How many judgments cite CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.?

110 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (340 ITR 66), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 151, Section 68.

CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

340 ITR 66High Court2012#978 most cited

What is CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. authority for?

A reassessment order cannot be upheld if the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment under Section 147 are furnished to the assessee only after the completion of the reassessment, or are not furnished at all. The assessee has a fundamental right to be provided with these reasons to file objections.

110

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. · Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. · Section 147 · Section 148 · reopening of assessment · reassessment proceedings · reasons recorded · furnishing of reasons · notice under section 148 · void ab initio · income escaping assessment · objection to reasons

Also reported as

21 Taxmann.com 5321 Taxmann 53

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 151 Section 68 Section 69A Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

income escaping assessment reopening of assessment escapement of income section 151 reason to believe notice under section 148 tangible material reassessment proceedings speaking order first appeal section 148 unexplained money

Judgments citing CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

Ashokkumar Gokulchand Sananda, Buldhana vs. Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax Akola Circle, Akola

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

ITA 427/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royashokkumar Gokulchand Acit, Akola Circle, Akola Sananda, Rana Traders, Vs Gandhi Chowk, Khamgaon, Dist. Buldhan, Khamgaon Pan : Adpps 755I L Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Adv Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2026

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 234BSection 250Section 35(1)(ii)

…ble to be cancelled. 5) Reassessment framed without providing reasons recorded for issue of notice u/s 148 is not in accordance with law and contrary to decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. reported at 340 ITR 66 (Bom.) and liable to be cancelled. 6) The addition made by A.O. at Rs.17,50,000/- by disallowing deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 7) The learned A.O. erred in holding that donation given by assessee for claim of deduction u/s 35(1)(ii) of I.T. Act 1961 is accommodation payment and is not genuine.…

Combine Diamonds Private Limited, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -5(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2480/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrya N D Shri Prabhash Shankara.Y: 2009-10 Combine Diamonds Vs. Acit-5(1)(2), Mumbai Private Limited Fw 6010B, 6Th Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, East Wing, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. Aaacc9949H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri Rahul Sarda, Ca Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan (Sr. Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Sarda, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan (SR. DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER A N D SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y: 2009-10 Combine Diamonds Vs. ACIT-5(1)(2), Mumbai Private Limited FW 6010B, 6th Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, East Wing, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400051. PAN/GIR No. AAACC9949H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assesseeby : Shri Rahul Sarda, CA Revenue by : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan (SR. DR) Date of Hearing : 28.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 11.03.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee…

Pankaj Jindal Contractor, Mansa vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Bathinda

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 695/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 695/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Pankaj Jindal Contractor, Vs. Dcit-Circle-1, Near Vidya Bharti School, Bathinda. Mansa. [Pan:-Aajfp8008L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148aSection 250Section 282Section 40A(3)Section 68

…hether recording of reasons under section 148(2) and communicating them to assessee is mandatory and where same were not found on record, notice issued under section 148 would have to be treated as nullity-Held, yes iv. CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom) Where reasons recorded for reopening of assessment, though repeatedly asked by assessee, were furnished only after completion of assessment, reassessment order could not be upheld. 5. Ujagar Holdings (P.) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer [2017] 88 taxmann.com 857 (Delhi Trib.) I.T.A. No. 695/Asr/2024 1 Assessment Year: 2014-15 2 Section 148 o…

ACIT, Circle 3, Lucknow vs. Anshuman Singh, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed

ITA 342/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…t was made, such assessment cannot be legal as decided in CIT Vs Trend Electronics [2015] 379 ITR 456 (BOM) after referring to the requirements found in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd.'s case and following the decision in CIT Vs Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 66 (BOM). The present facts of the appellant are same and as also being held in the case of M/s. Tata Communications Ltd. (formerly Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd) vs the JCIT, Special Range-1(Mumbai), wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal held that AO has not furnished the reasons to assessee before concluding the assessment proceedings, much less within the reaso…

SHI vs. Hankar Agarwal Hufhuf, Andheri (East)Vs.Income Tax Officer 31(2)(1), Mumbai, Bandra (East)

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2468/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansal & Shri AjayFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 251

…s recorded, the reassessment order passed is bad in law and invalid. In this regard, support is also drawn from the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of IDBI Ltd (supra) and CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 53/340 ITR 66 (Bom.). We are also not convinced with the argument of the ld. DR that since the assessee has participated in the reassessment proceedings, no prejudice is caused. In fact, by not providing the reasons recorded, the assessee has been deprived of fundamental right to know and object on the basis of which jurisdiction has been acquired or assumed by…

ITO, Ward-18(), New Delhi vs. Nivia Agencies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1009/DEL/2021[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

…letion of assessment, reassessment cannot be upheld moreover the SLP filed by the revenue against the decision of this court order has been dismissed by APEX Court vide order dated 16.7.2007. The same position is upheld in CIT vs Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd(2012)340 ITR 66 (Bom) Mentioning of incorrect reason as adjudicated by CIT(A) Without prejudice to the above it is settled position of law and is covered with the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High court that mentioning of incorrect reasons held the proceedings under section 148 abinitio void. This ground of appeal adjudicated for incorrect figures in the reasons su…

Jai Durga Surgicals Private Limited, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Patna

ITA 363/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata) Jai Durga Surgicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Patna 101, Lotus Apartment, New Patliputra Colony, Bihar Pan No. :Aabcj 7962 N (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nishant Maitin, Ca रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2025

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Maitin, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT

Section 147Section 148

…s decisions on the issue. Reliance in placed on various other judicial pronouncements noted herein under Arun Kumar V. Union of India - 2006 (9) TMI 115 Raza Textiles 87 ITR 539 CIT vs. Trend Electronics 2015-TIOL-2393-HC-Mum CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 340 ITR 66 (Bom.) Telco Dadajee Dhackjee Ltd. VS. DCIT 2(3) 2012 TIOL-532- ITAT-MUM-TM M/s Synopsys International vs. DDIT (Int. Taxation) ITA No. 549/Bang/11 Sh. Sunil Kumar vs. DCIT 2015-TIOL-1929-ITAT-Ranchi S. Prasad Raju Vs. DCIT 96 TTJ 832. In the light of this fact alone, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 1.10 The Id CIT further relied upon…

Arpit Hotel, Patna vs. DCIT Central Circle 3, Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 349/PAT/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Jun 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Through Virtual Hearing At Kolkata)

Section 147Section 148

M/S. Samaksh Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S. Samaksh Holdings Pvt. Acit, Circle-1(1) Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, 7Th Floor, P-7, 16, Strand Road, Diamond Chowringhee Square, Kolkata, Heritage, 14Th Floor, West Bengal Vs. Room No- 1402, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700001 700069 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadck2106P Assessee By : Shri Abhishak Bansal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sailen Samadder, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri Abhishak Bansal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…easons for reopening and without furnishing to the assessee an opportunity of filing its objections is not valid. Similarly, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2012] 21 taxmann.com 53 (Bombay)/[2012] 340 ITR 66 (Bombay)[20-07-2011] has held that where the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment ,though repeatedly asked by the assesse,e were only furnished after completion of assessment, reassessment could not be upheld. In the present case also, since the assessee has repeatedly requested the ld. AO to supply the copy of reasons recorded u/s 148(2)…

Ambaji Avenues Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 9(1) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5216/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Malpani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…Assessee came to know about the reasons recorded only through the assessment order dated 27.11.2018, but not prior to that and therefore in view of the judgments passed by the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. 340 ITR 66 (Bombay) and CIT vs. Fomento Resort & Hotel Ltd. (ITA No.71 of 2006), the reopening of the assessment and in pursuance thereof the assessment order, is liable to be set aside being void ab-initio. 6. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee, by drawing attention of this court to the para no.5 of the assessment order, wherei…

Mahendra Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 654/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sarwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

…therefore, in our considered view, the reassessment order in these circumstances of the case, cannot be upheld. For reaching this conclusion, we draw strength from the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd (2012) 340 ITR 66 wherein Hon'ble Bombay High Court had categorically held that since the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment were not furnished to the assesse till the completion of the assessment then reassessment order cannot be upheld and thus dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Even in the case of CIT vs Trend Electronics reported in (2015)…

Raghunandan Bhomia, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 5724/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…Resorts and Hotels Ltd. has been dismissed by Apex Court, vide order dated July 16, 2007. 11.5 The jurisdictional High Court dismissed the appeal of the revenue and assessment order was held as not valid in the case of CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (2012) 340 ITR 66/21 Taxmann.com 53 (Bom.) (Pg.46) wherein it was held that "Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961-Income escaping assessment-General -Where reasons recorded for reopening of assessment, though repeatedly asked by assessee, were furnished only after completion of assessment, reassessment order could not be upheld [In favour of assessee)" 11.6 The…

Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Prop. M/S S.D. Construction, Mumbai vs. ACIT-31(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3412/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ashsh A. Thakurdesai-CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…sence of supply of reasons recorded for issue of reopening notice the assessment order would be without jurisdiction and needs to be quashed. The above view as taken by the Tribunal has also been taken by this Court In CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2012] 21 Taxmann 53 (Bombay) viz. non-supply of reasons recorded to issue a reopening notice would make the order of Assessment passed thereon bad as being without jurisdiction. 6. Subject to the above you are requested to treat the return of income filed by the assessee u/s 139(1) on 28.9.2010 under e-acknowledgment no. 162247490280910 as return in response to yo…

M/S Ankur Developers & Realtors, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-3(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 427/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Ankur Developers & Vs. Dycit, Circle – 3(4) Realtors, Mumbai. 303, Golden Bungalow, Juhu Road, Santacruz (W) Mumbai – 400054. Pan/Gir No. Aaofa7539A (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…r would make an order passed on reassessment bad in law 11. For this proposition I found reliance from the decision of Apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) and CIT Vs. Videsh Sanchan Nigam limited Vs. ITO [2012] 340 ITR 66, wherein it was held as under: 6 M/s. Ankur Developers & Realtors, Mumbai 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the reopening of the assessment is the question raised in this appeal. 2. The finding of fact recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is that in the present case the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment…

Babulal Roshanlal Patni, Nagpur vs. DCIT, Cencir 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee’s are allowed

ITA 196/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…f law that re-assessment framed without providing complete reasons recorded for issue of notice u/sec.148 results into assessment framed being bad in law and relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd., 340 ITR 66 (Bom.) and PCIT vs. V. Ramaiah 103 taxmann.com 202 (SC). 5.1. Secondly he submitted that the copy of objections submitted for issue of notice u/sec.148 are with the Assessing Officer and the learned Assessing Officer without disposing off the objections filed by the assessee and made assessment u/sec.147 r.w.s.143(3) is bad in law as held by the…

Patni Housing Private Limited, Nagpur vs. DCIT, Cencir 1(2), Nagpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee’s are allowed

ITA 194/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Taradevi Babulal Patni, Nagpur vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee’s are allowed

ITA 193/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Amit Khatri, Sonipat vs. ITO, Ward 1, Sonipat

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

ITA 2430/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2430/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Amit Khatri Income Tax Officer Ward No.30, Garhi Bhraman, Vs. Ward-1, Sonipat, Haryana. Sonipat, Haryana. Pan No. Bdspk3438G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…• PCIT v Jagat Talkies Distributors [2017] 85 taxmann.com 189(Delhi); • PCIT v V. Ramaiah [2019] 103 taxmann.com 201 (Kar) approved in 103 taxmann.com 202(SC); • CIT vs M/s Trend Electronics [2015]61 taxmann.com 308( Bom); • CIT v Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (340 ITR 66) (Bom); • CIT v. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. ITA no 71 of 2006 dated 27th November, 2006 (Bom) has been dismissed by the Apex court, vide order dated July 16, 2007; • KSS Petron Private Ltd vs. ACIT ITA No.224 of 2014 Dated 03.10.2016 (Bom); • CIT vs. IDBI Ltd ITA No.494 of 2014 Dated 19.09.2016 (Bom); • CIT v. Blue Star Ltd. (2018) 162 DTR 30…

Sachin Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 47(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3246/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roysachin Jain Vs. Ito,Ward-47(2) 1732, Mz Floor, Nayi Drumshape Building, Basti, Naya Bazar, Delhi- 110002 Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aijpj5875F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…arate speaking and reasoned order by disposing off the objection raised by the assessee against the reopening of assessment. Further that the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd., reported in (2012) 340 ITR 66 (Bom) as relied upon by the assessee held that reason recorded laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court must be furnished to the assessee when sought for so as to enable the assessee to object the same before the AO failing which the reassessment proceedings suffers from jurisdictional error and thus, vitiated. 7. Having regard to the identical facts…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Rajuri Steel and Tmt Bars Pvt. Ltd., Jalna

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1298/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1298/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Rajuri Steel & Tmt Aurangabad. Bars Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.F-16-17 & Gut No.49, 51 & 52, Additional Midc, Phase- Ii, Daregaon, Jalna- 431203. Pan : Aaics2970E Appellant Respondent C.O. No.32/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1298/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rajuri Steel & Tmt Bars Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-2, Pvt. Ltd., Aurangabad. Plot No.F-16-17 & Gut No.49, 51 & 52, Additional Midc, Phase-Ii, Daregaon, Jalna- 431203. Pan : Aaics2970E Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Assessee By : Shri B. D. Bhide Date Of Hearing 05.11.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-12, Pune [‘Ld. Cit(A)’]

For Appellant: Shri B. D. BhideFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…to dispose of the same by passing separate speaking order. In the present case, the objections were made by the appellant on 26.03.2022 through online but order was passed on 29.03.2022 without passing the speaking order. b) CIT Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd.-340 ITR 66 (Bom. HC) 4 C.O. No.32/PUN/2024 c) KSS Petron Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT - Bom. HC 6.4 I find merit in the contention raised by the appellant. There was a failure on the part of the AO to comply with the mandatory requirement of disposing of the objections raised by the appellant to the reopening of assessment. This violates the mandate laid down by the…