CIT vs. IDBI Ltd. (76 Taxmann.com 227)(Bom), CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (

398 ITR 13High Court2017#14517 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

Judgments citing CIT vs. IDBI Ltd. (76 Taxmann.com 227)(Bom), CIT v. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (

ITO, STATUE CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. SANGEETA GANGWAL, KIRTI NAGAR, TONK ROAD

Appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 304/JPR/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपीलसं. / ITA No. 304/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer War-6(4), Jaipur. बनाम Sangeeta Gangwal Vs. B-159, Kirti Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.:AIAPG9939J अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Tarun Mittal, C.A. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing :21

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A-Bench” JAIPUR Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihyla-@ITA No. 304/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer cuke Sangeeta Gangwal Vs. War-6(4), B-159, Kirti Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.:AIAPG9939J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Tarun Mittal, C.A. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, S…

ACIT,NCC7(1), CHENNAI vs. M/S PRABHA ENGINEERS, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 944/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Nahar (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV. Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194ASection 2Section 40Section 80I

…preme Court which is reported at 262 Taxman 16. Similar was stated to be the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT V/s Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (340 ITR 66) as well as the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in PCIT V/s Jagat Talkies Distributors (398 ITR 13). Considering the same, Ld. CIT(A) held the order to be illegal, invalid and void ab initio. The finding that the reasons were not supplied to the assessee despite his specific notice was rendered after perusal of case records. It was observed in para 8.3 of the impugned order that there was no evidence to indicate that AO had communicated the rea…

AFZAR AHMAD KHAN,NOIDA vs. ITO WARD 47(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2062/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148

…reasons. Thus, he submitted, non-supply of reasons makes the proceeding under section 147 of the Act invalid. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions: 1. Principal CIT Vs. Jagat Talkies Distributors, (2017) 85 taxmann.com 189/398 ITR 13 (Delhi) 2. CIT Vs. Trend Electronics, (2015) 61 taxmann.com 308/379 ITR 456 3. Kothari Metals Vs. ITO, (2015) 377 ITR 581/288 CTR 606 (Ker.) 6. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, the Assessing Officer having found that the receipts shown by the assessee are lesser than the actual receipts which have been 5 AY: 2010-11 subjected…

RBJ INFRATECH P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-20(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3152/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 3152/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 M/S Rbj Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, B-14/C, First Floor, Freedom Fighters Ward-20(3), Enclave, Neb Sarai, New Delhi New Delhi-110068 & Rajesh Jain & Associates, 49, Pushpanjali, Vikas Marg Extn. Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecr0664G Assessee By : Sh. Rajesh Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Ramesh Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.12.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ramesh Singh, Sr. DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 3152/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 M/s RBJ Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, B-14/C, First Floor, freedom Fighters Ward-20(3), Enclave, Neb Sarai, New Delhi New Delhi-110068 and Rajesh Jain & Associates, 49, Pushpanjali, Vikas Marg Extn. Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAECR0664G Assessee by : Sh. Rajesh Jain, CA Revenue by : Sh. Ramesh Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 06.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 22.12.202…

M/S. APARNA ASHRAM,NEW DELHI vs. DDIT (E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3153/DEL/2014[1982-83]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2020AY 1982-83

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu[Assessment Year: 1982-83]

For Appellant: Sh. Manu Giri, Adv.; Sh. SubhashFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR
Section 148

…ties and perused the orders of the authorities below including the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Jagat Talkies Distributors decided in ITA No. 916, 990, 1000, 1001, 1003 & 21030 of 2015 dated 29.8.2017 reported in (2017) 398 ITR 13 (Del.). I find that the main issue in the present appeal is relating to non-supply of reasons recorded to the assessee in spite of the repeated requests made by the assessee before issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and found that AO has not supplied the copy of the reasons recorded before issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act to…

RINA S. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3120/MUM/2015[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 1995-96

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, (Spl. Counsel for Deptt.)
Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 234B

…e Act and consequent assessment order may be quashed. The Ld. A.R. relied on a series of 6 Rina S. Mehta decisions namely CIT vs. IDBI Ltd. (76 Taxmann.com 227)(Bom), CIT vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (340 ITR 66)(Bom), Pr. CIT vs. Jagat Talkies Distributors (398 ITR 13)(Del) and PCIT V Ramaiah(2019)103taxmann.com202(SC). 11. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, strongly opposed the arguments of the Ld. A.R. by submitting that assessee has not filed any return of income in response to notice issued under section 148 and the copy of reasons recorded were not provided to the assessee as no return of income was filed b…

JINDAL STEEL & POWER LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

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

ITA 6698/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year : 2005-06 Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 1(1), Jindal Centre, Gurgaon. 12, Bhikaji Cama Place, Vs. Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 80I

…position, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Trend Electronics reported in 379 ITR 456. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in 16 the case of PCIT vs. Jagat Talkies Distributors reported in 398 ITR 13, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the assessee was not given copy of reasons for issuing notice u/s 148 by the Assessing Officer, whole assessment proceedings and resultant order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 148 of the I.T. Act was to be quashed. 19. Ld. counsel for the assessee submitt…