Dhadha Exports v. ITO

377 ITR 347High Court2015#5894 most cited
20

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 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 147(1)section 116section 151(1)section 151(2)beyond four yearswithin four yearssanctioning authoritysection 292bsection 149(1)(b)section 10binterest u/s 234achief commissioner

Judgments citing Dhadha Exports v. ITO

NIRAJ,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(1), BULANDSHAHR

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

ITA 3308/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Niraj Vs. Ito H.No.30, Satvara Debai Ward- 2 (3) (1) Bulandshahr 202392 Delhi Pan No.Apdpn7627J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Subhash Singhal, Ca Revenue By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2025

Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 292

…ITR 158 (All);. Reliable Finhold Ltd vs UOI 369 ITR 419 (All) 400/ITR/397 Chhattisgarh and Rohit Kumar vs ITO W.P.(c) 2830/2022 order dt 15/01/2025 Delhi High Court etc. 2. The above defect in issuing 148 notice is not curable u/s 2928-Dhadda Exports vs ITO 377 ITR 347 (Raj). Kindly quash the notice and consequential reassessment order. 3. 148A(b) notice must give at least 7days clear time to tax-payer to respond. Notice dt 22/03/2022 was prescribed to be responded by 29/03/2022 and the notice as per AO was sent by speed post. It must have been delivered at least 3days later giving merely 2-3 days time to resp…

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX.) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 862/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

…cise appears to have been ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful, which was rationale for safeguard of approval by higher ranking officer—Revenue’s appeal dismissed. Also refer the decision of Honble Raj High Court in the case of Dhadha Exports V/s ITO 377 ITR 347(Raj.) 3. Notice u/s 148A(b), 148A(d) and 148 not served on assessee: Further the u/s 148A(b)dt. 17.03.2022, 148A(d) and 148 dt.26.03.2022 have never been served either on the assessee any mode. On perusal of the Notice u/s 148 and e-proceedings (PB 7-8) it is clear that the same have not been sent on any email as there is no mentioning of any ema…

KOSHAL KISHOR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT(INTL. TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 861/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT-DR
Section 147Section 148ASection 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

…cise appears to have been ritualistic and formal rather than meaningful, which was rationale for safeguard of approval by higher ranking officer—Revenue’s appeal dismissed. Also refer the decision of Honble Raj High Court in the case of Dhadha Exports V/s ITO 377 ITR 347(Raj.) 3. Notice u/s 148A(b), 148A(d) and 148 not served on assessee: Further the u/s 148A(b)dt. 17.03.2022, 148A(d) and 148 dt.26.03.2022 have never been served either on the assessee any mode. On perusal of the Notice u/s 148 and e-proceedings (PB 7-8) it is clear that the same have not been sent on any email as there is no mentioning of any ema…

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1320/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 151ASection 153CSection 68

…o this mandatory condition making both these notices (APB 5 and 16) as issued without proper sanction and hence are illegal. Reliance is also placed on the judgement of the Hon`ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Dhadda Exports v/s ITO, Ward 1(1), Jaipur (377 ITR 347) wherein the Hon`ble Court was dealing with a situation wherein the sanction for issuance of notice u/s 148 was taken from JCIT in place of CIT/CCIT and on such irregularity the Hon`ble Court quashed the notice u/s 148 and the assessment order passed in consequence thereto and also further held that such defect is not curable u/s 292B of the Inco…

KUBIX REALTIES LLP,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -14 PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1260/PUN/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1260/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 292BSection 3

…issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act in the instant case is bad in law. 12. Further, such defect is not curable under the provisions of section 292B of the Act as held by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Dhadda Exports and ITO and Another (2015 377 ITR 347 (Raj.). The relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced below : “In the opinion of this court also, resort to section 292B of the Income-tax Act cannot be made to validate an action, which has been rendered illegal due to breach of mandatory condition of the sanction on satisfaction of the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner under the pr…

SUVA LAL PAHARIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR

ITA 157/JPR/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 144Section 147Section 5

…2024 Suva lal Paharia vs. ITO The action of the ld. AO shows gross breach violation of the specific provision of aec. 151 of the IT Act. On this preposition kindly refer direct decision of the Honble Raj. High Court judgments in case of Dhadha Exports V/s ITO 377 ITR 347(Raj.)wherein it has been held “Dispute pertains to assessment year 2007-08. The notice under Section 148 of the IT Act has been issued to the petitioner-assessee beyond expiry of four years after the end of the relevant assessment year. Proviso to Section 151 (1) of the IT Act in this connection stipulated at the relevant time that no such notic…

TEJPRAKASH BHANWAR LAL MEHTA,U vs. ITO WARD 1(4), UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

ITA 16/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur15 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 13 To 14/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Preeti Naveen Mehta, 118, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hotel, Aashish Palace Ki Gali Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Aixpm5948A] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 15 To 16/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Tej Prakash Bahnwar Lal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mehta, 118, Hotel, Aashish Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Palace Ki Gali Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Agnpm0758N] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15 .12.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 68

…question was raised that whether the mistake is curable U/s 292B of the Act. The reply is against the revenue. The order was delivered by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of M/S Dhadda Exports Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Jaipur, [2015] 377 ITR 347 (Raj) I.T.A. Nos. 13 to 14/Jodh/2022 & I.T.A. Nos. 15 to 16/Jodh/2022 9 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2012-13 “The objection to show cause-notice under Section 148 of the IT Act has been rejected by the Income Tax Officer by impugned order dated 15.01.2015 citing, apart from various reasons, also the reason that required sanction of Commissioner…

TEJPRAKASH BAHNWAR LAL MEHTA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(4) UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

ITA 15/JODH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 13 To 14/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Preeti Naveen Mehta, 118, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hotel, Aashish Palace Ki Gali Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Aixpm5948A] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 15 To 16/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Tej Prakash Bahnwar Lal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mehta, 118, Hotel, Aashish Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Palace Ki Gali Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Agnpm0758N] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15 .12.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 68

…question was raised that whether the mistake is curable U/s 292B of the Act. The reply is against the revenue. The order was delivered by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of M/S Dhadda Exports Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Jaipur, [2015] 377 ITR 347 (Raj) I.T.A. Nos. 13 to 14/Jodh/2022 & I.T.A. Nos. 15 to 16/Jodh/2022 9 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2012-13 “The objection to show cause-notice under Section 148 of the IT Act has been rejected by the Income Tax Officer by impugned order dated 15.01.2015 citing, apart from various reasons, also the reason that required sanction of Commissioner…

PREETI NAVEEN MEHTA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4) UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

ITA 14/JODH/2022[2021-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur15 Dec 2023AY 2021-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 13 To 14/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Preeti Naveen Mehta, 118, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hotel, Aashish Palace Ki Gali Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Aixpm5948A] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 15 To 16/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Tej Prakash Bahnwar Lal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mehta, 118, Hotel, Aashish Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Palace Ki Gali Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Agnpm0758N] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15 .12.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 68

…question was raised that whether the mistake is curable U/s 292B of the Act. The reply is against the revenue. The order was delivered by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of M/S Dhadda Exports Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Jaipur, [2015] 377 ITR 347 (Raj) I.T.A. Nos. 13 to 14/Jodh/2022 & I.T.A. Nos. 15 to 16/Jodh/2022 9 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2012-13 “The objection to show cause-notice under Section 148 of the IT Act has been rejected by the Income Tax Officer by impugned order dated 15.01.2015 citing, apart from various reasons, also the reason that required sanction of Commissioner…

PREETI NAVEEN MEHTA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4) UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees bearing ITA Nos

ITA 13/JODH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. Nos. 13 To 14/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Preeti Naveen Mehta, 118, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hotel, Aashish Palace Ki Gali Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Aixpm5948A] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A. Nos. 15 To 16/Jodh/2022 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2012-13 Tej Prakash Bahnwar Lal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mehta, 118, Hotel, Aashish Ward-1(4), Udaipur. Palace Ki Gali Chetak Marg, Udaipur, Raj. [Pan: Agnpm0758N] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15 .12.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 250Section 68

…question was raised that whether the mistake is curable U/s 292B of the Act. The reply is against the revenue. The order was delivered by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of M/S Dhadda Exports Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1), Jaipur, [2015] 377 ITR 347 (Raj) I.T.A. Nos. 13 to 14/Jodh/2022 & I.T.A. Nos. 15 to 16/Jodh/2022 9 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2012-13 “The objection to show cause-notice under Section 148 of the IT Act has been rejected by the Income Tax Officer by impugned order dated 15.01.2015 citing, apart from various reasons, also the reason that required sanction of Commissioner…

SHRI SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 869/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 69A

…3.2013 and the notice u/s 148 has been issued on dt. 24.03.2015 vide page 1 para 2 of the assessment order. Also vide copy of reasons recorded (PB1-3) and approval u/s 151 (PB7-8). He relied on the following judicial pronouncements: i. Dhadha Exports V/s ITO 377 ITR 347(Raj.) ii. Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. SPL's Siddhartha Limited iii. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v/s ACIT 346 ITR 443(Bom.) iv. CIT V/s SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd 345 ITR 223(Del). v. CIT vs. Soyuz Industrial Resources Ltd.(2015) 232 TAXMAN 0414 (Delhi HC) vi. Pr. CIT vs. N.C. CABLES LTD.(2017) 98 CCH 0018 Del HC 2. No Satisfaction or application of min…

SHRI SATYA NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 867/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 69A

…3.2013 and the notice u/s 148 has been issued on dt. 24.03.2015 vide page 1 para 2 of the assessment order. Also vide copy of reasons recorded (PB1-3) and approval u/s 151 (PB7-8). He relied on the following judicial pronouncements: i. Dhadha Exports V/s ITO 377 ITR 347(Raj.) ii. Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. SPL's Siddhartha Limited iii. Ghanshyam K. Khabrani v/s ACIT 346 ITR 443(Bom.) iv. CIT V/s SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd 345 ITR 223(Del). v. CIT vs. Soyuz Industrial Resources Ltd.(2015) 232 TAXMAN 0414 (Delhi HC) vi. Pr. CIT vs. N.C. CABLES LTD.(2017) 98 CCH 0018 Del HC 2. No Satisfaction or application of min…

BHIRYANI DADLANI SALES AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3304/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 3303/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2007-08) आअसं. 3304/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2008-09) Bhiryani Dadlani Sales Agencies Pvt. Ltd, Shop Nos.10-11, Kenwood Apartment Chs Ltd., Dr.Ambedkar Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai 400 050 Pan: Aabcb 7448M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito- Ward 12(1)(3) Room No.145A, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151

…ssioner, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Principal CIT or CIT is required. In support of this argument the ld. AR of the assessee placed reliance on following decisions: i. Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors.,179 ITR 603(SC); ii. Dhadda Exports v. ITO, 377 ITR 347 (Raj.); iii. Hindustan Lever ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar, 268 ITR 332 (Bom.); iv. East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. DCIT & ORS. 204 ITR 435 (Cal.) 2.2. The second objection of the assessee is that the assessment has been framed without issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee placed reliance on following decisions to support…

BHIRYANI DADLANI SALES AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3303/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 3303/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2007-08) आअसं. 3304/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2008-09) Bhiryani Dadlani Sales Agencies Pvt. Ltd, Shop Nos.10-11, Kenwood Apartment Chs Ltd., Dr.Ambedkar Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai 400 050 Pan: Aabcb 7448M ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito- Ward 12(1)(3) Room No.145A, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151

…ssioner, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Principal CIT or CIT is required. In support of this argument the ld. AR of the assessee placed reliance on following decisions: i. Chhugamal Rajpal vs. S.P. Chaliha & Ors.,179 ITR 603(SC); ii. Dhadda Exports v. ITO, 377 ITR 347 (Raj.); iii. Hindustan Lever ltd. vs. R.B. Wadkar, 268 ITR 332 (Bom.); iv. East India Hotels Ltd. Vs. DCIT & ORS. 204 ITR 435 (Cal.) 2.2. The second objection of the assessee is that the assessment has been framed without issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee placed reliance on following decisions to support…

M/S. MARBLE ART,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2480/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…T [2012] 346 ITR 443 (BOM) . 6 DSJ Communication DCIT CIT Addl. CIT Ltd. v. DCIT [2014] 41 taxmann.com 151 (Bombay) . 7 CIT vs. Gee Kay DCIT No CIT Finance & Leasing Co. approv Ltd ITA 935/2009 al dated 08.02.2018 . 8 Dhadda Exports v. ITO ITO JCIT CIT [2015] 377 ITR 347 (Rajasthan) . 9 Reliable Finhold Ltd. v. ITO - CIT Union of India [2014] 369 ITR 419 (Allahabad) 10 ITO v. Bhavesh Kumar ACIT JCIT CCIT / CIT [2011] 140 TTJ 257 (Agra) 16.2 It is seen that in the case of CIT vs. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd [2012] 345 ITR 223 (Delhi), wherein approval was taken by the AO from superior authority i.e. 33 ITA.Nos.2478 to…

M/S. MARBLE ART,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2479/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…T [2012] 346 ITR 443 (BOM) . 6 DSJ Communication DCIT CIT Addl. CIT Ltd. v. DCIT [2014] 41 taxmann.com 151 (Bombay) . 7 CIT vs. Gee Kay DCIT No CIT Finance & Leasing Co. approv Ltd ITA 935/2009 al dated 08.02.2018 . 8 Dhadda Exports v. ITO ITO JCIT CIT [2015] 377 ITR 347 (Rajasthan) . 9 Reliable Finhold Ltd. v. ITO - CIT Union of India [2014] 369 ITR 419 (Allahabad) 10 ITO v. Bhavesh Kumar ACIT JCIT CCIT / CIT [2011] 140 TTJ 257 (Agra) 16.2 It is seen that in the case of CIT vs. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd [2012] 345 ITR 223 (Delhi), wherein approval was taken by the AO from superior authority i.e. 33 ITA.Nos.2478 to…

M/S. MARBLE ART,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2478/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…T [2012] 346 ITR 443 (BOM) . 6 DSJ Communication DCIT CIT Addl. CIT Ltd. v. DCIT [2014] 41 taxmann.com 151 (Bombay) . 7 CIT vs. Gee Kay DCIT No CIT Finance & Leasing Co. approv Ltd ITA 935/2009 al dated 08.02.2018 . 8 Dhadda Exports v. ITO ITO JCIT CIT [2015] 377 ITR 347 (Rajasthan) . 9 Reliable Finhold Ltd. v. ITO - CIT Union of India [2014] 369 ITR 419 (Allahabad) 10 ITO v. Bhavesh Kumar ACIT JCIT CCIT / CIT [2011] 140 TTJ 257 (Agra) 16.2 It is seen that in the case of CIT vs. SPL’s Siddhartha Ltd [2012] 345 ITR 223 (Delhi), wherein approval was taken by the AO from superior authority i.e. 33 ITA.Nos.2478 to…

ACIT-18(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. JEWELLERS NARANDAS & SONS, MUMBAI

Accordingly, we allow ground no. 1 raised by the assessee in CO. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the assessment order, we notice that Ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is only on merit, t...

ITA 1226/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1226/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit-18(1), M/S Jewellers Narandas & Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor, बिधम/ Sons, 255, Sheik Menon Earnest House, Nariman Street, Zaveri Bazar, Vs. Point, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaafj2885J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & C.O. No. 59/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/S Jewellers Narandas & Acit-18(1), Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor, बिधम/ Sons, 255, Sheik Menon Street, Zaveri Bazar, Earnest House, Nariman Vs. Mumbai-400 002 Point, Mumbai-400 002 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Kumar G. Subrahmanyam, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri K. Shivaraman, Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.12.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Vijay kumar GFor Respondent: Shri K. Shivaraman, AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…the end of relevant assessment year, the sanction has to be from the PCIT or Commissioner. For this proposition, he relied on the decision in 17 I.T.A. No. 1226/Mum/2018 & CO 59/Mum/2019 M/s Jewellers Narandas & Sons the case of Dhadda Exports vrs. ITO (2015) 377 ITR 347 (Raj – HC) and Ghanshyam K. Khabrani vrs. ACIT (2012) 346 ITR 443 (Bom HC). He further submitted that even though Ld. CIT(A) has verified this issue as well, but not adjudicated on the issue of jurisdiction. 12. In rejoinder, Ld. DR agreed that this issue was not adjudicated by Ld. CIT(A) and he prayed that it may be remitted back to the file of…

M/S. PIK STUDIOS P. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PIK PEN PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 6681/MUM/2018[1999-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2020AY 1999-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singh.

Section 154Section 32Section 43(1)

…er. Hence, invocation of Explanation 3 to Section 43(1) is not in accordance with law. Sanction is mandatory i. Reliable Finhold Ltd. vs. UOI (2014) 369 ITR 419 (A11.)(HC)(423) No Sanction was obtained order was bad in law. ii. Dhadda Exports vs. ITO (2015) 377 ITR 347 (Raj.)(HC) (353) Failure to obtain sanction is not a curable defect u/s. 292B, hence notice is invalid. iii. Jaswant Sugar Mills vs. I..T.C. (1973) Tax LR 1336 (A11.)(HC) Brief Note - (C) unless the I.T.O. after giving the assesse an opportunity to establish the genuineness of the transfer, was objectively satisfied that the ITA No.2470/Mum/2017…

ASHOK BALDEVBHAI PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 16(2), MUMBAI

In the result, ground No.2 of the

ITA 787/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhashok Baldevbhai Patel Acit- 16(2), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir 133, Enterprises Apartments, Forjett Hill Road, Tardeo, Vs. Building, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400036. Mumbai-400007. Pan: Agipp8800B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah (Ar) Respondent By : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh; 1. The Instant Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 68

…R 332] and Morarjee Goculdas Spinning And Weaving Co Ltd Vs P.N. Bansal & Another [208 ITR 471], Mumbai Tribunal in Vaman International Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT [ITA No. 1040 & 1041/Mum/2017] dated 27.09.2017, Rajasthan High Court in case of Dhadda Exports Vs ITO [377 ITR 347], Allahabad High Court in case of Dr. Shashi Kant Garg v. CIT & Ors [285 ITR 158], and Mumbai Tribunal in Anil Jaggi v. ACIT [ITA No. 3049 /Mum/2016] dated 20.12.2017. 5. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below. The ld. DR for the Revenue submits that the assessee fully participated in the re-ope…