Iqbal Singh Atwal v. CIT

147 ITR 599High Court1984#8782 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 148 Section 142(1)Section 144 Section 144A Section 147 Section 80P

Issues it is cited on

section 55(2)section 139(9)section 49 fresh tangible material section 55 going concern valuation of shares full value of consideration transfer of capital asset indexed cost of acquisition date of transfer section 48

Judgments citing Iqbal Singh Atwal v. CIT

WITMER ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD-3(3), CHENNAI

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

ITA 3840/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3840/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Witmer Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 86, Vasanth Business Centre, Corporate Ward 3(3), Ttk Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacw6606P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.11.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Ld. Ar Shri Y. Sridhar, C.A. Requested To Take Up Ground No. 3 As Preliminary Issue For Adjudication As It Goes To The Root Of The Matter. Having No Objection From The Ld. Dr Ms. Gouthami

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 4

…lhi Tribunal respectfully followed the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Tiwari Kanhaya Lal v. CIT (1985) 154 ITR 109 (Raj) and also the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Iqbal Singh Atwal v. CIT (1984) 147 ITR 599 (Cal.). Therefore, it is clear that the findings of the ld. CIT(A) in holding that 8 I.T.A. No.3840/Chny/25 no notice can be issued since no return of income filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act is not justified in view of the orders of the ITAT Delhi Benches in the case of ITO v. R.K. Gupta (supra) and in the case of Raj…

MADURA COATS EMPLOYEES AND PUBLIC SERVICE CO-OP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD-4,, TIRUNELVELI

ITA 2345/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2345/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 Maduracoats Employees & The Income Tax Officer, Public Service Co-Op Ward 4, Housing Society Ltd., Vs. Tirunelveli Ambasamudram, Agasthiyarpatti S.O, Agasthiyarpatti, Tirunelveli – 627428. Pan: Aaiam 5076B (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Erode), Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Erode), AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 250Section 80P

…for the assessee contended that once a letter dated 30.08.2021 was filed requesting the return already filed be treated as compliance to notice under section 148, the AO ought to have accepted the same as a valid return in terms of law. Reliance was placed on 147 ITR 599 (Cal) and 154 ITR 109 (Raj). He further pleaded that the reassessment order passed without issuing a notice under section 143(2) is void and bad in law, following the ratio of the decisions in 226 Taxman 103 (Madras) and ITA No.1198/CHNY/2023 dated 21.08.2024. The ld. counsel futher contended that the directions issued by JCIT under section 144A…

AMAR CHEMICALS,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 15 , DELHI

ITA 3981/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Sh. Sachin Kumar, CA

Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…Ld. AR relied upon the case law in the case of R.K. Gupta vs. ITO (2008) 115 ITD 384 (ITAT-Delhi); ITO v. Malvika Arun Somaiya ITA No. 3041/Mum/2004 decided on 27.09.2007; Tiwari Kanhaiya Lal vs. CIT (1985) 154 ITR 109 (Raj); Iqbal Singh Atwal vs. CIT (1984) 147 ITR 599 (Cal); K.s. Ratnaswami vs. Addl. ITO (1963) 48 ITR 568 (Mad.). Ld. AR for the assessee further submitted that any assessment made, without issuing and serving the mandatory statutory notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, is invalid, untenable and null and void ab initio by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Laxm…

JAGDISH PRASAD AGARWALA,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1798/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2025AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana & Sunil Surana, ARsFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 292BSection 69D

…iny assessment even if the assessments are after search u/s 132(1) of the Act. Similar ratio has been laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High /court in the case of CIT Vs C. Palaniapan (284 ITR 257), Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Iqwal Singh Atwal Vs CIT (1984)(147 ITR 599) and Delhi High Court in Pr CIT Vs Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt Ltd (2016)(383 ITR 448). Accordingly we set aside the order of Id CIT(A) on this issue by holding that the notice issued u/s 143(2) is barred by limitation and therefore the consequent assessment framed is also invalid and is quashed.\n\n09. Since we have allowed the appeal of t…

RAJ KUMAR PROP. M/S RAJ COTTON & OIL MILLS,HARYANA vs. DCIT, CC-1, GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed with direction given in para 10 above

ITA 807/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…sh return submitted in response to the notice. Reference may be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Tiwari Kanhaya Lal vs. CIT (1985) 154 ITR 109 (Raj.) and the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Iqbal Singh Atwal vs. CIT(1984) 147 ITR 599 (Cal.). 10. On the above facts and in the circumstances of the assessee’s case in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) who may call for the assessment record from the Ld. AO to verify the contention of the assessee and decide afresh the issue of jurisdictional grounds take…

M/S KHAITAN WINDING WIRE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 587/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am ]

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…hould have been filed and not the letter requesting the AO to treat the original return as the return of income pursuant to the 147/148 notice. For that we rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Atwal Vs. CIT (1984) 147 ITR 599 (Cal) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 448 (Del.). Since no notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act had been issued by the AO before framing reassessment order dated 26.12.2018 it is bad in law because the A.O had no jurisdiction to frame the reassessment order dated 26.12.2018 w…

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH VIKRAMADITYA SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…ken in the following decisions:- i. Narender Kumar Singh vs CIT reported in 191 ITR 316(All.) ii. Grindlays Bank ltd. vs CIT reported in 158 ITR 799 (Cal.) iii. CIT vs S. Balasubramainiam reported in 159 ITR 288 (Mad) iv. Iqbal Singh Atwal vs CIT reported in 147 ITR 599 (Cal.) 61. So far as the contention of the Revenue that aforesaid judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court are per incurium of Supreme Court judgments in Mahadeo Jalan, Kusumben Mahadevia and particularly Ambalal Sarabhai since at no stage these judgments were brought to the notice of the Tribunal or the High Court is concerned, we are of the…

ACIT, CIR-II, JAMMU vs. SMT. YASHORAJYA LAXMI, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

ACIT, JAMMU vs. DR KARAN SINGH, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

ACIT, JAMMU vs. SH M.K. AJAT SHATRU, JAMMU

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

M/S DUDLEY CAPITAL MARKET LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-10(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 220/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 139Section 142Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…hould have been filed and not the letter requesting the AO to treat the original return as the return of income pursuant to the 147/148 notice. For that we rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Atwal Vs. CIT (1984) 147 ITR 599 (Cal) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 448 (Del.). Therefore, the notice issued by A.O u/s 143(2) dated 12.12.2013 is hit by the 1st Proviso to section 143(2) of the Act and therefore the A.O had no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 143(2) after 31.08.2013 and therefore…

RICKY CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WD-3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1286/KOL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1286/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2004-05 Ricky Construction (P)Ltd. -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-3(3), Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaccr 1789 A] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri A.K.Sinha, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Sinha, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…at a return already filed by him might be deemed to be a return filed in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Atwal vs CIT reported in (1984) 147 ITR 599 (Cal). The ld AO did not issue any notice u/s 143(2) of the Act thereafter, which was challenged by the assessee before the ld CITA. The ld CITA held as under :- Notice U/s.143(2) The appellant has challenged the assessment order u/s.144/147 on the ground that the Notice u/s.143(2) was not issued before completion of assessment u/s.144 and after…