Dr. K.C. Verma v. ACIT

84 ITD 33Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2003#16165 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Judgments citing Dr. K.C. Verma v. ACIT

Jugal Kishore Parwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 286/JPR/2022[1986-87]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 1986-87
For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273(2)(b)Section 282

…s of the assessee nor did he mention in his report or in the affidavit filed by him that he personally knew the place of business of the assessee. The Supreme Court held that the service of notice was not in accordance with law. Dr. K.C. Verma v. ACIT; (2003) 84 ITD 33 (Delhi bench of ITAT) PB 61-66), relevant para 8-10; In this case, the notice was issued and served on the same day. It was held that the alleged service of notice was not in accordance with law. Facts of the case do not point out that any effort was made to find out the whereabout of the assessee. There is also no report to the effect that assesse…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(1)., Hyderabad vs. Sridhar Reddy Jagan Nagari Satya., Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed”

ITA 1347/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Sridhar Reddy Jagan Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Nagari Satya, Circle 15(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2012-13 A.C.I.T. Vs. Sridhar Reddy Jagan Circle 15(1) Nagari Satya, Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan, Ca Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The 2Nd One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27.3.2017 Cit (A)-7, Hyderabad Relating To The A.Y 2012-13. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…19A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the notice sent by registered post ought to have been sent along with acknowledgement due but admittedly it was not sent along with acknowledgement due. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dr. K.C. Verma vs ACIT 84 ITD 33 (Delhi) held as follows "Section 282 provides the manner in which a valid service can be affected. According to this section, a notice under the Act is to be served either by post or as if it was summon under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the present case, admittedly, notice was never sent by post. So the question arises whether the service…

Sridhar Reddy Jagan Nagari Satya., Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-15(1)., Hyderabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed”

ITA 1248/HYD/2017[A.Y- 2012-13,]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jul 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year:2012-13 Sridhar Reddy Jagan Vs. Dy. C.I.T. Nagari Satya, Circle 15(1) Secunderabad Hyderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2012-13 A.C.I.T. Vs. Sridhar Reddy Jagan Circle 15(1) Nagari Satya, Hyderabad Secunderabad Pan:Adapj3782D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Murali Mohan, Ca Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 08/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The 2Nd One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 27.3.2017 Cit (A)-7, Hyderabad Relating To The A.Y 2012-13. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…19A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the notice sent by registered post ought to have been sent along with acknowledgement due but admittedly it was not sent along with acknowledgement due. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dr. K.C. Verma vs ACIT 84 ITD 33 (Delhi) held as follows "Section 282 provides the manner in which a valid service can be affected. According to this section, a notice under the Act is to be served either by post or as if it was summon under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the present case, admittedly, notice was never sent by post. So the question arises whether the service…

Sh. Dhirendra Nath Trivedy, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 319/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2011-12 Sh. Dhirendra Nath Trivedy, Dcit, Circle-1, C-4014, Gaur Green City, Vs. Ghaziabad Vaibhav Kahdn, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh (Pan: Accpt8767F) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv, ShFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC-3”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. : 2011-12 SH. DHIRENDRA NATH TRIVEDY, DCIT, CIRCLE-1, C-4014, GAUR GREEN CITY, VS. GHAZIABAD VAIBHAV KAHDN, INDIRAPURAM, GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH (PAN: ACCPT8767F) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv, Sh. Sailesh Gupta, CA Department by : Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER The Assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 22/10/2015 passed by the Ld. Commis…

Sumanglam Sewa Awam Educational Samiti, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1468/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…19A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the notice sent by registered post ought to have been sent along with acknowledgement due but admittedly it was not sent along with acknowledgement due. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dr. K.C. Verma vs ACIT 84 ITD 33 (Delhi) held as follows :- “Section 282 provides the manner in which a valid service can be affected. According to this section, a notice under the Act is to be served either by post or as if it was summon under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the present case, admittedly, notice was never sent by post. So the question arises whether the ser…

Sumanglam Sewa Awam Educational Samiti, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1467/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…19A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the notice sent by registered post ought to have been sent along with acknowledgement due but admittedly it was not sent along with acknowledgement due. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dr. K.C. Verma vs ACIT 84 ITD 33 (Delhi) held as follows :- “Section 282 provides the manner in which a valid service can be affected. According to this section, a notice under the Act is to be served either by post or as if it was summon under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the present case, admittedly, notice was never sent by post. So the question arises whether the ser…

Dr. K.C. Verma v. ACIT (84 ITD 33) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax