How many judgments cite CIT v. Sukhini P. Modi?

21 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Sukhini P. Modi (367 ITR 682), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Sukhini P. Modi come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(2), Section 147, Section 148, Section 271(1)(c), Section 142(1), Section 142(2).

CIT v. Sukhini P. Modi

367 ITR 682High Court2014#5603 most cited

What is CIT v. Sukhini P. Modi authority for?

A notice issued under Section 143(2) is a jurisdictional notice, and the absence of such a notice renders the assessment order invalid. Failure to issue a valid notice under Section 143(2) cannot be cured by subsequent actions or findings.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sukhini P. Modi · Section 143(2) · jurisdictional notice · invalid assessment order · absence of notice · AO jurisdiction · scrutiny assessment

Also reported as

52 Taxmann.com 50

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 147 Section 148 Section 271(1)(c)Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143(3)Section 210

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 292bb tangible material service of notice first appeal section 142 reassessment proceedings section 12 section 143(2)section 142(1)section 139 section 148 section 147

Judgments citing CIT v. Sukhini P. Modi

Kimplas Trenton Fittings Ltd ( Now Known As Kimplas Piping Systems Ltd), Nashik vs. ACIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for Asst

ITA 962/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia (Jm) & Shri Ramit Kochar (Am) Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Ms. Keyuri DesaiFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 147Section 148Section 28Section 292

…therefore, the assessment is illegal and the reopening was done is bad in law. The Ld. AR further submitted that the present issue is covered by the following decisions:- 1) CIT vs. Chetan Gupta 382 ITR 613 (Delhi High Court) 2) ITO vs. Smt. Sukhini P. Modi 367 ITR 682 (Guj. High Court) 3) Abacus Distribution Systems (India) P. Ltd. vs. DCIT 29 ITR 1 (Mum. Tribunal) 4) Raj Kumar Chawla & Ors. Vs. ITO 94 ITD 1 (Del)(SB) 5) ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362(SC) 5. The Ld. DR relied upon the objections of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee was asked to provide the proof as to whether the ob…