COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. SMT. SUMAN WAMAN CHAUDHARY

321 ITR 495High Court2010#9907 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

section 151section 148section 15section 147section 14

Judgments citing COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. SMT. SUMAN WAMAN CHAUDHARY

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGBAD, AURANGBAD vs. SANJAY SUGANCHAND KASLIWAL, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed\nand the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed as\nper terms indicated above

ITA 1339/PUN/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2025
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271DSection 69D

…of the\nAct also mentioned PCIT (Central),\nPune as the sanctioning authority.\n(i) Chhugmal Rajpal\nas υ. S. P. Chaliha\n[(1971) 79 ITR 603\n(SC)]\n(ii) German Remedies\nLtd. v. DCIT -[(2006)\n287 ITR 494 (Bom))\n(iii) CIT υ. Suman\nWaman Chaudhary\n[(2010) 321 ITR 495\n(Bom)]\n(ii) However, a copy of the sanction\nof PCIT(Central), Nagpur was\nsupplied as Annexure -'2', along\nwith the Remand Report, which\nwas different from. This is different\nfrom a copy of the sanction\nprovided during the assessment\nproceeding.\n(iv)Sharvah\nMultitrade Company\nP. Ltd. V. ITO\n[(2022)\n134\ntaxmann.com\n134\n(iii) This a…

MASTER TRUST LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA

In the result, ground no. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 334/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Shri Aditya Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…eedings as bad in law and in this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Dr. Shashi Kant Garg Vs CIT (2006) 285 ITR 158, decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Smt. Suman Waman Chaudhary (2010) 321 ITR 495, decision of Hon’ble Orissa High Court in case of Ambika Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT & Ors (2022) 326 CTR 871 and Hon’ble Chattisgarh High Court in case of Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd. Vs. Asst. CIT (2018) 400 ITR 397. 11. The Ld. CIT/DR is heard who has relied on the reasons so recorded and the order so passed by the AO. Regarding sanc…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SRI C GANGADHARA MURTHY , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2396/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)Section 292B

…rh) (2018) 300 CTR 358 (Chattisgarh) (ii) Ghanshyam Khabrani vs ACIT 249 CTR 370 (Bombay HC);(2012) 20 taxmann.com 716 (Bombay)/ (2012) 210 Taxman 75 (Bombay) (MAG)/ (2012) 346 ITR 443 (Bombay) / (2012) 249 CTR 370 (Bombay) (iii) CIT vs Suman Waman Chaudhary 321 ITR 495 (Bombay HC);(2010) 321 ITR 495 (Bombay) 3.5 The above decisions are clear that a sanction of the relevant higher authority, if required u/s 151, has to be mandatorily obtained before issue of notice u/s 148 and any initiation of proceedings in the absence of sanction as mandated by section 151, will render the whole proceeding void ab initio and…

RAVIKUMAR NATH (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO-29(3)-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3300/MUM/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3300/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2005-06) Ravikumar Nath (Huf) बिधम/ Ito-29(3)(1) 204/C-3, Veena Nagar, 305, C-10, Pratykshkar Vs. Mulund West-400080. Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaghr0075L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ashwin Chhag Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-40, Mumbai Dated 06.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2005-06. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice 2. That The Assessment In This Case Has Been Re-Opened After Four (4) Years But Within Six (6) Years. However, The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ao Having Re-Opened The Assessment, Not Giving Reasons Recorded For Reopening As Mandated By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In G.Ku Drive Shaft (2003) 259 Itr 19 (Sc), As Well As The Ld. Cit(A)’S Actions Of Ignoring The Legal Issue Raised Before Him That The Notice U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Was Issued Without Sanction Of The Competent Authority U/S 151 Of The Act. According To The Ld. Ar Despite This Tribunal Directing The Department Representative (Dr) To Produce The Records Of The Case

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin ChhagFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…with-out prior- approval, which omission renders the notice of AO to re-open u/s 148 of the Act as invalid and bad in law, so, the consequential re- assessment order also is held to be invalid as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court CIT Vs Suman Woman Chaudhary 321 ITR 495 (Bom). So the legal issue is held against the department on this issue and therefore we uphold the legal issue raised by the assessee and therefore we are inclined to quash the re-opening of the assessment carried out pursuant to the invalid notice issue u/s 148 of the Act dated 24.03.2011. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.…

THE AMRAVATI PEOPLE CO-OP BANK LTD ( NOW MERGED IN THE COSMOS CO-OP BANK LTD),AMARAVATI vs. D.C.I.T. AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMARAVATI

ITA 309/NAG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 309/Nag/2015 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Amravati Peoples Co-Op. Bank Limited (Now Merged In The Cosmos Co-Op. Bank Ltd.) C/O. Cosmos Co-Op Bank Ltd. Jawahar Road, Amravati-444601. Pan : Aaact5899B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Amravati Circle, Amravati. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.G. Gandhi, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Agnes P. Thomas, Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09.05.2022

For Appellant: Shri S.G. Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Agnes P. Thomas, DR
Section 143(3)Section 151

…his aforesaid contention the Ld. AR had relied on the following judicial pronouncements: 9 The Amravati Peoples Co-Op. Bank Limited Vs. DCIT (i). CIT Vs. Soyuz Industrial Resources Ltd. (2015) 92 CCH 0087 (Del.-HC) (ii). CIT Vs. Suman Waman Chaudhary (2010) 321 ITR 495 ( Bom.) (iii). ITO, Ward 10(3), New Delhi Vs. M/s. Direct Sales P. Ltd., ITA No.3445/Del/2010 (iv). CIT Vs. Goyanka Lime & Chemicals Ltd. (2015) 56 taxman.com 390 (v). Shri Amarlal Bajaj Vs. ACIT, ITA No.611/MUM/2004( Mum.) (vi). The Central India Electric Supply Co. Ltd., ITA 17/1999 ( Del) (vii). Dr. Neeta Ranjan Modi Vs. ITO-11(3)(1), Mumbai,…

ITO 15 (2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S LIMBO ENGINEERING P LTD., MUMBAI

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7277/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…ot even bothered to appreciate the facts of the case correctly whicn amounts to abuse of authority. In defence of his arguments the counsel of the assessee relies on the following decisions – - German Remedies Ltd – 287 ITR 494 (Bom) - Suman Waman Chaudhary – 321 ITR 495 (Bom) - S. Goyanka Lines & Chemicals Ltd – 237 Taxman 378 (SC) - My Car (Pune) (P) Ltd – 263 Taxman 626 (Bom) - United Electrical Company (P) Ltd – 258 ITR 317 (Del) - Asiatic Oxygen Ltd – 372 ITR 421 (Cal) - Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd – 400 ITR 397 (Chhattisgarh) - Virat Credit & Holdings Pvt Ltd – - Sunil Agarwal – 83 ITD 1 (TM)(Delhi Tr…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S WELLKNOWN POLYSTERS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1388/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…ot even bothered to appreciate the facts of the case correctly whicn amounts to abuse of authority. In defence of his arguments the counsel of the assessee relies on the following decisions – - German Remedies Ltd – 287 ITR 494 (Bom) - Suman Waman Chaudhary – 321 ITR 495 (Bom) - S. Goyanka Lines & Chemicals Ltd – 237 Taxman 378 (SC) - My Car (Pune) (P) Ltd – 263 Taxman 626 (Bom) - United Electrical Company (P) Ltd – 258 ITR 317 (Del) - Asiatic Oxygen Ltd – 372 ITR 421 (Cal) - Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd – 400 ITR 397 (Chhattisgarh) - Virat Credit & Holdings Pvt Ltd – - Sunil Agarwal – 83 ITD 1 (TM)(Delhi Tr…

ITO 15 (2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S LIMBO ENGINEERING P LTD., MUMBAI

In the result the all the three appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 7276/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr Rajeev Harit&Shri J. Micheal, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…ot even bothered to appreciate the facts of the case correctly whicn amounts to abuse of authority. In defence of his arguments the counsel of the assessee relies on the following decisions – - German Remedies Ltd – 287 ITR 494 (Bom) - Suman Waman Chaudhary – 321 ITR 495 (Bom) - S. Goyanka Lines & Chemicals Ltd – 237 Taxman 378 (SC) - My Car (Pune) (P) Ltd – 263 Taxman 626 (Bom) - United Electrical Company (P) Ltd – 258 ITR 317 (Del) - Asiatic Oxygen Ltd – 372 ITR 421 (Cal) - Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd – 400 ITR 397 (Chhattisgarh) - Virat Credit & Holdings Pvt Ltd – - Sunil Agarwal – 83 ITD 1 (TM)(Delhi Tr…

RAMDAS BHAUSAHEB BARNE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 10(3),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 977/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.977/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ramdas Bhausaheb Barne, Krantiveer Nagar, Near Datta Mandir, Thergaon Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411033 …. Pan: Agcpb5041Q Vs.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 151(2)

…19.03.2014 of the JCIT, Range-10, Pune, placed at page 4 of Paper Book. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in this regard placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Smt. Suman Waman Chaudhary (2010) 321 ITR 495 (Bom). The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee also pointed out original assessment in the case was completed under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 19.07.2013. 4. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue on the other hand, placed reliance on the ratio laid down by Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in Laxminarayan A…

M/S. EASTERN SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee on grounds No

ITA 1951/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1950/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1951/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukherji, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I, Kolkata, In Appeal No.434/Cc-Iv/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 05.08.2010 & Appeal No.433/Cc-Xi/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 11.08.2010, Respectively Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. (Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherji, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…he instant case thereby rendering the notice issued to be invalid. 2.16. In support of the aforesaid proposition, reliance is being placed on the decision of the BOMBAY HIGH COURT in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. SMT. SUMAN WAMAN CHAUDHARY [2010J 321 ITR 495 (Bom) , in which case, the Tribunal held that the notice was issued without jurisdiction, as the Assessing Officer had to record the reasons which required the approval of the Deputy Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner and a certificate that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were sufficient for issue of such a notice. On appeal fu…

M/S. EASTERN SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - XI, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee on grounds No

ITA 1950/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1950/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1951/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukherji, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I, Kolkata, In Appeal No.434/Cc-Iv/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 05.08.2010 & Appeal No.433/Cc-Xi/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 11.08.2010, Respectively Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. (Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherji, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…he instant case thereby rendering the notice issued to be invalid. 2.16. In support of the aforesaid proposition, reliance is being placed on the decision of the BOMBAY HIGH COURT in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. SMT. SUMAN WAMAN CHAUDHARY [2010J 321 ITR 495 (Bom) , in which case, the Tribunal held that the notice was issued without jurisdiction, as the Assessing Officer had to record the reasons which required the approval of the Deputy Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner and a certificate that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer were sufficient for issue of such a notice. On appeal fu…