CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd.

281 ITR 1High Court2006#1944 most cited

What is CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. authority for?

Issuance of notice under Section 143(2) is a mandatory prerequisite for valid assessment proceedings, which are void ab initio if such notice is not issued. If an assessee denies receiving the notice through an affidavit, the burden of proof shifts to the Revenue to demonstrate that the notice was properly served within the prescribed time.

59

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. · Section 143(2) notice · valid assessment · assessment void ab initio · non-issuance of notice · non-service of notice · burden of proof · assessee affidavit · proper service · invalid assessment proceedings

Sections most often in play

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 115BBESection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 143(2)Section 69

Issues it is cited on

hundi transactionsection 115besection 153(c)(1)section 66section 153(c)section 292bbretraction of statementsection 80csection 282interest u/s 234apreponderance of probabilitysection 158bc

Judgments citing CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd.

VIJIT SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1246/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 147Section 234ASection 250

…mentioned therein have to be read as the facts binding upon the\nIncome Tax authorities. Kindly refer Mehta Pareek& Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC),\nITO v. Dr.TejgopalBhatnagar 20 TW 368 (Jp)Paras Cotton Company vs.\nCIT (2003) 30 TW 168 (JD)., CIT v/s LunardDimond Ltd. 281 ITR 1\n(Del). Recently in CIT v/s Bhawani Oil Mills (P) Ltd_239 CTR 445/49\nDTR 212(Raj.)- It has been held that contents of affidavit could not be treated\nas of a lesser importance than the statement given by the creditor before the\nAO.\nRecently this Honble ITAT in the case of NarayaniBaiDangi v/s ITO Ward\n2(1), Udaipur in ITA No.22/Jodh/2022 dt.13.…

KAILASH CHAND MEENA,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

…mentioned therein have to be read as the facts binding upon the Income Tax authorities. Kindly refer Mehta Pareek& Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC), ITO v. Dr. TejgopalBhatnagar 20 TW 368 (Jp) Paras Cotton Company vs. CIT (2003) 30 TW 168 (JD)., CIT v/s Lunard Dimond Ltd. 281 ITR 1 (Del). Recently in CIT v/s Bhawani Oil Mills (P) Ltd 239 CTR 445/49 DTR 212(Raj.)- It has been held that contents of affidavit could not be treated as of a lesser importance than the statement given by the creditor before the AO. Recently this Honble ITAT in the case of Narayani Bai Dangi v/s ITO Ward 2(1), Udaipur in ITA No.22/Jodh/2022 dt.13.10.2…

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

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

ITA 1182/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

…tioned therein have to be read as the facts binding upon the Income Tax authorities.\nKindly refer Mehta Pareek& Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC), ITO v. Dr. TejgopalBhatnagar\n20 TW 368 (Jp) Paras Cotton Company vs. CIT (2003) 30 TW 168 (JD)., CIT v/s\nLunard Dimond Ltd. 281 ITR 1 (Del). Recently in_CIT v/s Bhawani Oil Mills (P)\nLtd_239 CTR 445/49 DTR 212(Raj.)- It has been held that contents of affidavit could\nnot be treated as of a lesser importance than the statement given by the creditor before the\nAO.\nRecently this Honble ITAT in the case of Narayani Bai Dangi v/s ITO Ward 2(1),\nUdaipur in ITA No.22/Jodh/2022 dt.13…

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

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

ITA 1180/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

…tioned therein have to be read as the facts binding upon the Income Tax authorities.\nKindly refer Mehta Pareek& Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC), ITO v. Dr. TejgopalBhatnagar\n20 TW 368 (Jp) Paras Cotton Company vs. CIT (2003) 30 TW 168 (JD)., CIT v/s\nLunard Dimond Ltd. 281 ITR 1 (Del). Recently in_CIT v/s Bhawani Oil Mills (P)\nLtd_239 CTR 445/49 DTR 212(Raj.)- It has been held that contents of affidavit could\nnot be treated as of a lesser importance than the statement given by the creditor before the\nAO.\nRecently this Honble ITAT in the case of Narayani Bai Dangi v/s ITO Ward 2(1),\nUdaipur in ITA No.22/Jodh/2022 dt.13…

RAMESH KUMAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. ITO WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU, JHUNJHUNU

ITA 1179/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 69

…mentioned therein have to be read as the facts binding upon the Income Tax authorities. Kindly refer Mehta Pareek& Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC), ITO v. Dr. TejgopalBhatnagar 20 TW 368 (Jp) Paras Cotton Company vs. CIT (2003) 30 TW 168 (JD)., CIT v/s Lunard Dimond Ltd. 281 ITR 1 (Del). Recently in CIT v/s Bhawani Oil Mills (P) Ltd 239 CTR 445/49 DTR 212(Raj.)- It has been held that contents of affidavit could not be treated as of a lesser importance than the statement given by the creditor before the AO. Recently this Honble ITAT in the case of Narayani Bai Dangi v/s ITO Ward 2(1), Udaipur in ITA No.22/Jodh/2022 dt.13.10.2…

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…ts mentioned therein have to be read as the facts binding upon the Income Tax authorities. Kindly refer Mehta Pareek& Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC), ITO v. Dr.TejgopalBhatnagar 20 TW 368 (Jp)Paras Cotton Company vs. CIT (2003) 30 TW 168 (JD)., CIT v/s LunardDimond Ltd. 281 ITR 1 (Del). In CIT v/s Bhawani Oil Mills (P) Ltd 239 CTR 445/49 DTR 212(Raj.)- It has been held that contents of affidavit could not be treated as of a lesser importance than the statement given by the creditor before the AO. And in the present case in support the assessee had filed his affidavit and the ld. AO has not rebutted the contents of the affid…

DHANOTTAM VASANT LONKAR,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 54FSection 68

…ent proceedings\ncompleted without issuance of notice U/s 143(2) of the act and void ab\ninitio and liable to be quashed.\nDelhi High Court\nCommissioner of Income Tax vs Lunar Diamonds Ltd. on 3 March, 2005\nEquivalent citations: (2005) 197 CTR Del 312, 2006 281 ITR 1 Delhi\nGujarat High Court\nDeputy Commissioner Of... vs Mahi Valley Hotels And Resorts on 31\nAugust, 2005 Equivalent citations: 2006 287 ITR 360 G\nM/s. Cosmat Traders Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)\nITA No. 457/Kol/2020 Date: 21/04/2021, Assessment Year: 2012-13\nAll ITAT Kolkata\nIt was further submitted that issuance of notice under Section 143…

JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA,BHAWANIMANDI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…entioned therein have to be read as the facts binding upon the Income Tax authorities. Kindly refer Mehta Pareek& Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC), ITO v. Dr. Tejgopal Bhatnagar 20 TW 368 (Jp) Paras Cotton Company vs. CIT (2003) 30 TW 168 (JD)., CIT v/s Lunard Dimond Ltd. 281 ITR 1 (Del). Recently in CIT v/s Bhawani Oil Mills (P) Ltd 239 CTR 445/49 DTR 212(Raj.)- It has been held that contents of affidavit could not be treated as of a lesser importance than the statement given by the creditor before the AO. Recently this Honble ITAT in the case of Narayani Bai Dangi v/s ITO Ward 2(1), Udaipur in ITA No.22/Jodh/2022 dt.13.10.2…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. SUKRITI INFORMATION SYSTEMS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee

ITA 1991/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)

…eemed service' in which himself acknowledged the fact that assessee had raised objection on 09.02.2015 regarding the non-issuance of notice U/s 143(2). as per the judgement of Hon'ble High Court in Commissioner of Income- tax v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd., (2006) 281 ITR 1, that once the assessee had filed an affidavit stating it had not received notice U/s 143(2), the burden of proof had shifted to the revenue department to prove that the notice was served within prescribed time. The relevant para 16 of the judgment Lunar Diamonds (supra) is reproduced as under: “16. We may also point out that there appears to be…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2.4, CHENNAI vs. SHRI P. RAMA MOHAN RAO, CHENNAI

Accordingly, cross- objections for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 stands dismissed

ITA 225/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.223/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.224/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.225/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri P. Rama Mohan Rao बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafpr-2074-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.10/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.223/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. Cross Objection No.11/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.224/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. Cross Objection No.12/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.225/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम/ Dcit Shri P. Rama Mohan Rao No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, Central Circle-1(4)

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 144

…sued notice u/s 143(2) on or before 30-09-2019. Section 143(2) was a mandatory provision. The notice issued beyond prescribed time was invalid and therefore, the assessment was void ab initio as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (281 ITR 1). However, since it was held that the assessment for this year should have been completed u/s 153C, such alternative ground as taken by the assessee was held to be superfluous and accordingly, dismissed. 7.28 The adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) has led to present appeals of the revenue while the assessee has filed cross-objections. Our findings and Adju…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2.4, CHENNAI vs. SHRI P. RAMA MOHAN RAO, CHENNAI

Accordingly, cross- objections for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 stands dismissed

ITA 224/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.223/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.224/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.225/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri P. Rama Mohan Rao बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafpr-2074-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.10/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.223/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. Cross Objection No.11/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.224/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. Cross Objection No.12/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.225/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम/ Dcit Shri P. Rama Mohan Rao No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, Central Circle-1(4)

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 144

…sued notice u/s 143(2) on or before 30-09-2019. Section 143(2) was a mandatory provision. The notice issued beyond prescribed time was invalid and therefore, the assessment was void ab initio as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (281 ITR 1). However, since it was held that the assessment for this year should have been completed u/s 153C, such alternative ground as taken by the assessee was held to be superfluous and accordingly, dismissed. 7.28 The adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) has led to present appeals of the revenue while the assessee has filed cross-objections. Our findings and Adju…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2.4, CHENNAI vs. SHRI P. RAMA MOHAN RAO, CHENNAI

Accordingly, cross- objections for AYs 2015-16 and 2016-17 stands dismissed

ITA 223/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.223/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.224/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.225/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri P. Rama Mohan Rao बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, 6Th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai. / Vs. Chennai-600 040. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafpr-2074-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.10/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.223/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. Cross Objection No.11/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.224/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. Cross Objection No.12/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.225/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम/ Dcit Shri P. Rama Mohan Rao No.17/184, Y Block, First Street, Central Circle-1(4)

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 144

…sued notice u/s 143(2) on or before 30-09-2019. Section 143(2) was a mandatory provision. The notice issued beyond prescribed time was invalid and therefore, the assessment was void ab initio as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (281 ITR 1). However, since it was held that the assessment for this year should have been completed u/s 153C, such alternative ground as taken by the assessee was held to be superfluous and accordingly, dismissed. 7.28 The adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) has led to present appeals of the revenue while the assessee has filed cross-objections. Our findings and Adju…

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 38/AHD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw
Section 80Section 80I

…2] 341ITR 247 (Delhi) v) DIT Vs. V.R. Educational Trust - ITA No.510/2011 dated 10.02.2012. vi) Shri Mohinder Kumar Chhabra vs ITO, ITA No. 3523/Del/2013 (ITAT Delhi) vii) Pr.CIT vs Silver line 12016] 383 ITR 455 (Delhi) viii)CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. [2005] 281 ITR 1 (Delhi) ix) CIT\/. RajeevSharma336ITR678(Allahabad) x) Pr.CIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd. [2015] 64 taxmann.com 220 (Delhi) xi) C1T v. M/s Salarpur Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. [2014] 50 Taxmann.com 105 (Allahabad) xii) DIT v. Society for Worldwide Inter Bank Financial Telecommunications[201Q] 323 ITR 249 232 CTR 265 (Delhi) iii. Reason wi…

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VENUS INFRASTRUCTURE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 37/AHD/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 37 & 38/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणणवध/Asstt. Years: 2008-09 & 2017-18 D.C.I.T, M/S Venus Infrastructure & Central Circle-1(1), Vs. Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad 1101 Venus Amadeus, Jodhpur Cross Road, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aahcs6254J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate With Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar & Shri Vijay Govani A.Rs सुिणाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2024 घोवणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Two Appeal Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad, Of Even Dated 20/01/2021 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) & 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Here- In-After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2017-18. First, We Take Up Ita No. 38/Ahd/2021, An Appeal By The Revenue For Ay 2017-18

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw
Section 80Section 80I

…2] 341ITR 247 (Delhi) v) DIT Vs. V.R. Educational Trust - ITA No.510/2011 dated 10.02.2012. vi) Shri Mohinder Kumar Chhabra vs ITO, ITA No. 3523/Del/2013 (ITAT Delhi) vii) Pr.CIT vs Silver line 12016] 383 ITR 455 (Delhi) viii)CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. [2005] 281 ITR 1 (Delhi) ix) CIT\/. RajeevSharma336ITR678(Allahabad) x) Pr.CIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd. [2015] 64 taxmann.com 220 (Delhi) xi) C1T v. M/s Salarpur Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. [2014] 50 Taxmann.com 105 (Allahabad) xii) DIT v. Society for Worldwide Inter Bank Financial Telecommunications[201Q] 323 ITR 249 232 CTR 265 (Delhi) iii. Reason wi…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MARK BUILDTECH PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6303/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIR-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271Section 7

…in fact stated in the return of the income for the A.Y. 2006-07. Subsequent attempt to serve another notice long after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed by the proviso, could not help the Revenue.” 3. Hon'ble Delhi High Court Lunar Diamonds Ltd 281 ITR 1 “the assessed had filed an affidavit stating that it had not received the notice and the Tribunal rightly held that under these circumstances, the burden was upon the Appellant to prove that notice was served upon the assessed within the prescribed time. The Appellant had filed to prove its case in this regard.” 4. Hon'ble Delhi High Court NULON…

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…rn affidavit are to be accepted as correct unless the same are rebutted by the evidence. Kindly refer Mehta Pareek& Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC) ,, ITO v. Dr.TejgopalBhatnagar 20 TW 368 (Jp)Paras Cotton Company vs. CIT (2003) 30 TW 168 (JD)., CIT v/s LunardDimond Ltd. 281 ITR 1 (Del). Recently in CIT v/s Bhawani Oil Mills (P) Ltd 239 CTR 445/49 DTR 212(Raj.)- It has been held that contents of affidavit could not be treated as of a lesser importance than the statement given by the creditor before the AO. Through Affidavit as submitted before Ld. AO during the course of Assessment Proceedings it was stated under Point No.…

RAJESH KUMAR,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 3(4), GURGAON

In the result, ITA No.1108/Del/2016 is partly allowed and ITA

ITA 2824/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 282Section 292BSection 80C

…order in ITO vs. Ajay Raj (2019) 108 Taxmann.com 543. f. There is unanimity of judicial opinion on the point of the invalidity of an assessment made without service of notice u/s 143 2). Some of the cases are as below:- (i) CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Del); (ii) CIT vs. Eqbal Singh Sindhana (2007) 304 IT 177 (Del); (iii) CIT vs. Nulon India Ltd. (2008) 312 ITR (St) 3 (iv) CIT vs. Mas Compel India Ltd. (2012) 345 IT 58(Del); (v) CIT vs. Cebon India Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 583 (P&H). In view of the above it is quite clear that since the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has not been served the assessment…

SHRI RAJESH KUMAR,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

In the result, ITA No.1108/Del/2016 is partly allowed and ITA

ITA 1108/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 282Section 292BSection 80C

…order in ITO vs. Ajay Raj (2019) 108 Taxmann.com 543. f. There is unanimity of judicial opinion on the point of the invalidity of an assessment made without service of notice u/s 143 2). Some of the cases are as below:- (i) CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Del); (ii) CIT vs. Eqbal Singh Sindhana (2007) 304 IT 177 (Del); (iii) CIT vs. Nulon India Ltd. (2008) 312 ITR (St) 3 (iv) CIT vs. Mas Compel India Ltd. (2012) 345 IT 58(Del); (v) CIT vs. Cebon India Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 583 (P&H). In view of the above it is quite clear that since the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has not been served the assessment…

SH. SUKHPAL CHOWDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 342/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri T. R. Talwar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaudhary
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69

…ved on the assessee within the prescribed time as per the proviso to section 143(2) of the Act, thus making the assessment invalid in law. He also placed Reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT V. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Delhi) 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that the following facts should be considered:- In the above case, it is humbly submitted that the following facts may kindly be considered: 1. Notice u/s 143(2) of. I.T. Act was duly issued on 19.08.2009 and sent by registered post on 22.08.2009. The notice was not received back unserved. A cop…

BCL SECURITIES PVT LTD,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1615/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR
Section 14ASection 28Section 36Section 37

…expenditure. It all has to be judged from the point of view of the appellant. Reliance in this regard is placed in the following judicial pronouncements: The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (Appeals) reported in [2007] 281 ITR 1 held the following: “We agree with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Dalmia Cement Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 377 that once it is established that there was nexus between the expenditure and the purpose of the business (which need not necessarily be the business of the assessee itself), the Revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in…

Showing 1–20 of 59 · Page 1 of 3