Dr. Partap Singh v. Director of Enforcement

155 ITR 166Supreme Court of India1985#2226 most cited

What is Dr. Partap Singh v. Director of Enforcement authority for?

The phrase "so far as may be" in a statutory provision indicates that the referred procedures, such as those for conducting searches, are to be generally followed to the extent possible, meaning they are not mandatory in every minute detail but applied practically.

52

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Dr. Partap Singh v. Director of Enforcement · 155 ITR 166 · interpretation of "so far as may be" · Section 132 · search procedure · general compliance · extent practicable · mandatory vs optional application · Section 153 BC(b) · Section 37(2) · Section 165

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 132Section 142(1)Section 119Section 131Section 139Section 147Section 148

Issues it is cited on

illegal paymentsection 144(1)principal director general of income-taxexplanation to section 37section 65b(4)section 153a proceedingsprohibited by lawsection 147ofsection 80ib(10)jewellery found during searchsection 80a(5)section 24(a)

Judgments citing Dr. Partap Singh v. Director of Enforcement

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 955/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…partment in this connection. In case of Bhimsen Darbarlal Arora vs. ACIT, 150 taxmann.com 68, Hon’ble Jurisdictional ITAT, Surat held that:- “23. We note that Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Partap Singh v. Director of Enforcement [1985] 22 Taxman 30/155 ITR 166(SC) held that illegality of the search does not vitiate the evidence collected during such illegal search. The Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Pooran Mal ITA Nos. 953 to 955/SRT/2024 Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 to 2018-19 - 8– v. Director of Inspection [1974] 93 ITR 505 held that even though the search and…

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 954/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…partment in this connection. In case of Bhimsen Darbarlal Arora vs. ACIT, 150 taxmann.com 68, Hon’ble Jurisdictional ITAT, Surat held that:- “23. We note that Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Partap Singh v. Director of Enforcement [1985] 22 Taxman 30/155 ITR 166(SC) held that illegality of the search does not vitiate the evidence collected during such illegal search. The Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Pooran Mal ITA Nos. 953 to 955/SRT/2024 Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 to 2018-19 - 8– v. Director of Inspection [1974] 93 ITR 505 held that even though the search and…

PALAK DESIGNER DIAMOND JEWELLERY,MAHIDHARPURA SURAT vs. LD. AO, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 953/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…partment in this connection. In case of Bhimsen Darbarlal Arora vs. ACIT, 150 taxmann.com 68, Hon’ble Jurisdictional ITAT, Surat held that:- “23. We note that Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Partap Singh v. Director of Enforcement [1985] 22 Taxman 30/155 ITR 166(SC) held that illegality of the search does not vitiate the evidence collected during such illegal search. The Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Pooran Mal ITA Nos. 953 to 955/SRT/2024 Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2016-17 to 2018-19 - 8– v. Director of Inspection [1974] 93 ITR 505 held that even though the search and…

GOAL ORIENTED TRADE LINK PVT. LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2576/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 158Section 250

…be" in Section 153 BC(b), the issue of notice is not mandatory but optional and are to be applied to the extent practicable. In support of that contention, the learned counsel has relied on the observation made by this Court in Dr. Pratap Singh's case [1985] 155 ITR 166 (SC). In this 5 Goal Oriented Trade Link Pvt. Ltd. case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that "the provisions of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying out the search pro…

MANAKSIA LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4(1), , KOLKATA

ITA 470/KOL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2025AY 2010-11
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…" in Section 153 BC(b),\nthe issue of notice is not mandatory but optional and are to be applied to the extent\npracticable. In support of that contention, the learned counsel has relied on the\nobservation made by this Court in Dr. Pratap Singh's case [1985] 155 ITR 166 (SC). In\nthis case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that \"the provisions of\nthe Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under\nSection 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the\nmethodology prescribed for carrying out the search provided in Section 165 has to be\n…

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1703/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

…y the Ld. CIT(A). He also relied on the following decisions: i) Nagubai Ammal and others vs. B. Shama Rao and others (1956) SCR 451 (SC) ii) Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC) iii) Dr. Partap Singh vs. Director of Enforcement ((1985) 155 ITR 166 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Kamal & Co. (2009) 308 ITR 129 (Raj) v) Balwant Singh vs. Director of Inspection (1969) 71 ITR 550 (Del) 41. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited…

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1700/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

…y the Ld. CIT(A). He also relied on the following decisions: i) Nagubai Ammal and others vs. B. Shama Rao and others (1956) SCR 451 (SC) ii) Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC) iii) Dr. Partap Singh vs. Director of Enforcement ((1985) 155 ITR 166 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Kamal & Co. (2009) 308 ITR 129 (Raj) v) Balwant Singh vs. Director of Inspection (1969) 71 ITR 550 (Del) 41. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited…

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1699/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

…y the Ld. CIT(A). He also relied on the following decisions: i) Nagubai Ammal and others vs. B. Shama Rao and others (1956) SCR 451 (SC) ii) Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC) iii) Dr. Partap Singh vs. Director of Enforcement ((1985) 155 ITR 166 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Kamal & Co. (2009) 308 ITR 129 (Raj) v) Balwant Singh vs. Director of Inspection (1969) 71 ITR 550 (Del) 41. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited…

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1698/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

…y the Ld. CIT(A). He also relied on the following decisions: i) Nagubai Ammal and others vs. B. Shama Rao and others (1956) SCR 451 (SC) ii) Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC) iii) Dr. Partap Singh vs. Director of Enforcement ((1985) 155 ITR 166 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Kamal & Co. (2009) 308 ITR 129 (Raj) v) Balwant Singh vs. Director of Inspection (1969) 71 ITR 550 (Del) 41. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited…

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1697/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Ritu Kamal KishoreFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR And Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 131Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

…y the Ld. CIT(A). He also relied on the following decisions: i) Nagubai Ammal and others vs. B. Shama Rao and others (1956) SCR 451 (SC) ii) Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC) iii) Dr. Partap Singh vs. Director of Enforcement ((1985) 155 ITR 166 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Kamal & Co. (2009) 308 ITR 129 (Raj) v) Balwant Singh vs. Director of Inspection (1969) 71 ITR 550 (Del) 41. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, FOURTH FLOOR, J.P. BHAVAN, DAKBUNGLOW CHAURAHA, PATNA vs. TULSHYAN METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is vacated

ITA 340/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: FixedITAT Patna27 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.339&340/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1, Patna……..........................................................……….……Appellant Vs. Tulshyan Metals Pvt. Ltd…………………………...............……...…..…..Respondent 3D, Shakambari Complex, Sabji Bazar Chowk, Nagla Bihar-800008. [Pan: Aacct2904K] Appearances By: Shri Ashok Kumar Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Goel, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 27, 2024 Order Per Sanjay Awasthi: 1. The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Even Date 30.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since, The Substantive Issues Are Common In Both The Assessment Years & The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, Therefore, The Two Appeals Are Being Disposed Of Through This Single Order. 2. However, In Both The Cases, The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act Through Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Has Been In Dispute, Whereby, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Held That Since Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Not Issued For Both The Years, Following The Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Then The Subsequent Orders Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144, R.W.S 144B Of The Act Would Be Null & Void. However, For The Sake Of Record, The Grounds In Both The Cases Are Extracted As Under:

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…be" in Section 153 BC(b), the issue of notice is not mandatory but optional and are to be applied to the extent practicable. In support of that contention, the learned counsel has relied on the observation made by this Court in Dr. Pratap Singh's case [1985] 155 ITR 166 (SC). In this case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that "the provisions of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying out the search provided in Section 165 has to be genera…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, PATNA, FOURTH FLOOR, LOKNAYAK JAY PRAKASH BHAWAN, DAKBUNGLOW CHAURAHA, PATNA vs. TULSHYAN METALS PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is vacated

ITA 339/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Patna27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice- & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.339&340/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1, Patna……..........................................................……….……Appellant Vs. Tulshyan Metals Pvt. Ltd…………………………...............……...…..…..Respondent 3D, Shakambari Complex, Sabji Bazar Chowk, Nagla Bihar-800008. [Pan: Aacct2904K] Appearances By: Shri Ashok Kumar Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Goel, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 18, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 27, 2024 Order Per Sanjay Awasthi: 1. The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Even Date 30.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since, The Substantive Issues Are Common In Both The Assessment Years & The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, Therefore, The Two Appeals Are Being Disposed Of Through This Single Order. 2. However, In Both The Cases, The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act Through Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Has Been In Dispute, Whereby, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Held That Since Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Not Issued For Both The Years, Following The Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Then The Subsequent Orders Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144, R.W.S 144B Of The Act Would Be Null & Void. However, For The Sake Of Record, The Grounds In Both The Cases Are Extracted As Under:

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…be" in Section 153 BC(b), the issue of notice is not mandatory but optional and are to be applied to the extent practicable. In support of that contention, the learned counsel has relied on the observation made by this Court in Dr. Pratap Singh's case [1985] 155 ITR 166 (SC). In this case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that "the provisions of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying out the search provided in Section 165 has to be genera…

BEST CITY REALTORS INDIA PVT. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1515/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanbest City Realtors India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Cc – 06, Plot No.H-8, 1St Floor, New Delhi. Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi. (Pan : Aaccb7687B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Kapoor, Advocate Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Nimisha Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 22.12.2014 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That In Making Addition, The Ld/- Cit(A) Has Erred In Recording Adverse Findings Which Were Not Only Based On Misappreciation Of Evidence But Are Also Based On Non Existent Facts & Such Findings As Recorded Are Factually Incorrect To State That The Assessee Company Has Manipulated The Transactions With C. R. Sons Builders & Developers

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)

…be" in Section 153 BC(b), the issue of notice is not mandatory but optional and are to be applied to the extent practicable. In support of that contention, the learned counsel has relied on the observation made by this Court in Dr. Pratap Singh's case [1985] 155 ITR 166(SC). In this case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that "the provisions of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying out the search provided in Section 165 has to be general…

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

ITA 173/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Rao, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R
Section 147Section 68

…hat survey was not legal, the evidences collected are still valid and assessments based on such evidences are not vitiated. 40.1 The ld. D.R. further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. Pratap Singh and Anr. v. Director of Enforcement and Ors. (1985) 155 ITR 166 (SC) has inter-alia observed that "illegality of a search does not vitiate the evidence collected during such illegal search.” Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court again in Pooran Mal v. DIT (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC) has held that evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be rejected. Further, in CIT v. Kamal & Co. (2009…

T.G. RANGANATH,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

ITA 1467/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Rao, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R
Section 147Section 68

…hat survey was not legal, the evidences collected are still valid and assessments based on such evidences are not vitiated. 40.1 The ld. D.R. further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. Pratap Singh and Anr. v. Director of Enforcement and Ors. (1985) 155 ITR 166 (SC) has inter-alia observed that "illegality of a search does not vitiate the evidence collected during such illegal search.” Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court again in Pooran Mal v. DIT (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC) has held that evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be rejected. Further, in CIT v. Kamal & Co. (2009…

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. SRI. T.G. RANGANATH, BANGALORE

ITA 1457/BANG/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayana Rao, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sathyasai Rath, D.R
Section 147Section 68

…hat survey was not legal, the evidences collected are still valid and assessments based on such evidences are not vitiated. 40.1 The ld. D.R. further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. Pratap Singh and Anr. v. Director of Enforcement and Ors. (1985) 155 ITR 166 (SC) has inter-alia observed that "illegality of a search does not vitiate the evidence collected during such illegal search.” Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court again in Pooran Mal v. DIT (1974) 93 ITR 505 (SC) has held that evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be rejected. Further, in CIT v. Kamal & Co. (2009…

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA P LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2) (NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC 2(4)), MUMBAI

ITA 1940/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

…be" in Section 153 BC(b), the issue of notice is not mandatory but optional and are to be applied to the extent practicable. In support of that contention, the learned counsel has relied on the observation made by this Court in Dr. Pratap Singh's case [1985] 155 ITR 166(SC). In this case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that "the provisions of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying out the search provided in Section 165 has to be general…

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1880/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

…be" in Section 153 BC(b), the issue of notice is not mandatory but optional and are to be applied to the extent practicable. In support of that contention, the learned counsel has relied on the observation made by this Court in Dr. Pratap Singh's case [1985] 155 ITR 166(SC). In this case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that "the provisions of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying out the search provided in Section 165 has to be general…

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1879/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

…be" in Section 153 BC(b), the issue of notice is not mandatory but optional and are to be applied to the extent practicable. In support of that contention, the learned counsel has relied on the observation made by this Court in Dr. Pratap Singh's case [1985] 155 ITR 166(SC). In this case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that "the provisions of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying out the search provided in Section 165 has to be general…

M/S. ATUL PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.,,MIMBAI vs. DCIT- 9(1)(2), ( NOW JURIDICTION WITH DC CC-2(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1877/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 37(1)Section 43CSection 69CSection 80I

…be" in Section 153 BC(b), the issue of notice is not mandatory but optional and are to be applied to the extent practicable. In support of that contention, the learned counsel has relied on the observation made by this Court in Dr. Pratap Singh's case [1985] 155 ITR 166(SC). In this case, the Court has observed that Section 37(2) provides that "the provisions of the Code relating to searches, shall so far as may be, apply to searches directed under Section 37(2). Reading the two sections together it merely means that the methodology prescribed for carrying out the search provided in Section 165 has to be general…

Showing 1–20 of 52 · Page 1 of 3