(i) Jayanthi Natarajan v. ACIT

401 ITR 215High Court2018#10863 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 151

Issues it is cited on

reason to believespeaking orderreassessment proceedingssection 148section 147section 14indiadocument

Judgments citing (i) Jayanthi Natarajan v. ACIT

SUNITA SAINI,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1877/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1877/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Sunita Saini, Income Tax Officer, House No.743P, Sector-38, Vs. Ward 1(4), Gurugram, Haryana. Faridabad. Pan No.Awmps2317Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 151Section 263

…(284 CTR 68) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court quashed the assessment orders on the ground of non disposal of objections of the assessee. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Jayanthi Natarajan (Ms.) vs. ACIT (401 ITR 215), wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that the order passed without disposing of objections raised by the assessee for reopening was improper and null and void. 5. For the above reasons the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that when the assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act was an invalid assessment order the revisionar…

LAGGISETTY MANOHAR KARTHIK,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(2), CHENNAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 746/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 746/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 147Section 54Section 80C

…passed in terms of Section 147 of the Act. In this regard, the Ld.AR placed reliance upon the following decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court: (a) Jayanthi Natarajan v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Non-Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai, reported in 401 ITR 215. (b) Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai v. Janak Shantilal Mehta, reported in 124 taxmann.com 516. (c) Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Pentafour Software Employees, Welfare Foundation, reported in 418 ITR 427. 19. Furthermore, the Ld.AR also placed reliance upon the decision of this Co- ordinate Bench in the case of M/s.IDFC First Bank Lt…

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI vs. K.C.P.SHIVARAMAN, KARUR

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2183/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2183/Chny/2018 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Acit Shri K.C.P. Shivaraman बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1), #330, Chinna Andan Koil Road, Vs. Chennai. Karur-639 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaxps-4844-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit)-Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-09-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-11-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)-Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…ssee filed detailed objections. However, none of the objections were dealt with by Ld. AO and no formal speaking order was passed accepting or rejecting the objections raised by the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Jayanthi Natarajan (401 ITR 215) categorically held that in case the objections were not disposed-off by way of speaking order then it amounts to violation of natural justice and the assessment proceedings are vitiated as null and void. The present case was on identical facts. 4.2 On merits also, Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee satisfactorily explained primary ingredients of…

SRI.VENKATARAMANAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 304/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 148Section 151

…ght to our notice that Hon’ble Madras High Court has taken a contrary view to the view taken in the case referred to by the CIT(A) in the impugned order and in this regard referred to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Jayanthi Natarajan 401 ITR 215 and Pentafour Employees’ Welfare Foundation 312 CTR 35 (Madras). 9. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. The facts are undisputed that the assessee raised objections with regard to validity of initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act by his letters dated 03.10.2016 and 24.10.2016 after filing the return of…

M/S. BANSIWALA IRON & STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3,, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1388/JPR/2019[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. 1388/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Cuke M/S Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, D.C.I.T., 2Nd Floor, Somani Building, S.C. Link Vs. Circle-3, Road, Loha Mandi, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadfb 2375 A Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Mahendra Gargieya & Shri Dewang Gargieya (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69

…icer passed assessment order within period of four weeks from date of rejection of assessee's objections to reopening of assessment, order so passed being invalid, deserved to be set aside” 1.5 In some other cases i.e. Jayanti Natarajan (Ms.) vs. ACIT (2018) 401 ITR 215 (Mad.) & Mayer Material Science Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2016) 382 ITR 333 (Bom.) 6 ITA 1388/JP/2019 _ M/s Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Vs DCIT the Hon`ble Courts observed that the law laid down by the Supreme Court is of binding nature and is a source of law unto itself is binding on all authorities. In view of this legal position, the AO could no…

SRI.LAKSHMANA,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 382/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri. Lakshmana, Vs. Ito, S/O. Late Chikkathimmaiah, Ward – 3(2)(3), Kanminike Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru South Taluk Bengaluru – 560 039. Pan : Apppl 7076 K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Ravishankar, Advocate Respondent By : Smt. R. Premi, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 20.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.12.2017 Of Cit(A)-3, Bengaluru, Relating To Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee Raised Several Grounds Of Appeal. We Deem It Appropriate To Take Up For Consideration The Issue With Regard To The Validity Of The Order Of Reassessment Passed In This Case On The Ground That The Ao Has Not Disposed Off The Objections With Regard To Validity Of Reopening Of Assessment Under Section 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) & The Action Of The Ao In This Regard Is Allegedly Contrary To The Law Laid Down By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Gkn Page 2 Of 7

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 50C

…ght to our notice that Hon’ble Madras High Court has taken a contrary view to the view taken in the case referred to by the CIT(A) in the impugned order and in this regard referred to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Jayanthi Natarajan 401 ITR 215 and Pentafour Employees’ Welfare Foundation 312 CTR 35 (Madras). 9. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions. The facts are undisputed that the assessee raised objections with regard to validity of initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act by his letters dated 03.10.2016 and 24.10.2016 after filing the return o…

SHRI CHAND SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, GURGAON

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

ITA 3861/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 28

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA Nos. 3860 & 3861/Del/2016 (Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12) Sh. Chand Singh Vs. DCIT C/o. M/s. RRA TAXINDIA Circle – 1(1), D-28, South Extension, Gurgaon Part-I, New Delhi PAN : DEVPS 2076 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by Sh. Mahesh Thakur, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 24/06/2021 Date of Pronouncement: 05/07/2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : Both the appeals filed by…

SHRI CHAND SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, GURGAON

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

ITA 3860/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 28

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA Nos. 3860 & 3861/Del/2016 (Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12) Sh. Chand Singh Vs. DCIT C/o. M/s. RRA TAXINDIA Circle – 1(1), D-28, South Extension, Gurgaon Part-I, New Delhi PAN : DEVPS 2076 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by Sh. Mahesh Thakur, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 24/06/2021 Date of Pronouncement: 05/07/2021 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : Both the appeals filed by…

M/S. LAXMI ROLLING AND STRIPS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2013/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Council for DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…on which would result in quashing of the assessment order. The learned AR also relied upon the following judgments :- (i) General Motors India P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [(2013) 354 ITR 244 (Guj.)] (ii) Ms.Jayanthi Natarajan v. ACIT [(2018) 401 ITR 215 (Mad.)] (iii) Martech Peripherals P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [(2017) 394 ITR 733 (Mad.)] (iv) Tolins Rubbers v. ACIT [(2004) 270 ITR 280 (Ker.)] (v) Sahkari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. ACIT [(2015) 370 ITR 107 (Guj.)] 8. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the violation in the matter of procedure was only an ir…

IMMACULATE JUDITH,NEYVELI vs. ACIT CUDDALORE CIRCLE, CUDDALORE

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

ITA 2992/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr. R.Clement Ramesh-
Section 147Section 148Section 50

…s of appeal: 1. The Hon'ble C.I.T.(A) is not justified in upholding the reopening of assessment when no speaking order was passed on objections thereto violating the decision of apex court in [2003] 259 ITR 19 (SC) and the jurisdictional High Court in [2018] 401 ITR 215 (Mad). 2. The Hon'ble C.I.T.(A) is not justified in sustaining the reopened assessment based on flimsy grounds without establishing the live link between the basis for reopening and the materials available on record for formation of credible belief of income escaping assessment. 3.. The Hon’ble C.I.T.(A) is not justified in sustaining the disal…