CIT v. M/s MT Builders Pvt. Ltd.

349 ITR 271High Court2012#5613 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 124(3)Section 127 Section 147 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 124(1)section 120(1)section 2(7a)section 124 section 120 section 124(3)section 127(2)section 292bb section 127 section 292b section 292 service of notice

Judgments citing CIT v. M/s MT Builders Pvt. Ltd.

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

…ural irregularity and the same is not curable and therefore issuance of notice u/s 143(2) is a statutory requirement before completing the Assessment. h. It is also submitted that Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. M.I. Builders (P) Ltd [2012] 349 ITR 271 held that the notice issued by Non- jurisdictional Assessing Officer is invalid, no records can be transferred when the proceedings were invalid ab- initio, and such transfer cannot validate any proceedings taken in continuation thereof.” 10. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR supports the order of lower authorities and submits that assessee has not c…

KALYAN RATAN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), JAIPUR

ITA 571/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, CA andFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT- DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 292BSection 69

…that ITO Ward-26(4), New Delhi had no\nvalid jurisdiction over the appellant, at the time of issuing notice u/s\n148 of the Act. In such circumstances, it was held by the Hon'ble\nAllahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s MT Builders Pvt.\nLtd., (2012) 349 ITR 271 (All.) that the notice issued by an Officer\nwho had no valid jurisdiction over the assessee is invalid. The\nnotice under Section 148 of the Act issued by the Income Tax Officer,\nWard-26(4) is non-est in the eyes of law since he had no valid\njurisdiction over the appellant either territorial as notified\nunder Section 124 of the Act or by tran…

POONAM SEN,LUCKNOW vs. ITO, RANGE 1(3), LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 70/LKW/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2008-09 Poonam Sen, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-1/73, Viram Khand, Gomti Range-1(3), Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow-226010 Pan: Bacps7483J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Deepak Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- Lucknow Dated 4.08.2020, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ito-1(3), Lucknow, Passed Under Section 147/144 Of The Income Tax Act. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Learned Cit(A), Has Erred In Law, In Confirming Order U/S 147/144 Of The 1.T. Act, 1961 In The Present Case As The Notice Issued U/S 148 By The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bareilly (Here-In After Referred To As The Ito, Bareilly) Was Issued Without Any Jurisdiction & Thus As The Notice So Issued U/S 148 Itself Is Issued Without Jurisdiction The Culmination Of The Same In The Present Order Is Void-Ab- Initio & Bad-In-Law & Thus The Order May Kindly Be Annulled. Ii. On The Fact & In The Peculiar Circumstances Of The Present Case The Reasons So Recorded By The Ito, Bareilly Itself Are Vitiated As The Appellant Had Made A True & Fair Disclosure & That The Investment So Made Cannot Be Disclosed In The Return So Filed & Further As Per The Reasons Recorded The Income Escaping Assessment Is Of Rs.65,73,000/- & Whereas The Addition Towards Purchase Has Been Made Of Rs.16,92,000/- Only & Thus The Addition Is Devoid Of Any Merit & Needs To Be Quashed. Without Prejudice To Grounds Nos. I & Ii Above:

For Appellant: Sh. Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Deepak Yadav, DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…the notices on time as compulsorily required, no proceedings could be launched against the assessee on the basis of a non-est notice. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 271 (All) and Pr. CIT vs. Mohd Rizwan in ITA No.100 of 2015 wherein the Hon’ble High Court had held that notice issued by an officer who had no valid jurisdiction over the assessee is invalid and that proceedings of re-assessment pursuant to notice under section 148 by incompetent officer are void ab initio, the assessment done thereafter is bad in l…

SANAND SANKARDAS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER INT. TAX WARD 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1102/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 195Section 69

…iction over Petitioner. 10. Since in the affidavit-in-reply a stand is taken that the file can be transferred now to the AO who had jurisdiction over Petitioner, Dr. Shivram submitted, relying on CIT v. M.I. Builders (P.) Ltd. [2014] 44 taxтапп.com 360/[2012] 349 ITR 271 (Allahabad) that the notice issued by Non-jurisdictional Assessing Officer is invalid, no records can be transferred when the proceedings were invalid ab-initio and such transfer cannot validate any proceedings taken in continuation thereof. 11. Ms. Nagaraj appearing for Respondents-Revenue relying on a judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Abh…

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

ITA 173/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Mrs. Apeksha Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 142Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 253(5)Section 292BSection 5

…(1)/201(1A).\nHence, considering the facts and cases cited above, the assessment\nproceedings deserve to be quashed and set aside. In reference to the\njurisdictional issue the following other judgments are relevant:\nCIT Vs. M/s MT Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 349 ITR 271 (All.)\nIt was held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court that the notice issued by an\nOfficer who had no valid jurisdiction for the assessee is invalid.\nThe Hon'ble Kolkata ITAT in the case of Shivam Dhatu Udyog Limited Vs.\nDCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata (ITA No. 2456/Kol/2019) held ON 10.03.2021 in\npara 11 and 12 that: 11. We have heard rival sub…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CHANDIGARH vs. SH. MANJEET SINGH, LUDHIANA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed whereas, Cross

ITA 512/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 512/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dcit, Vs. Shri Manjeet Singh, बनाम Circle (International S/O Shri Harbir Singh Taxation), # 1460, Ward Number-8, Chandigarh Gahlewal, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cdeps4087A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 13/Chd/2022 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 512/Chd/2022) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Manjeet Singh, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम S/O Shri Harbir Singh Circle (International # 1460, Ward Number-8, Taxation ), Gahlewal, Chandigarh Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cdeps4087A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Dharamvir, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT & DR KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 512/CHD/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The DCIT, Vs. Shri Manjeet Singh, बनाम Circle (International S/o Shri Harbir Singh Taxation), # 1460, Ward Number-8, Chandigarh Gahlewal, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN No: CDEPS4087A अपीलाथ"/ APPELLANT ""यथ"/ REPSONDENT AND C.O. No. 13/Chd/2022 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 512/CHD/2022) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Manjeet Singh,…

RAJESH KUMAR JAISWAL,SHRAWASTI vs. ITO, WD 6(4), JAIPUR

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

ITA 306/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal (Self)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 127(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

…ESSMENT (on pages 64 to 70 of the Paper Book) came into effect after 13-08-2020 whereas the impugned Assessment Order was passed earlier on 10-12-2019. 1.32 Reliance in this regard is placed the following on decisions:- i) CITvs. M.I. Builders (P.)Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 271(All.), wherein the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held that' When jurisdiction over assessee had already been transferred to ACIT, Range-l, Lucknow notice issued under section 148 by ACIT, Range jurisdiction'. IV, Lucknow was without Copy is placed on pages 71 to 78 of the Paper Book. ii) Smt. Smriti Kedia Vs. Union of India & Ors. [WP 1984 of…

SMT. ZAYADA GHORI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/JODH/2017[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Jodhpur13 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT-DR

Section 148

…the reassessment framed relying on the decision in the case of (i) Y. Narayana Chetty v. ITO 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC), (ii) CIT v. Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur 41 ITR 421 (SC), (iii) CIT v. Robert 48 ITR 177 (SC) and (ii) CIT v. M/s MT Builders Pvt. Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 271 (All. HC). 6. In view of the settled principle of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we quashed the reassessment proceedings, since there was no valid notice 5 Zayada Ghori v. ITO pursuant to which the reassessment proceedings was made in the instant case. Accordingly, the assessment order framed by the AO is quashed. 7. In the result, the appeal…

ARUNA TIWARI,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 90/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 90/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Aruna Tiwari 762, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt4977B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ng assessment [2023] 146 taxmann. com 207 (Cal. proceeding. But where the appellant does not HC) exercise such an option, it cannot be questioned later on. The same observation (ii) CIT v. M Builders Pvt. Ltd [2012] was made by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi 349 ITR 271 (All. HC); in the case of Abhishek Jain vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-55(1), New Delhi (WRIT (iii) PCIT v. Mohd. Rizwan Prop. M/s. PETITION (CIVIL) No. 11844/2016) that "As far MR. Garments [2018] 77 ITR-OL 149 as territorial or pecuniary jurisdictions are (All. HC); concerned, objection should be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and/or b…

RAVI SHERWANI,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4(1), RAIPUR

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

ITA 64/RPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 64/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ravi Sherwani H-26, Rajeev Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Azbps6703J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

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

…eld the quashing of the assessment by the Tribunal for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction by the jurisdictional A.O. Apart from that, a similar view had earlier been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of MI Builders (P) Ltd. (2014) 349 ITR 271 (Allahabad). It was observed by the Hon’ble High Court that as the jurisdiction of the A.O was transferred before issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act by him, therefore, the notice so issued by him would be without jurisdiction. Also, I find that similar view in a case involving identical facts had been taken up by the ITAT, SMC Bench, Raipur in…

BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

…precedent to the validity of any assessment under Section 147 of the Act, therefore, the assessment made pursuant to such notice is bad in law. We also rely on the decision of the hon’ble courts in following cases: 1. CIT Vs. M/s MT Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 349 ITR 271 (All.) It was held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court that the notice issued by an Officer who had no valid jurisdiction for the assessee is invalid. 2. (i) Smt. SmritiKedia Vs. Union of India and Others, [2011] 339 ITR 37 (Cal.) (ii) Indorama Software Solution Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, [2013] 29 taxmann.com 78 (Mumbai) In both cases, the hon…

BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 799/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

DEEPAK GARG,HARYANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, KRNAL, HARYANA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1046/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 69

…eans that ITO Ward-26(4), New Delhi had no valid jurisdiction over the appellant, at the time of issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. In such circumstances, it was held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s MT Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 349 ITR 271 (All.) that the notice issued by an Officer who had no valid jurisdiction over the assessee is invalid. The notice under Section 148 of the Act I.T.A. No. 1046/Del/2021 issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(4) is non est in the eyes of law since he had no valid jurisdiction over the appellant either territorial as notified under Section 124…

M/S M/S GOYAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, RAIPUR,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, 3(1),RAIPUR, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 17/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 17/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Goyal Construction Company Shop No.213-214, Ii Floor, Crystal Arcade, Lodhipara Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaffg9964N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 4Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR "ी रवीश सूद, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 17/RPR/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s. Goyal Construction Company Shop No.213-214, II Floor, Crystal Arcade, Lodhipara Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) PAN : AAFFG9964N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Smt. Laxmi Sharma, CAs Revenue by : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख /…

SHRI CHOWARAM DHIWAR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR

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

ITA 31/RPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.31/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Chowaram Dhiwar Sector 01, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 006 Pan : Akppd8741C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gitesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…unal for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction by the jurisdictional A.O. Apart from that, a similar view had earlier been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of MI 15 Shri Chowaram Dhiwar Vs. ITO-1(2), Raipur Builders (P) Ltd. (2014) 349 ITR 271 (Allahabad). It was observed by the Hon’ble High Court that as the jurisdiction of the A.O was transferred before issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act by him, therefore, the notice so issued by him would be without jurisdiction. Also, I find that similar view in a case involving identical facts had been taken up by the ITAT, SMC Bench, Raipur in…

SHREYANSH BOTHRA,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), BHILAI

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

ITA 114/RPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 114/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shreyansh Bothra H. No.75, Hospital Ward, Pachperi Naka, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Btdpb2233D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai (C.G). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR

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

…ssment by the Tribunal for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction by the jurisdictional A.O., i.e, ITO-(IV)(1), Lucknow. Apart from that, a similar view had earlier been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of MI Builders (P) Ltd. (2014) 349 ITR 271 (Allahabad). It was observed by the Hon’ble High Court that as the jurisdiction of the A.O was transferred before issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act by him, therefore, the notice so issued would be without jurisdiction. Further, I find that similar view in a case involving identical facts had been taken up by the ITAT, SMC Bench, Raipur in the…

M/S ADARSH RICE MILL,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

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

ITA 84/RPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.84/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Adarsh Rice Mill 123, Jhanki, Abhanpur, Dist.-Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aamfa1207F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…quashed the assessment for want of valid assumption of jurisdiction by the jurisdictional A.O., i.e, ITO-(IV)(1), Lucknow. Apart from that, a similar view had earlier been taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of MI Builders (P) Ltd. (2014) 349 ITR 271 (Allahabad). It was observed by the Hon’ble High Court that as the jurisdiction of the A.O was transferred before issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act by him, therefore, the notice so issued would be without jurisdiction. 12. Considering the aforesaid position of law, I find substance in the claim of the Ld. AR that the assessment framed in the…

HARI DASS SINGLA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands deleted

ITA 958/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Section 115BSection 127Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…eans that ITO Ward-26(4), New Delhi had no valid jurisdiction over the appellant, at the time of issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. In such circumstances, it was held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s MT Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 349 ITR 271 (All.) that the notice issued by an Officer who had no valid jurisdiction over the assessee is invalid. The notice under Section 148 of the Act issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-26(4) is non est in the eyes of law since he had no valid jurisdiction over the appellant either territorial as notified under Section 124 of the Act or by transferr…

M/S. MICRO SPACEMATRIX SOLUTION PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 669/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. DAM Kanunjna, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…essee u/s 143(2) of the Act on or before 31.10.2007 and the notice dated 19.10.2007 which was issued by a non-jurisdictional AO is not valid as per the ratio of the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT Vs. MT Builders Pvt Ltd [2012] 349 ITR 271 [All] and order of the Tribunal ITAT Delhi ‘E’ Bench dated 12.06.2015 in ITA No. 2358/Del/2012 in the case of Mukesh Kumar Vs. ITO. The ld. Counsel also pointed out that the said notice was issued on the incomplete address as noted by the postal authorities at page 4 of the assessee’s paper book and further the service of the said notice has not…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI VIMAL GUPTA, NEW DELHI

In the result the C.O.No

ITA 1211/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2006-07 Acit, Central Circle 7 Vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta Room No.363, E 2 C 9/28, Yamuna Vihar Ara Center New Delhi 110 053 Jhandewalan Extension New Delhi Pan: Aahpg 7807 J &

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Meena, Sr.D.R

Section 133A

…ans that ITO Ward 26(4), New Delhi had no valid jurisdiction over the appellant, at the time of issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. In such circumstances, it was held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s MT Builders P.Ltd. 12: (2012) 349 ITR 271 (All.) that the notice issued by an Officr who had no valid jurisdiction over the assessee is invalid. The notice u/s 148 of the Act issued by the ITO, Ward 26(4) is non est in the eyes of law since he had no valid jurisdiction over the appellant either territorial as notified u/s 124 of the Act or by transferring the case under the provisions of…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2