CIT v. Rajeev Sharma

336 ITR 678High Court2011#730 most cited

What is CIT v. Rajeev Sharma authority for?

It is mandatory for the Assessing Officer to issue a notice under Section 143(2) within the statutory period specified in Section 148, after applying mind to the material on record and being satisfied about escaped income. The provisions of Section 143(2) are mandatory in reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148.

139

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Rajeev Sharma · 336 ITR 678 · Section 143(2) · Section 148 · mandatory notice · reassessment proceedings · escaped income · assessment procedure · Allahabad High Court · 2011

Also reported as

192 Taxmann 197

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 147Section 292BBSection 144Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 274(2)section 243section 245hacasus omissussection 245csection 292bbsettlement applicationsection 245d(4)section 153(4)section 245dsection 244section 144ba

Judgments citing CIT v. Rajeev Sharma

Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 441/JPR/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 441/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Rai Singh Sihag, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. B-105, Vaishali Nagar, Ward- 3(1), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Bgvps 4485 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta & Shri S.L. Jain (Advs.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 13/07/2017 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. The Reasons For Reopening Of The Assessment Not Valid :- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Ao Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Invoking Action U/S 147.The Notice For Reassessment Is So Hastily Issued Without Examining The Correct Factual & Legal Position. The Action For Reassessment Is Often Made Without Application Of Mind Fairly & Objectively The Ao. Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 Itr 437 (Sc)

For Appellant: Shri Ashok kr. Gupta &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 68

…- Reassessment under section 147 read with section 143(3)- Condition precedent- Notice u/s 143(2) Omission to issue notice under section 143(2)- Deject not curable - Section 292BB not applicable- Reassessment not valid- Income Tax Act, 1961, ss. 143,147,292BB 336 ITR 678 - CIT V/s Rajeev Sharma (Allahabad) (Case laws Paper book pages 62-68) Reassessment - Procedure - Return in response to Notice u/s 148 - Assessing Officer (8 of 13) [ITA-197/2018] must apply his mind and issue Notice u/s 143(2) - Procedure must be followed strictly -- Income Tax Act, 1961, ss. 143, 148. It is further submitted that even if the re…

Digvijay Advisor Pvt. Ltd, Ghaziabad Up vs. ITO Ward-7(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4540/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Farat Khan, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 68Section 69C

…the assessee submitted that non-issue of notice or invalid issue of notice u/s 143(2) is not curable defect and the assessment so made has to be quashed. i. ASSTT. CIT V. HOTEL BLUE MOON [2010] 321 ITR 362/188 TAXMAN 113 (SC) ii. CIT V. RAJEEV SHARMA [2011] 336 ITR 678 (ALL) iii. PR. CIT SHRI JAI SHIV SHANKAR TRADERS (P.) LTD. [2015] 64 TAXMANN.COM 220 (DELHI) iv. GULAB BADGUJAR (HUF)V ITO [2019] 111 TAXMANN.COM 90 (PUNE - TRIB.) v. JYOTI PAT RAM VS ITO (2005) 92 ITD 423 ((LKO) 7. The learned counsel for the assessee in his next plank of argument submitted that the reasons were stated to be recorded on 31.0…

Space Chem Engineers Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1791/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

…T. Act such notice issued u/s 143(2) is invalid. Therefore, in absence of valid notice u/s 143(2) assessment becomes null and void :- A)MASTECH TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD. – 407 B)SATISH KUMAR VS. ITO (ITA NO. 3586/D/2018 (14.01.2019) C)CIT V. RAJEEV SHARMA [2011]336 ITR 678 (ALL) 18. He accordingly, submitted that the reassessement proceedings initiated by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) should be quashed. 19. Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and filed the following written synopsis :- “ The assessee company has come before your honour on the basic ground of minor technical defec…

M/S. Ganapati Breweries Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3236/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conference) A.Y. : 2004-05

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ITA NO.3236/DEL/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) A.Y. : 2004-05 M/S GANPATI BREWERIES Vs. ITO, WARD 12(1), LTD. NEW DELHI – 110 002 UG-03, ANSAL MAJESTIC TOWER, PLOT NO. 17, G-BLOCK, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, VIKAS PURI, NEW DELHI – 110 018 (PAN: AABCG3123C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate & Ms. Ayushi Gupta, CA Department by Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the…

Commissioner of Income vs. M/S C Ramaiah Reddy

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

ITA/192/2012HC Karnataka24 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.NAGAPRASANNA

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260Section 260ASection 292BSection 45(2)

…7) 398 ITR 701 (DELHI), ‘ PCIT VS. OBEROI HOTELS PVT LTD’, (2018) 409 ITR 132 (CAL), ‘ALPINE ELECTRONICS ASIA PVT LTD VS. DGIT AND OTHERS’, (2012) 341 ITR 247 (DELHI), ‘ PAL VINOD VS. DCIT (2013) 353 ITR 622 (KARNATAKA), ‘ CIT VS. RAJEEV SHARMA’, (2011) 336 ITR 678 (ALLAHABAD)’, ACITKL VS. GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY’, (2015) 379 ITR 14 (ALLAHABAD), ‘ACIT VS. GENO PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,’, (2013) 214 TAXMAN 83 (BOMBAY), ‘ CIT VS. GITSONS ENGINEERING CO.’, (2015) 370 ITR 87 (MADRAS), ‘PCIT VS. RAVNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,’, (2017) 399 ITR 567 (DELHI), ‘CIT VS. BIHARI LAL AGRAWA…

Rakesh Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-48(1), New Delhi

ITA 2461/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishirakesh Aggarwal Vs Ito 66, Surya Kiran Building, K. G. Ward-48(1) Marg, Delhi New Delhi Pin: 110001 Pan: Aawpa1372M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 271Section 68

…wing judgments: 1. Alpine Electronics Asia Pvt. Ltd. vs DGIT (Writ Petition Civil No. 7932/2010) by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 2. M/s Sapthagiri Finance & Investments vs ITO (TC(A) No. 159 of 2006) by the Hon’ble Madras High Court. 3. CIT vs Rajeev Sharma (336 ITR 678) by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court 9. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 10. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. From the perusal of records, the Ld. AR could not point out that the notice was not duly served upon the assessee. In fact, the records sho…

Ramakant Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) &For Respondent: Shri Ambrish Bedi (CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 50C(2)

…2017_ Ramakant Sharma Vs ITO 147 read with section 143(3)- Condition precedent- Notice u/s 143(2) Omission to issue notice under section 143(2)- Deject not curable - Section 292BB not applicable- Reassessment not valid- Income Tax Act, 1961, ss. 143,147,292BB 336 ITR 678 - CIT V/s Rajeev Sharma (Allahabad) (Case laws Paper book pages 62-68) Reassessment - Procedure - Return in response to Notice u/s 148 - Assessing Officer (8 of 13) [ITA-197/2018] must apply his mind and issue Notice u/s 143(2) - Procedure must be followed strictly -- Income Tax Act, 1961, ss. 143, 148. It is further submitted that even if the re…

Flovel Energy Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-9(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6485/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ratchi Bimal, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…8. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that the return filed after the expiry of given time prescribed in notice u/s 148 is also a valid return:- i) Late Janak K. Kansara vs. DCIT (2008) 116 TTJ 415 (Ahd-Trib); ii) CIT vs. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 (All); iii) PCIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P) Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 448 (Del); & iv) DCIT vs. Ms Mayawati (2010) 135 TTJ 274 (Del-Trib). 9. Referring to the following decisions, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the provision of section 292BB does not cure non-issuance of notice or even issuance of such notice after the period of…

Smt. Pushpa Joshi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 963/JPR/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Oct 2019AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

…sessee is actually scrutinised by the AO. 7 ITA 963/JP/2017 Shri Shiv Narain Joshi Vs ITO 14. The interplay of Sections 143 (2) and 148 of the Act formed the subject matter of at least two decisions of the Allahabad High Court. In CIT v. Rajeev Sharma [2011] 336 ITR 678/[2010] 192 Taxman 197 (All.) it was held that a plain reading of Section 148 of the Act reveals that within the statutory period specified therein, it shall be incumbent to send a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act. It was observed: "the provisions contained in sub-Section (2) of Section 143 is mandatory and the legislature in their wisdom by…

Mukand Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3670/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Mukund Limited V. Dy. Cit-3(2)(1) Aayakar Bhavan Bajaj Bhavan, 3Rd Floor M.K. Road 226 Nariman Point New Marine Lines Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacm5008R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kirit Kamdar Department By : Shri Ajay K. Ojha

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay K. Ojha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…a), this Court has also discussed the distinction between a failure to 'issue' notice and a failure to 'serve' a notice on an Assessee. It was held, after noticing the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 and Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Lucknow v. Salarpur Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. [2014] 50 taxmann.com 105 (All.) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. Income Tax Officer (2013) 90 DTR (Mad) 289), that Section 292 BB of the Act would apply insofar as failure of 'service' of notice was concerned and not with…

Sakun Gems, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 3432/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Uttam Chand BothraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 292B

…a), this Court has also discussed the distinction between a failure to 'issue' notice and a failure to 'serve' a notice on an Assessee. It was held, after noticing the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 and Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Lucknow v. Salarpur Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. [2014] 50 taxmann.com 105 (All.) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. Income Tax Officer (2013) 90 DTR (Mad) 289), that Section 292 BB of the Act would apply insofar as failure of 'service' of notice was concerned and not with…

Sakun Gems, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 3431/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Uttam Chand BothraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 292B

…a), this Court has also discussed the distinction between a failure to 'issue' notice and a failure to 'serve' a notice on an Assessee. It was held, after noticing the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 and Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Lucknow v. Salarpur Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. [2014] 50 taxmann.com 105 (All.) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. Income Tax Officer (2013) 90 DTR (Mad) 289), that Section 292 BB of the Act would apply insofar as failure of 'service' of notice was concerned and not with…

Nitin P. Chheda, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3945/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri V.D. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…a), this Court has also discussed the distinction between a failure to 'issue' notice and a failure to 'serve' a notice on an Assessee. It was held, after noticing the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 and Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Lucknow v. Salarpur Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. [2014] 50 taxmann.com 105 (All.) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. Income Tax Officer (2013) 90 DTR (Mad) 289), that Section 292 BB of the Act would apply insofar as failure of 'service' of notice was concerned and not with…

Nitin P. Chheda, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3944/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri V.D. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…a), this Court has also discussed the distinction between a failure to 'issue' notice and a failure to 'serve' a notice on an Assessee. It was held, after noticing the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 and Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Lucknow v. Salarpur Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. [2014] 50 taxmann.com 105 (All.) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. Income Tax Officer (2013) 90 DTR (Mad) 289), that Section 292 BB of the Act would apply insofar as failure of 'service' of notice was concerned and not with…

Mrs.Prabhaben K. Gala, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-23(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3943/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri V.D. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…a), this Court has also discussed the distinction between a failure to 'issue' notice and a failure to 'serve' a notice on an Assessee. It was held, after noticing the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 and Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Lucknow v. Salarpur Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. [2014] 50 taxmann.com 105 (All.) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. Income Tax Officer (2013) 90 DTR (Mad) 289), that Section 292 BB of the Act would apply insofar as failure of 'service' of notice was concerned and not with…

Mrs.Prabhaben K. Gala, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-23(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3942/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri V.D. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…a), this Court has also discussed the distinction between a failure to 'issue' notice and a failure to 'serve' a notice on an Assessee. It was held, after noticing the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 and Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Lucknow v. Salarpur Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. [2014] 50 taxmann.com 105 (All.) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. Income Tax Officer (2013) 90 DTR (Mad) 289), that Section 292 BB of the Act would apply insofar as failure of 'service' of notice was concerned and not with…

Asgar Mohammed Hussain Ghadiali, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1879/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleshri Asgar Mohammed Hussain Ghadiali V. Income Tax Officer – 17(1)(2) Gem Time Trading, 59 Nakhoda Street Aayakar, Mumbai New Vora’S Malo, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 24 Mumbai – 400 003 & M/S. Kagalwala & Associates Pan: Aappk 4042 B (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dr. K. Shivram & Shri Rahul K. Hakani Department By : Shri Satish Chandra Rajore

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K. Shivram &For Respondent: Shri Satish Chandra Rajore
Section 124Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

…a), this Court has also discussed the distinction between a failure to 'issue' notice and a failure to 'serve' a notice on an Assessee. It was held, after noticing the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rajeev Sharma (2011) 336 ITR 678 and Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Lucknow v. Salarpur Cold Storage (P.) Ltd. [2014] 50 taxmann.com 105 (All.) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Sapthagiri Finance & Investments v. Income Tax Officer (2013) 90 DTR (Mad) 289), that Section 292 BB of the Act would apply insofar as failure of 'service' of notice was concerned and not with…

Today Realty P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-25(3), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4029/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…ued within time. It has been further held that resort cannot be taken by the Revenue to section 292BH to give a go-bye to mandatory requirement of issuance of notice within the statutory fixed by the proviso to section I43(2) of the Act.” CIT vs Rajeev Sharma 336 ITR 678, High court of Allahabad. “In view of above submissions and case laws, it has been established that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued in the present case and therefore the impugned assessment is liable to be annulled.” M/s Sapthagiri Finance and Investments vs. ITO: TC(A). No. 159 of 2006 dated 17.07.2012 (Mad HC) [(2013) 90 DTR (Mad) 289] Relevant…

Today Realty Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-25(3), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4028/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…ued within time. It has been further held that resort cannot be taken by the Revenue to section 292BH to give a go-bye to mandatory requirement of issuance of notice within the statutory fixed by the proviso to section I43(2) of the Act.” CIT vs Rajeev Sharma 336 ITR 678, High court of Allahabad. “In view of above submissions and case laws, it has been established that no notice u/s 143(2) was issued in the present case and therefore the impugned assessment is liable to be annulled.” M/s Sapthagiri Finance and Investments vs. ITO: TC(A). No. 159 of 2006 dated 17.07.2012 (Mad HC) [(2013) 90 DTR (Mad) 289] Relevant…

Solar Turbines International Company (Singapore Branch of Solar Turbines Int'L Company, Usa)`, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income-Tax, Dehradun

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

ITA 2016/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.K. Dhall,CIT (Intl. Taxation)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.2015 & 2016/Del/2015 Assessment Years: 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2010-11 M/s Solar Turbines International Co., vs Asstt. Director of Income-tax C/o Deloitte Haskins & Sells, International Taxation, Deloitte Centre, Dehradun. Anchorage II, #100/2, Richmond Road, Bangalore. PAN: AAJCS3585J (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Girish Dave, Advocate Shri Sunil Bhatt, Advocate Department by: Shri G.K. Dhall,CIT (Intl. Taxation) Date of Hearing: 14.03.2…