CIT v. Pushpak Enterprises

254 ITR 193High Court#24015 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A(b)Section 148A(d)

Judgments citing CIT v. Pushpak Enterprises

Vaka Ghanta Nageswararao, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Tenali

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.251/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Vaka Ghanta Nageswararao 4-82-A, Gullapalli Tenali -522201 Goudapalem, Cherukapalli Mandal Andhra Pradesh Guntur – 522309 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afjpn4315H] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Malladi Muralidhar, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250(6)Section 69ASection 80C

…held in S.S. Gadgil v. Lal and Co. 1964 53 ITR 231 (SC) “The amended provisions will not re-instate jurisdiction to reassessthe return which is otherwise time barred as per existing provisionsfor the relevant year.” - Also held in CIT v. Pushpak Enterprises - 254 ITR 193 (Del.) (2002) No freshconferment of jurisdiction by amendment unless law is express. 5. ASSESSMENT ERRONEOUS BEING NOT CONDUCTED IN FACELESS MANNER: The Ld AO has violated the provisions of sec 144B / 148 / 147 and 151A which weremandatorily to be faceless as per Income tax act after 01.04.2021 as per Finance act 2021.Whereas the notices were sen…

DCIT Central Circle-04, New Delhi vs. Karamjit Jaiswal (L/H of Ladli Pershad Jaiswal), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4826/DEL/2019[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)

…sment notice and all consequent proceedings were without authority of law and a nullity and hence liable to be quashed and set aside. 15. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Pushpak I.T.A. No.4824, 4826/Del/2019 & 561/Del/2022 10 Enterprises 254 ITR 193(Del.) (2002) has also echoed the same view earlier. It was held that the case cannot be reopened as per amended provision when it is otherwise time barred as per old provision prevailing for the relevant assessment year prior to amendment. In that case, it was observed that the provisions of S. 147 and S. 149 stood amended from 1-4-1989. Accordin…

DCIT, Central Circle- 4, New Delhi vs. Anand Pershad Jaiswal, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4824/DEL/2019[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)

…sment notice and all consequent proceedings were without authority of law and a nullity and hence liable to be quashed and set aside. 15. Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Pushpak I.T.A. No.4824, 4826/Del/2019 & 561/Del/2022 10 Enterprises 254 ITR 193(Del.) (2002) has also echoed the same view earlier. It was held that the case cannot be reopened as per amended provision when it is otherwise time barred as per old provision prevailing for the relevant assessment year prior to amendment. In that case, it was observed that the provisions of S. 147 and S. 149 stood amended from 1-4-1989. Accordin…

CIT v. Pushpak Enterprises (254 ITR 193) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax