How many judgments cite Guduthur Bros. v. Income-Tax Officer?

75 judgments on BharatTax cite Guduthur Bros. v. Income-Tax Officer (40 ITR 298), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Guduthur Bros. v. Income-Tax Officer come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 153A, Section 153D, Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 147, Section 153C.

Guduthur Bros. v. Income-Tax Officer

40 ITR 298Supreme Court of India1960#1509 most cited

What is Guduthur Bros. v. Income-Tax Officer authority for?

An illegality occurring after assessment proceedings have been lawfully initiated does not nullify the entire proceedings; instead, the proceedings are restored to the stage where the illegality occurred.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Guduthur Bros v. Income-Tax Officer · 40 ITR 298 · SC · illegality in proceedings · nullity of assessment · restoration of proceedings · section 274(2) · JCIT approval

Sections most often in play

Section 153A Section 153D Section 143(3)Section 148 Section 147 Section 153C Section 144A Section 40A(3)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 274(2)section 243 section 245ha casus omissus section 245c settlement application section 245d(4)section 153(4)section 153(a)section 255(4)section 144a section 144ba

Judgments citing Guduthur Bros. v. Income-Tax Officer

Saurabh Singhai L/H Late Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain, Sagar vs. Income Tax Officer-3 Sagar, Sagar

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5/JAB/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon‟Ble

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 263

…nd heard in the matter, i.e., restored to the stage where the irregularity occurred, inasmuch as the notice u/s. 263 remains uncompiled with, 8 Saurabh Singhai v. ITO as indeed to satisfy the mandate of audi alterm partem (see: Guduthur Brother vs. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC); Estate of Late Rangalal Jajodia (supra); Sptd. Of Excise v. Pratap Rai [1978] 114 ITR 231 (SC)), case law on which is again legion. Two, we may clarify that even as we regard the notice u/s. 263 as served, the same finding is not, in the absence of any positive material in the file folder of the revision proceedings in its respect, extended…

Aggressive Digital Systems Private Limited, Haryana vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 874/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 874/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Aggressive Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Plot No. 596-597, Sector-8, Imt Ward-1(1), Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana-122050 Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanca7751J Assessee By : Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.01.2022

For Appellant: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anand Kumar Kedia, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…y courts that where AO's investigations is not complete matter should be remanded. It is the duty of appellate authorities to correct the lacune in orders of authorities below and is required to remit the issue to the AO. KAPURCHAND SRIMAL: 131 ITR 451 (SC), 40 ITR 298 (SC) Guduthur Bro vs ITO 9. In the written submission the assessee has stated that the product profile of the assessee is different and therefore some of the comparables introduced by the AO should be rejected on the ground of functional difference. This issue has been dealt by Hon. DRP in page 6 para 3.1. 7 and para 3.1.8 of their order the same…

The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Gold Finch Jewellery Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1822/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1822/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Goldfinch Jewellery Ltd. बनाम/ G-5, Pariseema Complex, New Circle-2(1)(1), Vs. Swagat Cross Roads,C. G. Ahmedabad Road, Ahmedabad-380009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacg6992L .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L Thakkar, AR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…[ACIT vs. Goldfinch Jewellery Ltd.] A.Y. 2008-09 2 nullity but at the best it could be set aside to be done de-novo. Reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tin Box Co. vs. CIT 249 ITR 216(SC) and the case of Guduthur Brothers vs. ITO in 40 ITR 298(SC) is made. 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary.” 3. At the time of hearing, it was submitted by the Ld.AR for the assessee that appeal filed by the Revenue is hit by recently issued CBDT Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08/08/2019 revising the previous thresholds pertaining to tax ef…

Mr. Late Smt. Vineeta Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1791/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2020AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR

…om undisclosed sources as per deemed provisions of section 69B. The AO’s reference to Sec. 68 would stand modified to that extent. In any case, wrong reference to the provisions does not vitiate the addition made on merits,[reliance on case of Guduthur Broths 40 ITR 298 (SC)] more so now in view of Sec. 292B. (g) More important modification is that once cash found and seized was held as income from unfair means (this should be read as income from undisclosed sources); the cash should be treated to be belonging to both husband and wife. The AO’s view of adding all such amounts, substantively in the hand of Smt. Vi…

Shri Nitin Sharma, Jabalpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 25/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 153DSection 263Section 7(1)

…Nitin Sharma v. Pr. CIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.25/JAB/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Nitin Sharma, Jabalpur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income (PAN: AJFPS 0440J) Tax-2, Jabalpur (Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Rahul Bardia, CA Respondent by Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of hearing 24/08/2020 Date of pronouncement 28/09/2020 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee against the Order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereina…

Shri H.K. Gandotra, Gurgaon vs. The Inocme-Tax Officer, Jammu

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 594/ASR/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Jun 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 594/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 1997-98

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 246Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…he opportunity to state its case; the jurisdiction of levy penalty having been already assumed. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions, inter alia, in Supdt., Central Excise v. Pratap Rai [1978] 114 ITR 231 (SC) and Guduthur Bros. v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC), both by the larger benches of the Apex Court. In Manu Engineering Works (supra), the Hon’ble Court itself clarifies that it may be proper to issue a notice u/s. 274 without specifying any particular limb of the provision of s. 271(1)(c), though the same must be specified while imposing the penalty. How does then, this, one wonders, supports…

Smt. Nirmal Kaur, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Amritsar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 700/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 700/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. K. R. Jain (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 69

…therefore a procedural irregularity has occurred in non-service of the said notice, the matter would have go back to the stage at which the irregularity had occurred, i.e., as per the said law in the matter of larger benches (ref: Guduthur Bros. v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC); Supdt., Central Excise v. Pratap Rai [1978] 114 ITR 231 (SC)). No wonder, the Hon’ble High Court in CIT v. Jasbir Singh [2014] 103 DTR 427 (P&H) did not countenance the 9 Nirmal Kaur v. ITO assessee’s claim of non-service of notice u/s. 148. Reference in this context may also be drawn to the decision in CIT v. Ram Narain Bansal [2011] 202 T…

Sh. Jaspal Singh S/O Sh. Swaran Singh, Amritsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 445/ASR/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 445/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 144Section 154

…rocedurally infirm, i.e., a curable defect, so that the proceedings would have to be restored to the stage at which the irregularity had occurred, even as explained by the Apex Court per the decisions by its’ larger benches, as in Guduthur Bros. v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC) and Supdt., Central Excise v. Pratap Rai [1978] 114 ITR 231 (SC). Where the notice remained 10 Jaspal Singh v. ITO undisposed, it was explained in Guduthur Bros. (supra), it did not cease to be operative. The proceedings, lawfully initiated, shall travel to the point where the illegality supervened. The ITO had the jurisdiction to continue…

Kailashpati Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1033/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vice-Assessment Year : 2003-04 Kailashpati Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, Ward 5(1), A-1/25, Sector-15, Rohini, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan : Aaack1244M

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel &For Respondent: Ms Bedobani, DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 68

…x Court in which the matter has been restored for making good the deficiency of the earlier ITA No.1033/Del/2013 24 non-granting of opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The orders have not been quashed on this score. 31. In Guduthur Bros. vs. ITO (1960) 40 ITR 298 (SC), the appellants failed to furnish return within the prescribed time and the ITO proceeded to impose penalty without affording a hearing. The AAC set aside the order imposing penalty and directed refund of any penalty that might have been recovered. On receipt of the AAC’s order the ITO issued a further notice calling upon the appellants to…

Daewon Kang Up Co. Limited, Thiruvallur vs. DDIT, Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 818/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita N0.818/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Lalith Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Shri Muruga Boopathy, Jt. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 2Section 3Section 9(1)(vii)

…ad) stands made in the decision itself (also refer Asst. CIT v. Hotel Blue Moon [2010] 321 ITR 362 (SC)). Reference in this regard may be made to the decision in 6 ITA. No.818/Mds/2015 (AY 2010-11) Daewon Kang Up Co. Ltd. v. DDIT Guduthur Bros. v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC), wherein the Apex Court clarified that the AO assumes jurisdiction to assess on issue of a valid notice, and which obtained till the same remained to be disposed of. The proceedings completed without allowing the assessee an opportunity of being heard was an illegality, vitiating the proceedings, which would relate back in time, having occurr…

Adobe Software India Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. JCIT, Noida

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

ITA 2454/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh, Jm & Sh. N. K. Saini, Am Ita No. 2454/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Adobe Software India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income (Now Amalgamated With Adobe Tax, Range-1, Systems India Pvt. Ltd.), Plot No. Noida 1-1A, City Centre, Sector-25A, Noida (U.P)-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2982J Assessee By : Sh. Deepak Chopra & Rohan Khare, Advs. Revenue By : Sh. Amrendra Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Chopra & Rohan Khare, AdvsFor Respondent: Sh. Amrendra Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 170Section 292B

…ning of words ‘now amalgamated with Adobe Systems India Pvt. Ltd.’ in order dated 30.12.2009 was procedural irregularities and the assessment framed by the AO was valid assessment. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Guduthur Bothers Vs ITO 40 ITR 298 (SC) " CIT Vs Jai Prakash Singh 219 ITR 737 (SC) 11 Adobe Software India Pvt. Ltd. " Bhagwan Dass Chopra Vs United Bank of India & Ors order dated 17.11.1987 1988 AIR 215 " Yapi Kredi Bank (Deutschland) Ag Vs Mr. Ahok K. Chauhan & Ors. order dated 17.01.2013 (Delhi HC) 8. The ld. DR submitted that the scheme of amalgamation as approved by Jurisdi…

Commssioner of Income Tax Delhi-Xvi vs. S.S. Ahluwalia

ITA - 255 / 2002HC Delhi14 Mar 2014

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…ITA 255/2002 + connected Page 1 of 61 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA Nos. 255/2002, 256/2002, 257/2002, 1577/2006, 314/2002 315/2002, 316/2002, 1578/2006, 1580/2006 Reserved on: 27th November, 2013 % Date of Decision: 14th March, 2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XVI....Appellant Through Mr. AmolSinha, Sr. Standing Counsel & Mr. Anshum Jain, Rahul Kochar, Advs. Versus S.S. AHLUWALIA ..... Respondent Through Mr. S. K…

Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. S.S. Ahluwalia

ITA/255/2002HC Delhi14 Mar 2014

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-II vs. Kishori Lal Construction Ltd

Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA-783/2007HC Delhi23 Dec 2009

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 4th, November,2009 Date of Decision: 23rd December, 2009 + ITA 783/2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-II ..... Appellant Through: Mr. N.P. Sahni with Mr. P.C. Yadav, Advs. versus KISHORI LAL CONSTRUCTION LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Sriram Krishna, Advs. with ITA 633/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - V ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Adv.…

Commissioner of Income T Ax Delhi II vs. Kishori Lal Construction Ltd

Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA - 783 / 2007HC Delhi23 Dec 2009

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68