CIT v. Vardhman Estate P Limited

287 ITR 368High Court2006#12557 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2020.

Judgments citing CIT v. Vardhman Estate P Limited

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

…ny relies upon the following decisions for the proposition of law that proper service of notice u/s 148 is mandatory for assuming valid jurisdiction to re-assess the escaped income. He has relied on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Vardhman Estate P. Ltd. 287 ITR 368 (Del) (ii) CIT vs. Bhan Textiles P. Ltd. 287 ITR 370 (Del) (iii) CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. 281 ITR 1 (Del) (iv) Venkat Naicken Trust v. ITRO 242 ITR 141 (Mad) (v) Sudev Industries Ltd. v. ITO 98 TTJ 97 (Del) (vi) Hind Book House v. ITO 92 lTD 415 (Del) (vii) Dulli Chand Laxmi Narain v. AC'IT 89 lTD 426 (Del) (viii) Dina Nath v. CIT 204 ITR 667…

ACIT, Gurgaon vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Prop., Gurgaon

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

ITA 5680/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit, Vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Circle-I, Gurgaon Prop., M/S. Ashok Kumar Gupta Shuttering Store, 508/2, Near State Bank Of India, Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon Pan :Abepg4595M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…on 143(2) is mandatory. In case service is not effected within the time stipulated in the proviso, this would render the assessment void. The aforesaid decision in the case of Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (supra) has been followed in CIT Vs. Vardhman Estates P. Ltd., [287 ITR 368] (Del.) and CIT vs. Bhan Textiles P. Ltd. [287 ITR 370] (Del.). In view of the objections raised iri letter dated 22.11.2009, it was incumbent upon the AO to produce material on record to show that notice dated 18.09.2009 had, in fact, been served on the assessee before the expiry of limitation period, otherwise the objections raised would have t…

Shri Ramesh Rao Nanarao Maratha, Neemuch vs. The ITO, Neemuch

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 638/IND/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Mar 2018AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 1997-98

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…notice was sent by speed post on 31.03.2004 and as per Postal Act same is considered served on 31.03.2004. Under the identical facts, the similar plea was taken by the revenue before the Hon'ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT vs. Vardhman Estate P. Ltd. 287 ITR 368. The Hon'ble High Court held as under: Ramesh Rao Nanarao Marath “4. In the present case, the return was filed on October 31, 2001, and in terms of section 143(2) the notice had to be served on the assessee on or before October 31, 2002. The argument is that there were two modes of service, i.e., by speed post as well as by a process server. T…

Sh. Dhirendra Nath Trivedy, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 319/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2011-12 Sh. Dhirendra Nath Trivedy, Dcit, Circle-1, C-4014, Gaur Green City, Vs. Ghaziabad Vaibhav Kahdn, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Accpt8767F) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv, ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…TR 356 (Delhi) is of no avail since the word that had to be construed by the Division Bench in that case was "made" and not "issued" or "served". We see no reason to adopt an approach different to the one adopted by us in CIT v. Vardhman Estate P. Ltd. [2006] 287 ITR 368 (Delhi) (I. T. A. No. 1248 of 2006) decided by us on September 25, 2006. - Madan Singh Kangarot vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur Bench) Madan Singh Kangarot vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur Bench) Madan Singh Kangarot vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur Bench) Madan Singh Kangarot vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur Bench) reported in 145 TTH 262 reported in 145 TTH 262 reported in 145 TTH 262 repor…

Multiple Finance Co., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2707/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-2707/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2007-08) Multiple Finance Co. Vs Dcit Circle-26(1) C/O. Kapil Goel Adv. New Delhi A-1/25, Sector 5, Rohini New Delhi Aabfm3627L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)

…DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-2707/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08) Multiple Finance Co. Vs DCIT Circle-26(1) C/o. Kapil Goel Adv. New Delhi A-1/25, Sector 5, Rohini New Delhi AABFM3627L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv Respondent by Sh.P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.04.2016 Date of Pronouncement 07.04.2016 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed against the order dated 12/3/2012 passed by CIT(A) XVIII, New Delhi for the Assessment Year 2007- 08. 2. The grounds of ap…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5611/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5611/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) DCIT, Central Circle 4, vs. M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., New Delhi. 1711, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Delhi – 110 006. (PAN No. AAACD0132H) ITA No.5581/Del./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4, 1711, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 006. (PAN : AAACD0132H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CA REVE…

M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5581/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA and Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 80I

ACIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Ashed Properties and Investments Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

Accordingly, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, while the Cross Objection by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1302/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri K. Sheshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. Ravichandran, CIT-III(DR)

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…is mandatory and it is not a procedural requirement which is inconsequential. Reference may be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Alpine Electronics Asia Pvt. Ltd. v. DGIT, 341 ITR 247 (Del), CIT v. Vardhana Estates Pvt. Ltd., 287 ITR 368 and ACIT v. Hotel Blumoon, 321 ITR 362 (SC). The contrary view expressed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court, in our view, cannot be followed as the decisions relied on by the ld. counsel for the assessee of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and Allahabad High court also took the view that non-issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act renders asse…