Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parikalpana Estate Development (P.) Ltd.

79 DTR 246High Court2012#7990 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parikalpana Estate Development (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Section 292BB of the Income Tax Act is a rule of evidence concerning the service of notice, not the mandatory issuance of a notice under Section 143(2), which confers jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2019.

Also referred to as

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parikalpana Estate Development (P.) Ltd. · 79 DTR 246 · Section 143(2) · Section 292BB · issuance of notice · service of notice · jurisdictional notice · rule of evidence

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parikalpana Estate Development (P.) Ltd.

Mukand Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3670/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Mukund Limited V. Dy. Cit-3(2)(1) Aayakar Bhavan Bajaj Bhavan, 3Rd Floor M.K. Road 226 Nariman Point New Marine Lines Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacm5008R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kirit Kamdar Department By : Shri Ajay K. Ojha

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay K. Ojha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…and the compliance of such requirement could not be dispensed with by resorting to the proviso to Section 292BB of the Act. Referring to the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parikalpana Estate Development (P.) Ltd. (2012) 79 DTR 246 (All.) and Manish Prakash Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 259 CTR 57 (All.), he submitted that Section 292BB of the Act was only a rule of evidence for dealing with service of notice and has nothing to do with the mandatory requirement of issuance of notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act which is a notice giving jurisdiction to AO. Re…

Sakun Gems, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 3432/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Uttam Chand BothraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 292B

…and the compliance of such requirement could not be dispensed with by resorting to the proviso to Section 292BB of the Act. Referring to the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parikalpana Estate Development (P.) Ltd. (2012) 79 DTR 246 (All.) and Manish Prakash Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 259 CTR 57 (All.), he submitted that Section 292BB of the Act was only a rule of evidence for dealing with service of notice and has nothing to do with the mandatory requirement of issuance of notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act which is a notice giving jurisdiction to AO. Re…

Sakun Gems, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 3431/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Uttam Chand BothraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 292B

…and the compliance of such requirement could not be dispensed with by resorting to the proviso to Section 292BB of the Act. Referring to the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parikalpana Estate Development (P.) Ltd. (2012) 79 DTR 246 (All.) and Manish Prakash Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 259 CTR 57 (All.), he submitted that Section 292BB of the Act was only a rule of evidence for dealing with service of notice and has nothing to do with the mandatory requirement of issuance of notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act which is a notice giving jurisdiction to AO. Re…

Ramesh Salecha HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3312/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 690

…and the compliance of such requirement could not be dispensed with by resorting to the proviso to Section 292BB of the Act. Referring to the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parikalpana Estate Development (P.) Ltd. (2012) 79 DTR 246 (All.) and Manish Prakash Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 259 CTR 57 (All.), he submitted that Section 292BB of the Act was only a rule of evidence for dealing with service of notice and has nothing to do with the mandatory requirement of issuance of notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act which is a notice giving jurisdiction to AO. Re…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Vishu Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 3703/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Adv
Section 275(1)(c)

…14. The gist of same read as follows:- "A Note on applicability of decisions/judgments relied by the assessee 1. The assessee has basically placed reliance on the following judgments/decisions:- (i) Manish Gupta 259 CTR 57 All HC: (ii) Parikalpana Estate 79 DTR 246) & P&H HC: (iii) Kuber Tobacco Products P Ltd. Delhi HC 06.10.2010: 2.1 Before dealing with the applicability of the aforesaid judgments which hover around the provisions of section 143(2), 292BB in the context of issuance of the notice and service thereof etc. It is pointed out that all these provisions as contained in the Income Tax Act or the…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Vishu Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 2765/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, Adv
Section 275(1)(c)

…14. The gist of same read as follows:- "A Note on applicability of decisions/judgments relied by the assessee 1. The assessee has basically placed reliance on the following judgments/decisions:- (i) Manish Gupta 259 CTR 57 All HC: (ii) Parikalpana Estate 79 DTR 246) & P&H HC: (iii) Kuber Tobacco Products P Ltd. Delhi HC 06.10.2010: 2.1 Before dealing with the applicability of the aforesaid judgments which hover around the provisions of section 143(2), 292BB in the context of issuance of the notice and service thereof etc. It is pointed out that all these provisions as contained in the Income Tax Act or the…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line

ITA/585/2015HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

…the compliance of such requirement could not be dispensed with by resorting to the proviso to Section 292BB of the Act. Referring to the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parikalpana Estate Development (P.) Ltd. (2012) 79 DTR 246 (All.) and Manish Prakash Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 259 CTR 57 (All.), he submitted that Section 292BB of the Act was only a rule of evidence for dealing with service of notice and has nothing to do with the mandatory requirement of issuance of notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act which is a notice giving jurisdiction to A…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line

ITA/586/2015HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

…the compliance of such requirement could not be dispensed with by resorting to the proviso to Section 292BB of the Act. Referring to the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parikalpana Estate Development (P.) Ltd. (2012) 79 DTR 246 (All.) and Manish Prakash Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 259 CTR 57 (All.), he submitted that Section 292BB of the Act was only a rule of evidence for dealing with service of notice and has nothing to do with the mandatory requirement of issuance of notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act which is a notice giving jurisdiction to A…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line

ITA/580/2015HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

…the compliance of such requirement could not be dispensed with by resorting to the proviso to Section 292BB of the Act. Referring to the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parikalpana Estate Development (P.) Ltd. (2012) 79 DTR 246 (All.) and Manish Prakash Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 259 CTR 57 (All.), he submitted that Section 292BB of the Act was only a rule of evidence for dealing with service of notice and has nothing to do with the mandatory requirement of issuance of notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act which is a notice giving jurisdiction to A…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line

ITA/581/2015HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

…the compliance of such requirement could not be dispensed with by resorting to the proviso to Section 292BB of the Act. Referring to the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parikalpana Estate Development (P.) Ltd. (2012) 79 DTR 246 (All.) and Manish Prakash Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 259 CTR 57 (All.), he submitted that Section 292BB of the Act was only a rule of evidence for dealing with service of notice and has nothing to do with the mandatory requirement of issuance of notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act which is a notice giving jurisdiction to A…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line

ITA/578/2015HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

…the compliance of such requirement could not be dispensed with by resorting to the proviso to Section 292BB of the Act. Referring to the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parikalpana Estate Development (P.) Ltd. (2012) 79 DTR 246 (All.) and Manish Prakash Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 259 CTR 57 (All.), he submitted that Section 292BB of the Act was only a rule of evidence for dealing with service of notice and has nothing to do with the mandatory requirement of issuance of notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act which is a notice giving jurisdiction to A…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line

ITA/579/2015HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

…the compliance of such requirement could not be dispensed with by resorting to the proviso to Section 292BB of the Act. Referring to the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parikalpana Estate Development (P.) Ltd. (2012) 79 DTR 246 (All.) and Manish Prakash Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 259 CTR 57 (All.), he submitted that Section 292BB of the Act was only a rule of evidence for dealing with service of notice and has nothing to do with the mandatory requirement of issuance of notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act which is a notice giving jurisdiction to A…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line

ITA/587/2015HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

…the compliance of such requirement could not be dispensed with by resorting to the proviso to Section 292BB of the Act. Referring to the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parikalpana Estate Development (P.) Ltd. (2012) 79 DTR 246 (All.) and Manish Prakash Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 259 CTR 57 (All.), he submitted that Section 292BB of the Act was only a rule of evidence for dealing with service of notice and has nothing to do with the mandatory requirement of issuance of notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act which is a notice giving jurisdiction to A…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -18 vs. Silver Line

ITA/588/2015HC Delhi04 Nov 2015
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

…the compliance of such requirement could not be dispensed with by resorting to the proviso to Section 292BB of the Act. Referring to the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parikalpana Estate Development (P.) Ltd. (2012) 79 DTR 246 (All.) and Manish Prakash Gupta v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 259 CTR 57 (All.), he submitted that Section 292BB of the Act was only a rule of evidence for dealing with service of notice and has nothing to do with the mandatory requirement of issuance of notice under Section 143 (2) of the Act which is a notice giving jurisdiction to A…

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Parikalpana Estate Development (P.) Ltd. (79 DTR 246) — Cited in 14 Judgments | BharatTax