CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi

66 ITR 147Supreme Court of India1967#3767 most cited

What is CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi authority for?

Improper service of notice invalidates the entire reassessment proceedings. If no notice is served within the prescribed period, the Income-tax Officer is incompetent to commence reassessment proceedings.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi · reassessment notice · invalid proceedings · section 34 1922 Act · service of notice · period of limitation · incompetence to commence proceedings

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 127(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 282(1)section 148(1)section 2(7a)section 292bbsection 282section 292bsection 124section 120section 292section 29service of noticesection 44ad

Judgments citing CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi

NITIN CHATURBHUG GARG ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2569/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Natekar, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…06] 280 ITR 541 (All. HC) 2. Harsingar Gutkha Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 90 (All. HC) 3. CIT Vs. Kanpur Plastipack Ltd. reported in (2017) 390 ITR 381 4. Y. Narayan Chetty vs. ITO (1959) 35 ITR 388 (SC); 5. CIT vs. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC) 6. CIT vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC) 7. CIT vs. Hotline International Pvt. Ltd. (296 ITR 0333) 8. CIT (Central)-I vs. Chetan Gupta ITA No. 1891/Del/2012 dated 15.09.2015; 382 ITR 613 9. CIT vs. Ceban India Ltd. ITA No. 85 of 2009, Jul 7, 2009 8. Referring to aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it is submitte…

NITIN CHATURBHUG GARG,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2568/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Natekar, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…06] 280 ITR 541 (All. HC) 2. Harsingar Gutkha Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2011] 336 ITR 90 (All. HC) 3. CIT Vs. Kanpur Plastipack Ltd. reported in (2017) 390 ITR 381 4. Y. Narayan Chetty vs. ITO (1959) 35 ITR 388 (SC); 5. CIT vs. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC) 6. CIT vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC) 7. CIT vs. Hotline International Pvt. Ltd. (296 ITR 0333) 8. CIT (Central)-I vs. Chetan Gupta ITA No. 1891/Del/2012 dated 15.09.2015; 382 ITR 613 9. CIT vs. Ceban India Ltd. ITA No. 85 of 2009, Jul 7, 2009 8. Referring to aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it is submitte…

NITESH DUTT JHA,MADHUBANI vs. ITO, WARD- 3 (5), MADHUBANI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 351/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 250Section 69A

…R.K. Gupta [2019] 73 ITR (Trib) 9 (Del.) held that non-service of notice deprives the assessee of the opportunity to present his case, rendering the entire reassessment invalid. (7) Similarly, the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Thayaballi Mullajeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC) held that improper service of notice invalidates the entire proceedings. In Dr. K.C. Verma v. UOI (2017) 395 ITR 301 (All.), the Allahabad High Court reiterated that service of notice of scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) is mandatory, and without valid service, the assessment order is void. (8) The AO passed the ex-parte assessment und…

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 772/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…duly authorised representative is on the Revenue. These include Fatechand Agarwal v. CWT [1974] 97 ITR 701 (Orissa) and Venkat Naicken Trust v. ITO [1999] 107 Taxman 391 (Mad); [2000] 242 ITR 141 (Mad). In CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (Decd.) [1967] 66 ITR 147 (SC), the respondent to whom the notice was directed was not in town. The only information which the proc. ess server had was that the respondent was either in Bombay or Cey. lon. Thereafter, the process server affixed the notice on the business premises of the respondent. The Supreme Court affirmed the essen. tial principle that if no notice was…

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 771/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

…duly authorised representative is on the Revenue. These include Fatechand Agarwal v. CWT [1974] 97 ITR 701 (Orissa) and Venkat Naicken Trust v. ITO [1999] 107 Taxman 391 (Mad); [2000] 242 ITR 141 (Mad). In CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (Decd.) [1967] 66 ITR 147 (SC), the respondent to whom the notice was directed was not in town. The only information which the proc. ess server had was that the respondent was either in Bombay or Cey. lon. Thereafter, the process server affixed the notice on the business premises of the respondent. The Supreme Court affirmed the essen. tial principle that if no notice was…

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

…le\nApex Court and other Hon'ble Courts in the cases of:\n\na) Y. Narayana Chetty Vs. ITO, 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC);\nb) CIT Vs. Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur, 41 ITR 421 (SC);\nc) CIT Vs. Robert, 48 ITR 177 (SC).\nd) CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC)\ne) CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC)\nf) DR. (MRS.) K.B. Kumar vs. Income Tax Officer (2010) 131 TTJ (Del)511\n\ng) ITO vs. Krishan Kumar Gupta (2008) 16 DTR (Del) (Trib)\nh) Ranjeet Singh vs. Asstt. CIT (2009) 120 TTJ (Del) 517\ni) GkBusinessCentre(P)Ltd. Vs ITO Ward-10(4),I.T.A. No.828/DEL/2020.\n(j)BalluS…

SMT. VARSHABEN PARAS JANI(L.H. OF SHRI PARAS CHUNILAL JANI),AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 536/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 536/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

…ssume jurisdiction and to make a valid assessment/reassessment. Absence of such a notice would make the assessment invalid and without jurisdiction in view of the decisions of Y Narayana Chetty v. ITO, 35 ITR 388 (SC); CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi , 66 ITR 147 (SC); CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala, 82 ITR 821 (SC); Nayalchand Malukchand Dagli v. CIT, 62 ITR 102 (Guj); Madanlal Agarwal v. CIT, 144 ITR 745 (All); PN Sasikumar v. CIT, 170 ITR 80 (Ker); and Electro Steel Castings Ltd. 264 ITR 410 (Cal)-SLP Dismissed 266 ITR (St.) 104 (SC). The existence of a valid section 148 notice being a con…

SHRI MOHAMMAD ABBAS ASHRAF,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, SRINAGAR

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

ITA 207/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. Yashender Garg, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 44A

…dered invalid. 5 Mohammad Abbas Ashraf v. ITO In support of above, the assesee takes support of following judicial pronouncements (i) Hon’ble Supreme Court in Y. Narayan Chetty vs. ITO (1959) 35 1TR 388 (SC); CIT vs. Thayaballi Mulia Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC); and CIT vs. Kurban HussainIbrahimjiMitkiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC) has held that, the notice prescribed by section 148 cannot be regarded as a mere procedural requirement. It is only if the said notice is served on the assessee that the ITO would be justified in taking proceedings against the assessee. If no notice is issued or if the no…

BIHARI CHARITABLE TRUST,DELHI vs. ITO(E), WARD GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3032/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 34

…essee or his duly authorized representative is on the Revenue. These include Fatechand Agarwal v. Commissioner of Wealth- Tax [1974] 97 ITR 701 (Ori) and Venkat Naicken Trust v. ITO [1999] 107 Taxman 391 (Mad). In CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC), the Respondent to whom the notice was directed was not in town. The only information which the process server had was that the Respondent was either in Bombay or Ceylon. Thereafter, the process server affixed the notice on the business premises of the Respondent. The Supreme Court affirmed the essential principle that "if no notice was serve…

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

…f Hon'ble Apex Court and other Hon’ble Courts in the cases of: a) Y. Narayana Chetty Vs. ITO, 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC); b) CIT Vs. Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur, 41 ITR 421 (SC); c) CIT Vs. Robert, 48 ITR 177 (SC). d) CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC) e) CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC) f) DR. (MRS.) K.B. Kumar vs. Income Tax Officer (2010) 131 TTJ (Del) 511 g) ITO vs. Krishan Kumar Gupta (2008) 16 DTR (Del)(Trib) (Paper book page no. 98-102) h) Ranjeet Singh vs. Asstt. CIT (2009) 120 TTJ (Del) 517 (Del)(Trib) i) Gk Business Centre (P) Ltd. Vs ITO Ward -…

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

…f Hon'ble Apex Court and other Hon’ble Courts in the cases of: a) Y. Narayana Chetty Vs. ITO, 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC); b) CIT Vs. Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur, 41 ITR 421 (SC); c) CIT Vs. Robert, 48 ITR 177 (SC). d) CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC) e) CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC) f) DR. (MRS.) K.B. Kumar vs. Income Tax Officer (2010) 131 TTJ (Del) 511 g) ITO vs. Krishan Kumar Gupta (2008) 16 DTR (Del)(Trib) (Paper book page no. 98-102) h) Ranjeet Singh vs. Asstt. CIT (2009) 120 TTJ (Del) 517 (Del)(Trib) i) Gk Business Centre (P) Ltd. Vs ITO Ward -…

SRI NARAYAN KUMAR KHAITAN, PROP: M/S. SRI GANESH METALIKS,SUNDARGARH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 175/CTK/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack14 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri B.Panda, Sr. Adv/Shri B.Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.170 to 175/CTK/2019 170 to 175/CTK/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2015 10 to 2015-16 Shri Narayan Kumar Khaitan, Shri Narayan Kumar Khaitan, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur Prop. M/s. Sri Ganesh Metaliks, Prop. M/s. Sri Ganesh Metaliks, LL26, Civil Township, Rourke…

SRI NARAYAN KUMAR KHAITAN, PROP: M/S. SRI GANESH METALIKS,SUNDARGARH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 174/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri B.Panda, Sr. Adv/Shri B.Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.170 to 175/CTK/2019 170 to 175/CTK/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2015 10 to 2015-16 Shri Narayan Kumar Khaitan, Shri Narayan Kumar Khaitan, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur Prop. M/s. Sri Ganesh Metaliks, Prop. M/s. Sri Ganesh Metaliks, LL26, Civil Township, Rourke…

SRI NARAYAN KUMAR KHAITAN, PROP: M/S. SRI GANESH METALIKS,SUNDARGARH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 173/CTK/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri B.Panda, Sr. Adv/Shri B.Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.170 to 175/CTK/2019 170 to 175/CTK/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2015 10 to 2015-16 Shri Narayan Kumar Khaitan, Shri Narayan Kumar Khaitan, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur Prop. M/s. Sri Ganesh Metaliks, Prop. M/s. Sri Ganesh Metaliks, LL26, Civil Township, Rourke…

SRI NARAYAN KUMAR KHAITAN, PROP: M/S. SRI GANESH METALIKS,SUNDARGARH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 172/CTK/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri B.Panda, Sr. Adv/Shri B.Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.170 to 175/CTK/2019 170 to 175/CTK/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2015 10 to 2015-16 Shri Narayan Kumar Khaitan, Shri Narayan Kumar Khaitan, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur Prop. M/s. Sri Ganesh Metaliks, Prop. M/s. Sri Ganesh Metaliks, LL26, Civil Township, Rourke…

SRI NARAYAN KUMAR KHAITAN, PROP: M/S. SRI GANESH METALIKS,SUNDARGARH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 171/CTK/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri B.Panda, Sr. Adv/Shri B.Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.170 to 175/CTK/2019 170 to 175/CTK/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2015 10 to 2015-16 Shri Narayan Kumar Khaitan, Shri Narayan Kumar Khaitan, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur Prop. M/s. Sri Ganesh Metaliks, Prop. M/s. Sri Ganesh Metaliks, LL26, Civil Township, Rourke…

SRI NARAYAN KUMAR KHAITAN, PROP: M/S. SRI GANESH METALIKS,SUNDARGARH vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 170/CTK/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri B.Panda, Sr. Adv/Shri B.Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.170 to 175/CTK/2019 170 to 175/CTK/2019 Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2015 10 to 2015-16 Shri Narayan Kumar Khaitan, Shri Narayan Kumar Khaitan, Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur Prop. M/s. Sri Ganesh Metaliks, Prop. M/s. Sri Ganesh Metaliks, LL26, Civil Township, Rourke…

RAKESH VAID,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 62(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

ITA 7821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…w and if any authority is required, the same will be found in the following judicial pronouncements: - i) CIT Vs T.R. Rajkumari (1974) 96 ITR 78 (Mad) ii) Y. Narayana Chetty V ITO (1959) 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC) iii) CIT Vs Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC) iv) CIT Vs Kurban Hussain lbrahimji Mithi borwala (1971) 82ITR 821 (SC) 11 Rakesh Vaid Vs. ITO v) Vijay Kumar Jain Vs CIT (1975) 99 ITR 349, 353 (Punj) vi) CIT Vs Ramsukh Motilal (195) 27 ITR 54 (Bom) vii) R.K. Das & Co. Vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 439 (Cal) viii) Tansukhrai Bodulal Vs ITO (1962) 46 ITR 325 (Assam-FB) ix) Sewlal Daga Vs CIT (1965)…

J.K.V.B. PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2349/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Cit

For Appellant: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned lower
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…Assessee or his duly authorized representative is on the Revenue. These include Fatechand Agarwal v. CWT [1974] 97 ITR 701 (Ori.) and Venkat Naicken Trust v. ITO [1999] 107 Taxman 391/[2000] 242 ITR 141 (Mad). In CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi [1967] 66 ITR 147 (SC), the Respondent to whom the notice was directed was not in town. The only information which the process server had was that the Respondent was either in Bombay or Ceylon. Thereafter, the process server affixed the notice on the business premises of the Respondent. The Supreme Court affirmed the essential principle that "if no notice was serve…

GIRIRAJKRIPA DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 168/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 50C

…Assessee or his duly authorized representative is on the Revenue. These include Fatechand Agarwal v. CWT [1974] 97 ITR 701 (Ori.) and Venkat Naicken Trust v. ITO [1999] 107 Taxman 391/[2000] 242 ITR 141 (Mad). In CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi [1967] 66 ITR 147 (SC), the Respondent to whom the notice was directed was not in town. The only information which the process server had was that the Respondent was either in Bombay or Ceylon. Thereafter, the process server affixed the notice on the business premises of the Respondent. The Supreme Court affirmed the essential principle that "if no notice was serve…

Showing 1–20 of 32 · Page 1 of 2