Deep Chand Kothari v. CIT

171 ITR 381High Court1988#4001 most cited

What is Deep Chand Kothari v. CIT authority for?

Assessment proceedings are void ab initio if initiated by an Assessing Officer lacking jurisdiction. This jurisdictional defect can be raised at any stage, even in collateral proceedings or during execution.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Deep Chand Kothari v. CIT · jurisdictional defect · void ab initio assessment · Section 148 notice · lack of jurisdiction · assessment nullity · collateral proceedings · Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan

Judgments citing Deep Chand Kothari v. CIT

M/S. ALTRADE MINERALS PVT. LIMITED,ROURKELA vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE, SAMBALPUR, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 65/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt /S. Altrade Minerals Pvt Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Ltd., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Income Tax, Central Circle, Income Tax, Central Circle, C.A., C.A., Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Sambalpur Market, Market, Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. No.Aafca 7136 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…an be raised at any stage before the appellate authorities. For the above propositions reliance is placed upon the following judicial pronouncements: Sl No Citation Forum Forum 1 CIT Vs. Green World (2009) 314 ITR 81 SC Corporation 2 Deepchand Kothari (1988) 171 ITR 381 Raj.HC Vs. CIT 3 ACIT Vs. Greater (2015)397 ITR 14 Alld.HC Noida Industrial Development 4 CIT Vs. Lalitkumar (2018) 404 ITR 63 Bom.HC Bardia 5 Smt.Prabha Rani (2013) 351 ITR 275 Alld.HC Agarwal Vs. ITO P a g e 19 | 63 ITA No.65/CTK /2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (5.2.1).Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'CIT Vs. Green World Corporation (s…

SMT. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL),, NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 1123/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 253Section 263

…/PUN./2018 Others Vs. Chaman Paswan and Others holding that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity which could always be challenged in execution proceedings as well. The assessee further placed reliance on Deep Chand Kothari Vs. CIT 1988 171 ITR 381 (Raj.) that such basic principles of civil jurisprudence apply in tax proceedings. We hold in view of foregoing list of precedents that defect in primary proceedings strikes at the very authority in collateral exercise which is not curable by consent of the parties. We accordingly conclude that the assessee before us is very much entitled to chal…

BALMUKUND M VAISHNAV,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT

ITA 205/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Surat. 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.205/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Surat. Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 69C

…he provisions of sec. 124(3) were also referred to. It was held that when the notice was not issued by the competent authority, i.e., an Assessing Officer having jurisdiction, then the assessment is a nullity. 8.18 In the case of Deepchand Kothari reported in 171 ITR 381(Raj) it was held that the Assessing Officer who was having no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings then such proceedings are ab-intio- void. Further the Hon'ble High Court relying on the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, it was held that the Jurisdictional issue can be taken up at any stage of…

KAILASH CHAND YADAV,100, KALU BABA KI DHANI, SHEOSHINGHPUR, AKODA, PHULERA-303338 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD - 1(2), JAIPUR

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

ITA 82/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

…d also it was never served on the assessee. In the circumstances it submitted that in the absence of valid service of notice u/s 148 the assessment so completed is ab-initio void. The following case laws are quoted in support: - (i) Deep Chand Kothari Vs. CIT 171 ITR 381 (Raj. HC) It is a fundamental principle well established that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary o…

SHRI SHANTINATH BHAGWAN JAIN SHWETAMBAR MURTIPUJAK SANGH,PUNE vs. CIT, EXEMPTION,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 203/PUN/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 263

…Singh and Others Vs. Chaman Paswan and Others holding that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity which could always be challenged in execution proceedings as well. The assessee further placed reliance on Deep Chand Kothari Vs. CIT 1988 171 ITR 381 (Raj.) that such basic principles of civil jurisprudence apply in tax proceedings. We hold in view of foregoing list of precedents that defect in primary proceedings strikes at the very authority in collateral exercise which is not curable by consent of the parties. We accordingly conclude that the assessee before us is very much entitled to chal…

D.USHA REDDY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 602/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.602/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) D Usha Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer 312 Mvv Mk Royal Gardens Ward 1(4) Waltair Uplands Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Acppd9238E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.P.G.Mudaliar, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…he provisions of sec. 12 4(3) were also referred to. It was held that when the notice was not issued by the competent authority, i.e an Assessing Officer having jurisdiction, then the assessment is a nullity. 8.18. In the case of Deepchand Kothari reported in 171 ITR 381 (Raj) it was held that the Assessing Officer who was having no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings then such proceedings are ab-intio- void. Further the Hon'ble High Court relying on the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Singh Vs Chaman Paswan, it was held that the Jurisdictional issue can be taken up at any stage o…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JABALPUR vs. SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR RAWAT, JABALPUR

ITA 63/JAB/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. DR
Section 269Section 269SSection 271D

…nals’ record. 5. We, accordingly, hold as under: a). the penalty u/s. 271D, though not time barred, is not maintainable in the absence of the necessary jurisdiction (see: Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki Ltd. [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC); Deep Chand Kothari v. CIT [1988] 171 ITR 381 (Raj)). b). the penalty levied is for the default specified u/s. 269-T, and though merited on the whole sum and, in any case, part thereof, is not sustainable in the absence of any penalty having been initiated or levied u/s. 271-E. 6. We, in view of the foregoing, vacate the findings by the ld. CIT(A), and hold both the initiation and levy of pe…

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 885/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Milind JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Shivraj B. Moray
Section 194CSection 263

…Singh and Others Vs. Chaman Paswan and Others holding that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity which could always be challenged in execution proceedings as well. The assessee further placed reliance on Deep Chand Kothari Vs. CIT 1988 171 ITR 381 (Raj.) that such basic principles of civil jurisprudence apply in tax proceedings. We hold in view of foregoing list of precedents that defect in primary proceedings strikes at the very authority in collateral exercise which is not curable by consent of the parties. We accordingly conclude that the assessee before us is very much entitled to chal…

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 884/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Milind JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Shivraj B. Moray
Section 194CSection 263

…Singh and Others Vs. Chaman Paswan and Others holding that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity which could always be challenged in execution proceedings as well. The assessee further placed reliance on Deep Chand Kothari Vs. CIT 1988 171 ITR 381 (Raj.) that such basic principles of civil jurisprudence apply in tax proceedings. We hold in view of foregoing list of precedents that defect in primary proceedings strikes at the very authority in collateral exercise which is not curable by consent of the parties. We accordingly conclude that the assessee before us is very much entitled to chal…

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 883/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Milind JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Shivraj B. Moray
Section 194CSection 263

…Singh and Others Vs. Chaman Paswan and Others holding that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity which could always be challenged in execution proceedings as well. The assessee further placed reliance on Deep Chand Kothari Vs. CIT 1988 171 ITR 381 (Raj.) that such basic principles of civil jurisprudence apply in tax proceedings. We hold in view of foregoing list of precedents that defect in primary proceedings strikes at the very authority in collateral exercise which is not curable by consent of the parties. We accordingly conclude that the assessee before us is very much entitled to chal…

M/S EVERSAFE SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-5(3), KOLKATA

ITA 604/KOL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 292BSection 68

…the provisions of sec. 124(3) were also referred to. It was held that when the notice was not issued by the competent authority, i.e an Assessing Officer having jurisdiction, then the assessment is a nullity. 8.18. In the case of Deepchand Kothari reported in 171 ITR 381(Raj) it was held that the Assessing Officer who was having no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings then such proceedings are ab-intio- void. Further the Hon'ble High Court relying on the Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kiran Singh Vs Chaman Paswan, it was held that the Jurisdictional issue can be taken up at any stage of…

DIPTI SAHANA ,HOOGHLY vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-23(1), HOOGHLY

ITA 2203/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2015-16 Sanat Kumar Sahana………………….………........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates “Seben Brothers’ Lodge” P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly West Bengal – 712 105 [Pan : Alaps 5590 C] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-23(1), Hooghly…………….............….……....…....Respondent Assessment Years: 2015-16 Dipti Kumar Sahana………………….………........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates “Seben Brothers’ Lodge” P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly West Bengal – 712 105 [Pan : Awhps 6428 P] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-23(1), Hooghly…………….............….……....…....Respondent

Section 2Section 250

…i Kumar Sahana competent authority, i.e an Assess competent authority, i.e an Assessing Officer having jurisdiction, then the assessment is a ing Officer having jurisdiction, then the assessment is a nullity. 8.18. In the case of Deepchand Kothari reported in 171 ITR 381(Raj) it was held that In the case of Deepchand Kothari reported in 171 ITR 381(Raj) it was held that In the case of Deepchand Kothari reported in 171 ITR 381(Raj) it was held that the Assessing Officer who was having no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings then such the Assessing Officer who was having no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedi…

SANAT KUMAR SAHANA ,HOOGHLY vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-23(1), HOOGHLY

ITA 2202/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble) Assessment Years: 2015-16 Sanat Kumar Sahana………………….………........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates “Seben Brothers’ Lodge” P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly West Bengal – 712 105 [Pan : Alaps 5590 C] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-23(1), Hooghly…………….............….……....…....Respondent Assessment Years: 2015-16 Dipti Kumar Sahana………………….………........................................................……………….…......Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates “Seben Brothers’ Lodge” P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly West Bengal – 712 105 [Pan : Awhps 6428 P] Vs. Asst. Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-23(1), Hooghly…………….............….……....…....Respondent

Section 2Section 250

…i Kumar Sahana competent authority, i.e an Assess competent authority, i.e an Assessing Officer having jurisdiction, then the assessment is a ing Officer having jurisdiction, then the assessment is a nullity. 8.18. In the case of Deepchand Kothari reported in 171 ITR 381(Raj) it was held that In the case of Deepchand Kothari reported in 171 ITR 381(Raj) it was held that In the case of Deepchand Kothari reported in 171 ITR 381(Raj) it was held that the Assessing Officer who was having no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings then such the Assessing Officer who was having no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedi…

K.A.WIRES LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-8(3), KOLKATA

ITA 1149/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2012-13 K.A. Wires Ltd...………………………………………………………..................................……………..….......Appellant Chatterjee Intl Centre 11Th Floor Room No. 11 33A, Chowringhee Road Kolkata – 700 071 [Pan : Aadck 7401 M] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 8(3), Kolkata…..…................................................….…….....…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Adovate & Shri N.P. Jain, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R & Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 4Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 22Nd, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 23/04/2019, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Zinc Manufacturing. It Filed Its Return Of Income Electronically For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 07/09/2012 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.(-)Rs.37,99,257/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 30/03/2015 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.1,02,00,743/- Interalia Making An Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Being Share Capital & Share Premium Received By The Company From Three (3) Associate Companies. Out Of This Rs,1,40,00,000/- Addition, The Assessing Officer States That A Protective Addition Of Rs.40,00,000/- Is Made In The Hands Of The Intermediary Companies. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal Without Success. The Ld. First Appellate Authority, Upheld The Order Of The Assessing Officer. 3. Further Aggrieved, The Assessee Is Before Us.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…at when the notice was not issued by the competent authority, i.e the competent authority, i.e an Assessing Officer having jurisdiction Assessing Officer having jurisdiction, then the assessment is a nullity. 8.18. In the case of Deepchand Kothari reported in 171 ITR 381(Raj) Deepchand Kothari reported in 171 ITR 381(Raj) Deepchand Kothari reported in 171 ITR 381(Raj) it was held that the Assessing Officer who was having no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings the Assessing Officer who was having no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings the Assessing Officer who was having no jurisdiction to initiate the p…

RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1763/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvoateFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…Tamil Nadu [1994] 92 STC 631 (Mad.), Zakir Hussain vs CIT: 202 CTR 40 (Raj.), Shilpa Associates vs ITO 181 CTR 92 (Raj)], KC Khajanchi vs. ITAT (Civil Writ No. 2164/99), Jindal polyester & steel Ltd vs. DCIT (ITA No. 3044/Del/97), Deep Chand Kothari vs CIT : 171 ITR 381 (Raj.). Thus it was submitted that the additional ground raised must be admitted. 5. The learned departmental representative vehemently objected to the admission of the additional ground and submitted that same should not be admitted as it was never raised before the lower authorities. 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and fo…

M/S RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 1881/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: PendingITAT Delhi10 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr AdvoateFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…Tamil Nadu [1994] 92 STC 631 (Mad.), Zakir Hussain vs CIT: 202 CTR 40 (Raj.), Shilpa Associates vs ITO 181 CTR 92 (Raj)], KC Khajanchi vs. ITAT (Civil Writ No. 2164/99), Jindal polyester & steel Ltd vs. DCIT (ITA No. 3044/Del/97), Deep Chand Kothari vs CIT : 171 ITR 381 (Raj.). Thus it was submitted that the additional ground raised must be admitted. 5. The learned departmental representative vehemently objected to the admission of the additional ground and submitted that same should not be admitted as it was never raised before the lower authorities. 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and fo…

SHRI CHAND KHAN PHADAN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(5), JAIPUR

ITA 380/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)
Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH ’SMC’, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 380/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10. cuke Shri Chand Khan Phadan Income Tax Officer, Vs. C/o G.Mehta & Co., Ward 3(5), “PARAS” Jaipur. 127, Hari Marg, Civil Lines, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AHGPP 8238 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri G.M. Mehta (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT) lquokbZ dh…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1434/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ed income as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld AR has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Tidewater Marine International Inc V DCIT Spl. Range Dehradun 96 ITD 406 (Delhi). (ii) Deep Chand Kothari V. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 381 (Raj (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 290 CTR 263 (iv) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd [2017] 397 ITR 82 The ld. AR has submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that statements recorded U/s 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating materi…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA vs. SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1432/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ed income as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld AR has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Tidewater Marine International Inc V DCIT Spl. Range Dehradun 96 ITD 406 (Delhi). (ii) Deep Chand Kothari V. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 381 (Raj (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 290 CTR 263 (iv) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd [2017] 397 ITR 82 The ld. AR has submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that statements recorded U/s 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating materi…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1430/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta(CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

…ed income as concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld AR has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Tidewater Marine International Inc V DCIT Spl. Range Dehradun 96 ITD 406 (Delhi). (ii) Deep Chand Kothari V. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 381 (Raj (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal (2016) 290 CTR 263 (iv) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd [2017] 397 ITR 82 The ld. AR has submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that statements recorded U/s 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating materi…

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

Deep Chand Kothari v. CIT (171 ITR 381) — Cited in 29 Judgments | BharatTax