CIT v. Norton Motors

275 ITR 595High Court2005#1593 most cited

What is CIT v. Norton Motors authority for?

Section 292B of the Income-tax Act applies only to technical defects and omissions, not to fundamental errors that vitiate the assessment itself. A reassessment notice, such as one issued under Section 148, if addressed to an incorrect person or in the wrong name, is a jurisdictional defect that invalidates the entire assessment and cannot be cured by Section 292B.

71

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. Norton Motors · Section 292B · Section 148 notice · incorrect person · wrong name · jurisdictional defect · reassessment invalid · technical defect · substantive error · vitiated assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 10(38)Section 124Section 132Section 132(4)Section 132A

Issues it is cited on

section 245c(1)section 23(4)section 147(1)section 142(3)section 4(1)cost plus methodsection 193section 196section 245csection 127(2)section 124(3)section 271aaa

Judgments citing CIT v. Norton Motors

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 147Section 250

…R 288 (Del.) held that issuance of notice u/s 148 is not a mere procedural\nformality but a jurisdictional requirement, and where such notice is defective or not\nproperly issued, the reassessment cannot be sustained. Likewise, in CIT v. Norton\nMotors (2005) 275 ITR 595 (Madras HC), it was held that if a notice is not issued to\nthe correct person or is issued in the wrong name, the very foundation of the assessment\nstands vitiated.\n4.5 Applying the ratio of these judicial pronouncements, it becomes evident that the\nnotice dated 27.03.2021 issued u/s 148 in the name of the assessee's incorrect and invalid\nPA…

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 245/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 147Section 250

…R 288 (Del.) held that issuance of notice u/s 148 is not a mere procedural\nformality but a jurisdictional requirement, and where such notice is defective or not\nproperly issued, the reassessment cannot be sustained. Likewise, in CIT v. Norton\nMotors (2005) 275 ITR 595 (Madras HC), it was held that if a notice is not issued to\nthe correct person or is issued in the wrong name, the very foundation of the assessment\nstands vitiated.\n4.5 Applying the ratio of these judicial pronouncements, it becomes evident that the\nnotice dated 27.03.2021 issued u/s 148 in the name of the assessee's incorrect and invalid\nPA…

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 244/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 147Section 250

…R 288 (Del.) held that issuance of notice u/s 148 is not a mere procedural\nformality but a jurisdictional requirement, and where such notice is defective or not\nproperly issued, the reassessment cannot be sustained. Likewise, in CIT v. Norton\nMotors (2005) 275 ITR 595 (Madras HC), it was held that if a notice is not issued to\nthe correct person or is issued in the wrong name, the very foundation of the assessment\nstands vitiated.\n4.5 Applying the ratio of these judicial pronouncements, it becomes evident that the\nnotice dated 27.03.2021 issued u/s 148 in the name of the assessee's incorrect and invalid\nPA…

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 243/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 147Section 250

…R 288 (Del.) held that issuance of notice u/s 148 is not a mere procedural\nformality but a jurisdictional requirement, and where such notice is defective or not\nproperly issued, the reassessment cannot be sustained. Likewise, in CIT v. Norton\nMotors (2005) 275 ITR 595 (Madras HC), it was held that if a notice is not issued to\nthe correct person or is issued in the wrong name, the very foundation of the assessment\nstands vitiated.\n\n4.5 Applying the ratio of these judicial pronouncements, it becomes evident that the\nnotice dated 27.03.2021 issued u/s 148 in the name of the assessee's incorrect and invalid\n…

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

…income, assessment, notice,\nsummons or other proceeding is in substance and effect in\nconformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this\nAct.\"\n13.\nThe Punjab & Haryana High Court stated the effect of this provision in\nCIT Vs. Norton Motors, 275 ITR 595 in the following manner:\n\"A reading of the above reproduced provision makes it clear that\na mistake, defect or omission in the return of income, assessment,\nnotice, summons or other proceeding is not sufficient to invalidate\nan action taken by the competent authority, provided that such\nreturn of income, assessment, notice, summons or other…

VINOD KOHLI,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 35(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 896/DEL/2021[2012 - 2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Ms. Monalisa Maity, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 148(2)Section 292B

…ere outright rejected vide a non-speaking order by falsely invoking the provisions of Section 292B of the Act. Also, the disposal of the reasons was in violation of decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Norton Motors (2005) 275 ITR 595. 2. 3. The Appellant was not granted four weeks' time to rebut the disposal of objections in as much as the objections were never disposed off vide a speaking order, but merely addressed in the impugned reassessment order itself. 3. That the impugned appellate order deserves to be quashed in as much as it violates the principles of natural jus…

MARIE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR

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

ITA 771/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 14Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…ion of the nature adverted to in Section 292B of the Act and further clarified that participation in the proceedings by the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an 20 Marie Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT estoppel against law. • CIT vs Norton Motors 275 ITR 595: The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court stated the effect of section 292B in in the following manner:- "A reading of the above reproduced provision makes it clear that a mistake, defect or omission in the return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is not sufficient to invalidate an action taken by the competent authority,…

DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), NEW DELHI vs. ANJANI KUMAR GOENKA, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 790/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Kumara.Yr. : 2011-12 Dcit, Cirlce-10(1), Anjani Kumar Goenka, C.R. Building, Vs. N-86, Connaught Place, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 1 New Delhi – 2 (Pan: Aagpg6344M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Amit Goel, Ca Respondent By : Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2024 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 6Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.YR. : 2011-12 DCIT, CIRLCE-10(1), ANJANI KUMAR GOENKA, C.R. BUILDING, VS. N-86, CONNAUGHT PLACE, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI – 1 NEW DELHI – 2 (PAN: AAGPG6344M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : Sh. Amit Goel, CA Respondent by : Mr. Javed Akhtar, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 08.10.2024 Date of pronouncement : 15.10.2024 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : The Revenue has filed the instant appeal against the order dated 03.02.2020 of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, New Delhi relating…

INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE 12 (2)

ITA/116/2023HC Delhi26 Sept 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

…income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act.” 13. The Punjab & Haryana High Court stated the effect of this provision in CIT v. Norton Motors, 275 ITR 595 in the following manner: - “A reading of the above reproduced provision makes it clear that a mistake, defect or omission in the return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is not sufficient to invalidate an action taken by the competent authority, provided that such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or…

PUSHPA GUPTA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -3(3), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3604/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyapushpa Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 3 (3), Tg-6/8A, Sun City, Sector 54, Gurgaon. Gurgaon (Haryana).

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Singla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 68

…/Kol/2019 Pronounced on 10- 03-2021 = Shivam Dhatu Udyog Ltd vs DCIT-Kolkata • Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh -ITA-1163/Chd/2018 Pronounced on 01-08-2019 = H P Singh & Ors vs ITO Mohali • Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Norton Motors (2005) 275 ITR 595 (P&H) • Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai-ITA-3599/Mum/2016 Pronounced on 20- 12-2017 = Tiny Girl Clothing Co P Ltd vs DCIT, Mumbai • Hon'ble ITAT Delhi-ITA-6793/Del/2018, Pronounced on 16-03- 2021, Sajan Kumar Jain vs DClT-Delhi • Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai-ITA-3769/Mum/2016, Pronounced on 15- 06-2018 = Mehta Emporium Jewellers vs ITO-Mumbai • Bombay High Court in t…

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

ITA 1367/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

…) 130 taxmann.com 457 (Bom) l) Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 247 CTR 500 (Del.), SLP dismissed in C.A. No. 285 of 2014 dated 02.11.2017 m) ACIT v. Neha Enterprises in ITA No. 3666/Mum/2015 dated 20.12.2017 (Mum. – Trib.) n) CIT v. Norton Motors (2005) 275 ITR 595 (P & H) l) He submitted that the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act and the order passed on the erstwhile partnership firm is akin to issuing the notice and concluding assessments on a dead person which is impermissible under the Act. Reliance is placed on the following decisions – ITA Nos.1362, 1363 & 1367/Bang/2013 Trishul Buildtech Infrastruc…

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

ITA 1363/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

…) 130 taxmann.com 457 (Bom) l) Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 247 CTR 500 (Del.), SLP dismissed in C.A. No. 285 of 2014 dated 02.11.2017 m) ACIT v. Neha Enterprises in ITA No. 3666/Mum/2015 dated 20.12.2017 (Mum. – Trib.) n) CIT v. Norton Motors (2005) 275 ITR 595 (P & H) l) He submitted that the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act and the order passed on the erstwhile partnership firm is akin to issuing the notice and concluding assessments on a dead person which is impermissible under the Act. Reliance is placed on the following decisions – ITA Nos.1362, 1363 & 1367/Bang/2013 Trishul Buildtech Infrastruc…

TRISHUL BUILDTECH INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

ITA 1362/BANG/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri A. Shankar, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

…) 130 taxmann.com 457 (Bom) l) Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 247 CTR 500 (Del.), SLP dismissed in C.A. No. 285 of 2014 dated 02.11.2017 m) ACIT v. Neha Enterprises in ITA No. 3666/Mum/2015 dated 20.12.2017 (Mum. – Trib.) n) CIT v. Norton Motors (2005) 275 ITR 595 (P & H) l) He submitted that the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act and the order passed on the erstwhile partnership firm is akin to issuing the notice and concluding assessments on a dead person which is impermissible under the Act. Reliance is placed on the following decisions – ITA Nos.1362, 1363 & 1367/Bang/2013 Trishul Buildtech Infrastruc…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 544/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…sdiction u/s. 153C of the Act and department cannot take shelter u/s. 292B / 292BB of the Act, as jurisdictional defect / lacuna cannot be cured u/s. 292B /292BB of the Act. The following case laws affirm the above proposition of law. • CIT v/s. Norton Motors 275 ITR 595 (P&H); • CIT v/s. Harinder Kaur 310 ITR 71 (P&H); • Srinath Sureshchand Ram Naresh v/s. CIT 280 ITR 396 (All) • CIT v/s. Micron Steels Pvt. Ltd, 370 ITR 386 (Delhi) • N R Sudhir vs DCIT (Inv.) 159 Taxman 37 (Bang) • G.S. Singhi and M N Agarwal (P&H) 146 Taxmann 701 • Spice Infotainment Ltd., vs CIT 247 CTR 500 (Delhi) • Nawal kishore & Sons Jewel…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 543/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…sdiction u/s. 153C of the Act and department cannot take shelter u/s. 292B / 292BB of the Act, as jurisdictional defect / lacuna cannot be cured u/s. 292B /292BB of the Act. The following case laws affirm the above proposition of law. • CIT v/s. Norton Motors 275 ITR 595 (P&H); • CIT v/s. Harinder Kaur 310 ITR 71 (P&H); • Srinath Sureshchand Ram Naresh v/s. CIT 280 ITR 396 (All) • CIT v/s. Micron Steels Pvt. Ltd, 370 ITR 386 (Delhi) • N R Sudhir vs DCIT (Inv.) 159 Taxman 37 (Bang) • G.S. Singhi and M N Agarwal (P&H) 146 Taxmann 701 • Spice Infotainment Ltd., vs CIT 247 CTR 500 (Delhi) • Nawal kishore & Sons Jewel…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI MATHIKERE RAMAIAH SEETHARAM, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the COs filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 542/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Nagin Khincha &For Respondent: Shri M. Mathivanan, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 45(2)

…sdiction u/s. 153C of the Act and department cannot take shelter u/s. 292B / 292BB of the Act, as jurisdictional defect / lacuna cannot be cured u/s. 292B /292BB of the Act. The following case laws affirm the above proposition of law. • CIT v/s. Norton Motors 275 ITR 595 (P&H); • CIT v/s. Harinder Kaur 310 ITR 71 (P&H); • Srinath Sureshchand Ram Naresh v/s. CIT 280 ITR 396 (All) • CIT v/s. Micron Steels Pvt. Ltd, 370 ITR 386 (Delhi) • N R Sudhir vs DCIT (Inv.) 159 Taxman 37 (Bang) • G.S. Singhi and M N Agarwal (P&H) 146 Taxmann 701 • Spice Infotainment Ltd., vs CIT 247 CTR 500 (Delhi) • Nawal kishore & Sons Jewel…

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 971/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

…ance on the following decisions to support his contention: a. Gulab Badgujar (HUF) v. Income Tax Officer [2019] 179 ITD 807 (Pune - Trib.)[06-09-2019]; b. S. Kumar Enterprises (Synfabs) Ltd. v. JCIT [2005] 4 SOT 412 (MUM Trib.) c. CIT v. Norton Motors [2005] 275 ITR 595 (Punjab & Haryana HC) d. Shl (India) Private Limited v. DCIT [2021] 438 ITR 317 (Bombay HC) 33 It was also contended that the object and reasons published in the Gazette dated 9-5-1973 for Bill No. 34 of 1973, it is stated at clause 80 that section 292Bseeks to provide against purely 'technical objections', without substance, coming in the way o…

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 970/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

…ance on the following decisions to support his contention: a. Gulab Badgujar (HUF) v. Income Tax Officer [2019] 179 ITD 807 (Pune - Trib.)[06-09-2019]; b. S. Kumar Enterprises (Synfabs) Ltd. v. JCIT [2005] 4 SOT 412 (MUM Trib.) c. CIT v. Norton Motors [2005] 275 ITR 595 (Punjab & Haryana HC) d. Shl (India) Private Limited v. DCIT [2021] 438 ITR 317 (Bombay HC) 33 It was also contended that the object and reasons published in the Gazette dated 9-5-1973 for Bill No. 34 of 1973, it is stated at clause 80 that section 292Bseeks to provide against purely 'technical objections', without substance, coming in the way o…

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 969/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

…ance on the following decisions to support his contention: a. Gulab Badgujar (HUF) v. Income Tax Officer [2019] 179 ITD 807 (Pune - Trib.)[06-09-2019]; b. S. Kumar Enterprises (Synfabs) Ltd. v. JCIT [2005] 4 SOT 412 (MUM Trib.) c. CIT v. Norton Motors [2005] 275 ITR 595 (Punjab & Haryana HC) d. Shl (India) Private Limited v. DCIT [2021] 438 ITR 317 (Bombay HC) 33 It was also contended that the object and reasons published in the Gazette dated 9-5-1973 for Bill No. 34 of 1973, it is stated at clause 80 that section 292Bseeks to provide against purely 'technical objections', without substance, coming in the way o…

OM PRAKASH JAKHOTIA,TELANGNA vs. ACIT, CC-26, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 968/DEL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 292C

…ance on the following decisions to support his contention: a. Gulab Badgujar (HUF) v. Income Tax Officer [2019] 179 ITD 807 (Pune - Trib.)[06-09-2019]; b. S. Kumar Enterprises (Synfabs) Ltd. v. JCIT [2005] 4 SOT 412 (MUM Trib.) c. CIT v. Norton Motors [2005] 275 ITR 595 (Punjab & Haryana HC) d. Shl (India) Private Limited v. DCIT [2021] 438 ITR 317 (Bombay HC) 33 It was also contended that the object and reasons published in the Gazette dated 9-5-1973 for Bill No. 34 of 1973, it is stated at clause 80 that section 292Bseeks to provide against purely 'technical objections', without substance, coming in the way o…

Showing 1–20 of 71 · Page 1 of 4