CIT vs. M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Mad), Vipan Khanna v. CIT

287 ITR 370High Court2006#12558 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2020.

Judgments citing CIT vs. M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Mad), Vipan Khanna v. CIT

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

…ition 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 (J&K) (ix) Jayanthi Talkies Distributors v. CIT 120 I…

Sunil Bhalla, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, whereas ITA Nos

ITA 1611/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…Court in the case of CIT vs. HarsingarGutkha(P) LTD. (2011) 336 ITR 90 while placing reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Mad), Vipan Khanna vs. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 220 (P&H), CIT vs. Bhan Textiles (P) Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 370 (Del), CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Del), and Dy. CIT vs. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj), held that perusal of the provisions of s. 143(2) of the Act shows that the service of the notice on the assessee within the period provided under the proviso is mandatory. In the absence of the notice being served with…

Sunil Bhalla, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, whereas ITA Nos

ITA 1610/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…Court in the case of CIT vs. HarsingarGutkha(P) LTD. (2011) 336 ITR 90 while placing reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Mad), Vipan Khanna vs. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 220 (P&H), CIT vs. Bhan Textiles (P) Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 370 (Del), CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Del), and Dy. CIT vs. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj), held that perusal of the provisions of s. 143(2) of the Act shows that the service of the notice on the assessee within the period provided under the proviso is mandatory. In the absence of the notice being served with…

Sunil Bhalla, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, whereas ITA Nos

ITA 1609/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…Court in the case of CIT vs. HarsingarGutkha(P) LTD. (2011) 336 ITR 90 while placing reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Mad), Vipan Khanna vs. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 220 (P&H), CIT vs. Bhan Textiles (P) Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 370 (Del), CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Del), and Dy. CIT vs. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj), held that perusal of the provisions of s. 143(2) of the Act shows that the service of the notice on the assessee within the period provided under the proviso is mandatory. In the absence of the notice being served with…

Sunil Bhalla, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, whereas ITA Nos

ITA 1608/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…Court in the case of CIT vs. HarsingarGutkha(P) LTD. (2011) 336 ITR 90 while placing reliance on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Mad), Vipan Khanna vs. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 220 (P&H), CIT vs. Bhan Textiles (P) Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 370 (Del), CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Del), and Dy. CIT vs. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj), held that perusal of the provisions of s. 143(2) of the Act shows that the service of the notice on the assessee within the period provided under the proviso is mandatory. In the absence of the notice being served with…

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)

…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 to be accepted as correct. In this context, almost ident…

Amit Tyagi, G B Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Ghaziabad

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2505/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10 Amit Tyagi, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(5), B-6 (Basement), J.S. Arcade, Ghaziabad Near Bikanerwala, Opp. Metro Pillar No. 65, Sector-18 Noida (Pan: Adupt6382P) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Chaman Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. SL Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)Section 69

…d and deemed to have become final. Reliance is placed on the decisions in the case of CIT v.M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Mad), Vipan Khanna v. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 220 (P & h) V.C. Palaniappan (2006) 284 ITR 257 (Mad), CIT v. Bhan Textiles P.Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 370 (Delhi), CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Delhi) and Deputy CIT v. Mahi Vally Hotels and Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj). 4. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the assessing officer had erred in assessing the income tax of the appellant at Rs.15,26,645, please be deleted. 5. The assessing officer had issued t…

Sadhana M. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 6072/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6072/Mum/12 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2003-04) Mrs. Sadhana M. Shah Ito 16(2)(2) बनाम/ 22, Meera Flats, 4Th Floor, Room No.214, 2Nd Floor, Vs. L.D.Ruparel Marg, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400006 Mumbai - 400007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aavps7994L

For Appellant: Shri Snehal J. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Mangal
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 54F

…ear which is not in her case. Therefore, the assessment u/s.143(3) is wrong against law and facts in view of the law settled in Subham Enterprises Vs. Income Tax Officer [2004] 3 SOT 250 (All.) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bhan Textiles Pvt. Ltd. [2006] 287 ITR 370 (Delhi) and Prakash Ramji Gavali Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Thane [2012] 21 taxmann.com 534 (Mum.) and BHPE Kinhill Joint Venture Vs. Additional Director of Income Tax, Range – 1 [2009] 116 ITD 123 (Delhi). 5. However, on the other hand the learned departmental representative has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in que…

CIT vs. M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Mad), Vipan Khanna v. CIT (287 ITR 370) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax