITA No. 67/DDN/2026 SITANSHU GUPTA, DEHRADUN IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “DB” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.67/DDN/2026 निर्धारणवर्ा/Assessment Year: 2012-13 SITANSHU GUPTA, INCOME TAX OFFICER, बिधम 100/100, Block 2, Ward 2(4), DEHRADUN, Vs. Lunia Mohalla, DEHRADUN, UTTRAKHAND. UTTRAKHAND 248001. PAN No.BDMPS2841B अपीलधर्थी Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee by Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Advocate Revenue by Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT DR 06.04.2026 सुिवधईकीतधरीख/ Date of hearing: 15.04.2026 उद्घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Pr…

CHANCHAL BANSAL,BAHADURGARH vs. ITO WARD-3 ROHTAK, ROHTAK

ITA 4684/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalchanchal Bansal Vs. Ito Ward-3 Mohallamazid, 14, Aayakarbhawan Ward No.25, Rohtak, Jhajjar, Bahadurgarh, Haryana – 124001 Haryana – 124507 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bicpb3122P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. P.K. Jain, Ca Ms. Vrishti Jain, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…ued u/s 148 of the Act. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel submitted that non issuance of notice u/s 143(2) makes the impugned assessment order as bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 1. CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandewal 417 ITR 325 (SC); 2. Rajender Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO 414 ITR 286 (Del.); 3. PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. 398 ITR 701 (Del); 4. PCIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Trading P. Ltd. 388 ITR 448 (Del.); 5. CIT vs. Rajiv Sharma 336 ITR 678 (All.); 6. PCIT vs. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 404 ITR 299 (Del). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the asse…

ARUN KUMAR MAURYA,LUCKNOW vs. ITO-2(1), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 415/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

…ifferent from saying that a notice was issued which was deficient. This issue is no longer res Integra, as is demonstratable by the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Laxman Das Khandelwal, [2019] 108 taxmann.com 183/266 Taxman 171/417 ITR 325 (SC). For convenience, the relevant reasoning made in this behalf is set forth hereafter: 7. A closer look at Section 292BB shows that if the assessee has participated in the proceedings it shall be deemed that any notice which is required to be served upon was duly served and the assessee would be precluded from taking any objections that the no…

ARIMILLI RAMA KRISHNA,WEST GODAVARI DIST vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 639/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194JSection 2(22)(e)Section 263

…t is sine qua non for valid assumption of jurisdiction and framing of assessment by the A.O had pressed into service the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) (321 ITR (SC) and CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC). The Ld. AR drawing support from his aforesaid contention, submitted that as the impugned assessment had been framed by the AO in the absence of a valid assumption of jurisdiction by him, therefore, the same on the said count itself cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Page. No 8 I.T.A.No.639/VIZ/2025 Arimilli Rama Krishna 10.…

SATYANARAYANA MURTHY ADAPA,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. ITO., WARD-13(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1263/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1263/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajahmundry. Ward-13(1), Pan: Aaypa8644C Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid Mode) Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 05/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 13/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 16/06/2025 For The A.Y. 2017-18. Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa Vs. Ito 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 115BSection 127Section 143(2)

…rvice of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is a condition precedent for making an assessment under section 143(3) of the Act and absence of such notice renders the assessment invalid. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal (417 ITR 325) has further held that where there is a complete absence of notice under section 143(2) of the Act, the defect goes to the root of jurisdiction and cannot be cured even by the provisions of section 292BB of the Act. In the present case, the notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by an Assessing Officer who did not possess jurisdiction…

ADIMULAM SATYANARAYANA PROPRIETOR,VIZIANAGARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VIZIANAGARAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 472/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 13Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

…in the absence of a notice under section 143(2) of the Act, relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 9 Adimulam Satyanarayana Proprietor vs. ITO (SC) and CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC). Accordingly, the Ld. AR submitted that as the AO had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and framed the impugned assessment vide his order passed under section 144 of the Act, dated 16/12/2019, thus the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. 17. Per contra, Shri Hema Bhupal, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, “L…

HAMEED MARINE PRIVATE LIMITED,EDALAKUDY, NAGERCOIL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGERCOIL, INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAGERCOIL

In the result, Grounds relating to validity of notice u/s 143(2) are dismissed

ITA 2317/CHNY/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: 12.01.2026

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

…(2) was issued within the prescribed time limit and the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings without raising any objection regarding jurisdiction before completion of assessment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325 (SC) has held that issuance of notice u/s 143(2) within ITA 2317Chny 2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) Hameed Marine Pvt Ltd vs ACIT Nagercoil :: 10 :: prescribed time is mandatory. In the present case, issuance within time is not disputed. Further, mere non-mentioning of the category of scrutiny in the notice does not render the notice invalid when the cas…

KABEL METAL POWER CABLES LTD,THANE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4789/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarita No.4789/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala a/w Shri Saiprasad GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4789/Mum/2025 (Assessment year: 2014-15) Kabel Metal Power Cables Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner of Flat No.902, Opp. J.K. Income Tax, Circle 5(2)(1), Singhaniya School, Anmol Mumbai Residency, Thane, Room No.571, 5th floor, Aayakar Maharashtra-400606 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- PAN:AAECK1357M 400020 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by :Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala a/w Shri Saiprasad Ghosh Respondent by :Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR) Date of hearing : 02/…

KABEL METAL POWER CABLES LTD,THANE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4788/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarita No.4789/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala a/w Shri Saiprasad GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

NIRMAN REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3447/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 3447/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Nirman Realtors and Developers Ltd., 401, 402, Apollo Complex, R K Sing Marg, Off Parsi Panchayat Road, Andheri East, Mumbai-400069. PAN NO. AACCN 7735 N Appellant Circle-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Respondent Assessee by Revenue by Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : Mr. Asish Thakurdesai : Mr. Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR : 03/12/2025 : 22/01/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the asse…

ABC INDIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1645/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 11(1) Abc India Limited Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, 40/8, Ballygunj Circular Road Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Vs. Kolkata-700019, West Bengal 700069, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aacca2035J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Pransukhka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, DR

Section 119Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM DCIT, Circle 11(1) ABC India Limited Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, 40/8, Ballygunj Circular Road Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Vs. Kolkata-700019, West Bengal 700069, West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AACCA2035J Assessee by : Shri S.K. Pransukhka, AR Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar Pati, DR Date of hearing: 12.01.2026 Date of pronouncement: 14.01.2026 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (herei…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNAL vs. ASHUTOSH FOODS, NISSING

ITA 234/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmadeputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ashutosh Foods Income Tax, Karnalkaithal Road, Aayakarbhawan, Nissingkarnal, Sector-12, Karnal Haryana – 132024 Haryana – 132001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aavfa2840F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dr.Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…ed u/s 148 of the Act. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel submitted that non issuance of notice u/s 143(2) makes the impugned assessment order as bad in law. Reliance is placed on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 1. CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandewal 417 ITR 325 (SC); 2. Rajender Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO 414 ITR 286 (Del.); 3. PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. 398 ITR 701 (Del); 4. PCIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Trading P. Ltd. 388 ITR 448 (Del.); 5. CIT vs. Rajiv Sharma 336 ITR 678 (All.); 6. PCIT vs. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 404 ITR 299 (Del). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the ass…

BHARAT KANTILAL CHANGEDE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(3), PUNE

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

ITA 1902/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Pune13 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora, Sampada Ingale, CA and Riya Oswal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath, Addl.CIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292BSection 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2012-13 Bharat Kantilal Chengede ITO, Ward 6(3), Pune 4, Budhwar Peth, Bajirao Road, Vs. Near Vitthal Mandir, Pune – 411002 PAN: AAUPC5241M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suhas Bora, Sampada Ingale, CA and Riya Oswal, CA Department by : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 08-01-2026 Date of pronouncement : -01-2026 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 03.07.2025 o…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1812/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Riya OswalFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 37Section 68

…w. He submitted that the jurisdictional defect which strikes the root of the assessment cannot be cured u/s 292B of the Act. For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal reported in 417 ITR 325 (SC). He accordingly submitted that since the Assessing Officer, instead of issuing notice u/s 153C of the Act has issued notice u/s 148 of the Act, therefore, such reopening being not in accordance with law, has to be quashed. 15. In his second plank of argument the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the chronology…

SITA SOREN (MURMU),RANCHI vs. ACIT CIR-3, RANCHI

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

ITA 11/RAN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.10 & 11/Ran/2017 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Years :2009-2010 & 2011-2012) Smt. Sita Soren (Murmu), Vs. Acit, Circle-3, Ranchi F-34, Sector-3, Hec Colony, Ranchi-834004 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Agnpm 1747 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, र ाँची न्य यपीठ, र ाँची IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.10 & 11/RAN/2017 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Years :2009-2010 & 2011-2012) Smt. Sita Soren (Murmu), Vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Ranchi F-34, Sector-3, HEC Colony, Ranchi-834004 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN No. : AGNPM 1747 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 07/01/20…

SITA SOREN (MURMU),RANCHI vs. ACIT CIR-3, RANCHI

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

ITA 10/RAN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148A

SANGHI TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERBAD vs. ITO., WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1311/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 37(1)

…able to be struck down on the said ground itself. The Ld. AR to buttress his contention, had drawn support from the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 321 ITR 362 (SC) and CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 417 ITR 325 11 Sanghi Textiles Privarte Limited vs. ITO (SC). The Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in both of its orders had held that issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is mandatory for valid assumption of jurisdiction by the AO to frame the assessment. 15. Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Ld. CIT-DR, on being confronted by the Ld. AR’…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANCHI, JHARKHAND vs. AMBA CARBONISATION PVT. LTD., RANCHI, JHARKHAND

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 61/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.61/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ito, Ranchi………..…………….…….…...................................……….……Appellant Vs. Amba Carbonisation Pvt. Ltd ……....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 21, Ashok Bhawan, Kali Asthan Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand. [Pan: Aadca7460J] Appearances By: Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kanak, Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 06, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 15.01.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act & Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Special Smokeless Coal/Coke. The Assessee Also Derives Income By Way Of Interest On Bank Deposits. As Per Information Available With The Income-Tax Department, It Was Noticed That The Assessee’S Bank Accounts Reflected Substantial Cash Deposits, Which Were Allegedly Withdrawn Immediately Through Rtgs/Neft Transactions. It Was Further Observed That There Existed A Difference Between The Turnover Disclosed By The Assessee In The Return Of Income & The Total Credits Appearing In The Bank Accounts. On The Basis Of The Above Information, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Initiated Reassessment Proceedings By Issuing A Notice Under Section 148 Of The

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 273B

…ssessee in the assessment proceedings does not cure a jurisdictional defect relying upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ACIT 3 I.T.A. No.61/Ran/2024 Amba Carbonisation Pvt. Ltd v. Hotel Blue Moon (321 ITR 362) and CIT v. Laxman Das Khandelwal (417 ITR 325), the ld. CIT(A) quashed the reassessment order. The ld. counsel has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) is his order has discussed the facts while allowing the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: I.T.A. No.61/Ran/2024 Amba Carbonisation Pvt. Ltd I.T.A. No.61/Ran/2024 Amba Carbonisation Pvt. Ltd I.T.A. No.61/Ran/2024 Amba Carbonisation Pvt…

ABISHEK CHANDOK,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

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

ITA 7095/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7095/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2019-20) Abishek Chandok, Q5/2 First Floor, Dlf City Phase-Ii, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Apjpc-1686-E बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-51(1), Civic Centre Road, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri H.C Parasher & Ms. Hiteshi Parasher, Advocates प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri H.C Parasher & Ms. Hiteshi ParasherFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 292B

…bmissions. Issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is a statutory requirement. 3 Non issuance of such notice is an incurable defect and makes the assessment invalid. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal reported as 417 ITR 325 has held that issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is a mandatory requirement. For section 292BB of the Act to apply the notice u/s.143(2) of the Act must have emanated from the Department. It is only the infirmities in the manner of service of notice that the section seeks to cure. The provisions of section 292BB of the Act does not intend t…

AMIT SINGHAL,DELHI vs. NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4773/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshamit Singhal, Vs. Nfac, D-11, East Azar Nagar, Delhi Krishna Nagar, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Cbpps5949N Assessee By : Ms. Manju Goyal, Ca Shri B. L. Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Manju Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Amit Singhal, Vs. NFAC, D-11, East Azar Nagar, Delhi Krishna Nagar, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: CBPPS5949N Assessee by : Ms. Manju Goyal, CA Shri B. L. Gupta, Adv Revenue by: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date of pronouncement 10/12/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: The appeal in ITA No.4773/Del/202 for AY 2017-18, arises out of the 1. order of the ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. N…

Showing 1–20 of 225 · Page 1 of 12

...