Dr. Shiva Kant Mishra v. CIT

380 ITR 257High Court#24762 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,615 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 131Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Judgments citing Dr. Shiva Kant Mishra v. CIT

Gajanand Financial Consultancy Private Limited, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…notice under section 148 of the Act, and more so when the addition has been done on the same amount, there can be hardly any scope for branding the order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. In the case of Dr. Shiva Kanta Mishra v/s CIT, 380 ITR 257 (All.), Their Lordships have clearly opined that the Assessing Officer cannot make addition in re–assessment proceedings under the cover of “protective basis”. Protective assessment could only be made at the stage where there was any doubt or dispute about the assessability of 32 Gajanand Financial Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.126/Nag./2025 a pa…

Joginder Dahiya, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 3398/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

…d that similar view has been taken by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Juliet Industries Ltd., vide ITA No.5452/M/2016, order dated 4th April, 2018 for A.Y. 2009-10. He also relied on the following decisions:- i) Dr. Shiva Kant Mishra vs. CIT, 380 ITR 257 (All); and ii) M/s PVP Ventures Limitedm 65 Taxmann.com 221 (Madras High Court) 10. He submitted that identical facts are involved in the case of Joginder Dahiya. However, in the case of Raj Bala, there is an additional fact that officer recording reasons i.e., DCIT, Circle 2(1), New Delhi, who happened to issue notice u/s 148 and record reasons…

Smt. Raj Bala, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 3396/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

…d that similar view has been taken by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Juliet Industries Ltd., vide ITA No.5452/M/2016, order dated 4th April, 2018 for A.Y. 2009-10. He also relied on the following decisions:- i) Dr. Shiva Kant Mishra vs. CIT, 380 ITR 257 (All); and ii) M/s PVP Ventures Limitedm 65 Taxmann.com 221 (Madras High Court) 10. He submitted that identical facts are involved in the case of Joginder Dahiya. However, in the case of Raj Bala, there is an additional fact that officer recording reasons i.e., DCIT, Circle 2(1), New Delhi, who happened to issue notice u/s 148 and record reasons…

Dr. Shiva Kant Mishra v. CIT (380 ITR 257) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax