Janni v. Indu Prasad Bhat

48 ITR 177Supreme Court of India1963#4876 most cited

What is Janni v. Indu Prasad Bhat authority for?

A reassessment proceeding initiated without a valid notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is without jurisdiction and therefore bad in law.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Janni v. Indu Prasad Bhat · Section 147 · Section 148 · reassessment · invalid notice · lack of jurisdiction · assessment bad in law · service of notice · limitation

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 149

Issues it is cited on

section 124(1)section 2(7a)section 148(1)section 124section 120section 292bbsection 292bsection 34section 127income escaping assessmentnon-application of mindservice of notice

Judgments citing Janni v. Indu Prasad Bhat

MAHAVIR PUKHRAJ JAIN,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 42(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 379/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalmahavir Pukhraj Jain Vs. Dcit, Circle – 42(1)(1) Flat No. 603/B, Manan Kautilya Bhawan, Apartment, New Link Road, Aenue -3, Near Videsh Dahisar East, Mumbai – Bhavan, G-Block, Bkc 400068. Bandra (E) – 400051 Pan/Gir No. Adepj8540R (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 124(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…d not acquired jurisdiction to reassess the income of the assessee. In this regard reliance is being placed upon the decision in the case of Y. Narayana Chetty Vs. ITO 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC), CIT Vs. Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur 41 ITR 421(SC) & CIT Vs. Robert 48 ITR 177 (SC). 5 Mahavir Pukhraj Jain., Mumbai. 9. Even the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi, in the case of Income-tax officer, Ward 11(4), Delhi Vs. M/s Indus Valley Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 4239/Del/2011] after considering the above ruling of apex court, decided the matter on identical issue and made the following observations: "It is we…

KALYAN RATAN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), JAIPUR

ITA 571/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, CA andFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT- DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 292BSection 69

…pursuant to such notice is bad in law. In support of this\nproposition we rely upon the cases of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases\nof Y. Narayana Chetty Vs. ITO, 35 ITR 388,392 (SC); CIT Vs.\nMaharaja Pratap singh Bahadur, 41 ITR 421 (SC); and CIT Vs. Robert,\n48 ITR 177 (SC). In the light of the above settled principle of law, we\nhave no hesitation to quash the reassessment proceedings since there\nwas no valid notice pursuant to which the reassessment proceeding\nwas made in the present case. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the\nappellant is allowed.”\n\nWe also rely on the decision of the Hon'ble courts in fo…

PUNEET SETH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 3(1), GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2155/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roysh. Puneet Sheth Vs. Ito, Ward 3(1) B-39, Mension Villas, Gurugram Rose Wood City, Haryana – 122001 Sector-49, Gurugram Haryana-122001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aojps4547R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv &For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr
Section 140Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234A

…the prescribed period. Therefore, service of notice within the limitation was the foundation of jurisdiction. The same view has been taken by the Court in J.P. Jani, ITO vs. Induprasad Devshanker Bhatt (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC), as also in CIT vs. Robert (1963) 48 ITR 177 (SC) The High Court, in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of Banarsi Debi vs. ITO (supra), in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quiet different. What used to be contained in s. 34 of the 1922 Act has been spread out into three sections, being ss. 147, 148 and…

MALKIAT AGRO INDUSTRIES 01, CANTT ROAD, NABHA 147201, PUNJAB,PUNJAB vs. LOVISH SHELLEY THE DCIT CIRCLE MANDIGOBIND GARH JAO INCOME TAX OFFICER NABHA, PUNJAB

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 485/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri K.K. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148

…e pursuant to such notice is bad in law. In support of this proposition we rely upon the cases of Hon'ble Apex Court- in the cases of Y. Narayana Chetty Vs. ITO, 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC); CIT Vs. Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur, 41 ITR 421 (SC); and CIT Vs. Robert, 48 ITR 177 (SC). In the light of the above titled principle of law, we have no hesitation to quash the re- assessment it proceedings since there was no valid notice pursuant to which the reassessment proceeding was made in the present case. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed." The same view has been taken in the following cases:- The…

RANJEET SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 5 (5), PATNA

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

ITA 304/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(2)Section 69A

…rvice of notice within the prescribed period Therefore, service of notice within limitation was the foundation of jurisdiction. The same view has been taken by this court in Jani v. Induprasad Devshanker Bhatt [1969] 72 ITR 595 as also in CIT v. Robert [1963] 48 ITR 177 (SC). The High Court, in our opinion, went wrong in relying upon the ratio of Banarsi Debi v. ITO [1964] 53 ITR 100, in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in section 34 of the 1922 Act has been spread out into three sections, being s…

RAMAN PILLAI SIVASANKARA PILLAI,BALTANA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 770/CHANDI/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 770/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Raman Pillai Sivasankara Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Pillai, #1590, Saini Vihar, International Taxation, Phase 3, Baltana, Chandigarh Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cjcpp4391J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20 .01.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148

…e pursuant to such notice is bad in law. In support of this proposition we rely upon the cases of Hon'ble Apex Court- in the cases of Y. Narayana Chetty Vs. ITO, 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC); CIT Vs. Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur, 41 ITR 421 (SC); and CIT Vs. Robert, 48 ITR 177 (SC). In the light of the above titled principle of law, we have no hesitation to quash the re-assessment it proceedings since there was no valid notice pursuant to which the reassessment proceeding was made in the present case. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed." 16. Thus, considering the above facts and in case laws, we h…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CHANDIGARH vs. SH. MANJEET SINGH, LUDHIANA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed whereas, Cross

ITA 512/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 512/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Dcit, Vs. Shri Manjeet Singh, बनाम Circle (International S/O Shri Harbir Singh Taxation), # 1460, Ward Number-8, Chandigarh Gahlewal, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cdeps4087A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 13/Chd/2022 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 512/Chd/2022) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Manjeet Singh, Vs. The Dcit, बनाम S/O Shri Harbir Singh Circle (International # 1460, Ward Number-8, Taxation ), Gahlewal, Chandigarh Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Cdeps4087A अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Dharamvir, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…osition we rely upon the cases of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Y. Narayana Chetty Vs. ITO, 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC); CIT Vs. 512-Chd-2022 & C.O.13-Chd-2022 Shri Manjeet Singh, Ludhiana 14 Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur, 41 ITR 421 (SC); and CIT Vs. Robert, 48 ITR 177 (SC). In the light of the above settled principle of law, we have no hesitation to quash the reassessment proceedings since there was no valid notice pursuant to which the reassessment proceeding was made in the present case. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. b) Namir Kishore Mehta Vs. ACIT, Bombay High Court reported in…

SMT. ZAYADA GHORI,JODHPUR vs. ITO, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/JODH/2017[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Jodhpur13 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT-DR
Section 148

…. 2358/Del/2012 dated 12.06.2015 wherein the Tribunal has quashed the reassessment framed relying on the decision in the case of (i) Y. Narayana Chetty v. ITO 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC), (ii) CIT v. Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur 41 ITR 421 (SC), (iii) CIT v. Robert 48 ITR 177 (SC) and (ii) CIT v. M/s MT Builders Pvt. Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 271 (All. HC). 6. In view of the settled principle of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court, we quashed the reassessment proceedings, since there was no valid notice 5 Zayada Ghori v. ITO pursuant to which the reassessment proceedings was made in the instant case. Accordingly, the assessment…

BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

…and void. In support of this proposition we rely upon the cases of Hon'ble Apex Court and other Hon’ble Courts in the cases of: a) Y. Narayana Chetty Vs. ITO, 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC); b) CIT Vs. Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur, 41 ITR 421 (SC); c) CIT Vs. Robert, 48 ITR 177 (SC). d) CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC) e) CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC) f) DR. (MRS.) K.B. Kumar vs. Income Tax Officer (2010) 131 TTJ (Del) 511 g) ITO vs. Krishan Kumar Gupta (2008) 16 DTR (Del)(Trib) (Paper book page no. 98-102) h) Ranjeet Singh vs. Asstt. CIT (2009) 120 TTJ (…

BALLU SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD -65(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 799/DEL/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

…and void. In support of this proposition we rely upon the cases of Hon'ble Apex Court and other Hon’ble Courts in the cases of: a) Y. Narayana Chetty Vs. ITO, 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC); b) CIT Vs. Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur, 41 ITR 421 (SC); c) CIT Vs. Robert, 48 ITR 177 (SC). d) CIT v. Thayaballi Mulla Jeevaji Kapasi (1967) 66 ITR 147 (SC) e) CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC) f) DR. (MRS.) K.B. Kumar vs. Income Tax Officer (2010) 131 TTJ (Del) 511 g) ITO vs. Krishan Kumar Gupta (2008) 16 DTR (Del)(Trib) (Paper book page no. 98-102) h) Ranjeet Singh vs. Asstt. CIT (2009) 120 TTJ (…

DEEPAK GARG,HARYANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CC, KRNAL, HARYANA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 1046/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 69

…ade pursuant to such notice is bad in law. In support of this proposition we rely upon the cases of Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Y. Narayana Chetty Vs. ITO 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC); CIT Vs. Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur, 41 ITR 421 (SC); and CIT Vs. Robert, 48 ITR 177 (SC). In the light of the above settled principle of law, we have no hesitation to quash the reassessment proceedings since there was no valid notice pursuant to which the reassessment proceeding was made in the present case. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. 6. Since we have quashed the reassessment proceedings, we find i…

HARI DASS SINGLA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands deleted

ITA 958/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2022AY 2011-12
Section 115BSection 127Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…de pursuant to such notice is bad in law. In support of this proposition we rely upon the cases of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Y. Narayana Chetty Vs. ITO, 35 ITR 388, 392 (SC); CIT Vs. Maharaja Pratap singh Bahadur, 41 ITR 421 (SC); and CIT Vs. Robert, 48 ITR 177 (SC). In the light of the above settled principle of law, we have no hesitation to quash the reassessment proceedings since there was no valid notice pursuant to which the reassessment proceeding was made in the present case. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.” 6. In view of this, the assessment framed by the ITO, Ward-50(…

NAVEEN TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated

ITA 2089/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2089/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 बनाम Naveen Tyagi Ito C/O M/S Sanjeev Anand & Vs. Ward 1(2), Associates, 77, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No. Admpt7873K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144Section 147Section 148

…ibed period. Therefore, service of notice within the limitation was the foundation of jurisdiction. The same view has been taken by the Court in J.P. Jani, ITO vs. Induprasad Devshanker Bhatt (1969) 72 ITR 595 (SC) : TC51R.400 as also in CIT vs. Robert (1963) 48 ITR 177 (SC) : TC51R.1714. The High Court, in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of Banarsi Debi vs. ITO (supra), in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in s. 34 of the 1922 Act has been spread out into three sections, being ss.…

MUKAND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3670/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Mukund Limited V. Dy. Cit-3(2)(1) Aayakar Bhavan Bajaj Bhavan, 3Rd Floor M.K. Road 226 Nariman Point New Marine Lines Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aaacm5008R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kirit Kamdar Department By : Shri Ajay K. Ojha

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay K. Ojha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ment subject to service of notice within the prescribed period. Therefore, service of notice within limitation was the foundation of jurisdiction. The same view has been taken by this Court in Janni v. Indu Prasad Bhat, 72 ITR 595 as also in C.I.T. v. Robert, 48 ITR 177. The High Court in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of 53 ITR 100 in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in section 34 of the 1922 Act has been spread out into three sections, being sections 147, 148 and 149 in the 45…

SAKUN GEMS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 3432/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Uttam Chand BothraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 292B

…ment subject to service of notice within the prescribed period. Therefore, service of notice within limitation was the foundation of jurisdiction. The same view has been taken by this Court in Janni v. Indu Prasad Bhat, 72 ITR 595 as also in C.I.T. v. Robert, 48 ITR 177. The High Court in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of 53 ITR 100 in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in section 34 of the 1922 Act has been spread out into three sections, being sections 147, 148 and 149 in the 45…

SAKUN GEMS,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 3431/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Uttam Chand BothraFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 292B

…ment subject to service of notice within the prescribed period. Therefore, service of notice within limitation was the foundation of jurisdiction. The same view has been taken by this Court in Janni v. Indu Prasad Bhat, 72 ITR 595 as also in C.I.T. v. Robert, 48 ITR 177. The High Court in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of 53 ITR 100 in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in section 34 of the 1922 Act has been spread out into three sections, being sections 147, 148 and 149 in the 45…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SUDEV INDUSTRIES LTD.

ITA/805/2005HC Delhi31 May 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 230A(1)Section 260ASection 282(2)

…ion was the foundations of jurisdiction. The same view has been taken by this Court in J.P. Janni, ITO v. Induprasad D. Bhatt [AIR 1964 SC 1742 : (1964) 7 SCR 539 : 72 ITR 595] as also in CIT v. Robert J. Sas [AIR 1964 SC 1742 : (1964) 7 SCR 539 : 48 ITR 177] . The High Court in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of Banarsi Debi v. ITO [AIR 1964 SC 1742 : (1964) 7 SCR 539 : 53 ITR 100] in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in Section 34 of the 1922 Act has been sprea…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S SUDEV INDUSTRIES LIMITED

ITA-805/2005HC Delhi31 May 2018
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 230A(1)Section 260ASection 282(2)

…ion was the foundations of jurisdiction. The same view has been taken by this Court in J.P. Janni, ITO v. Induprasad D. Bhatt [AIR 1964 SC 1742 : (1964) 7 SCR 539 : 72 ITR 595] as also in CIT v. Robert J. Sas [AIR 1964 SC 1742 : (1964) 7 SCR 539 : 48 ITR 177] . The High Court in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of Banarsi Debi v. ITO [AIR 1964 SC 1742 : (1964) 7 SCR 539 : 53 ITR 100] in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in Section 34 of the 1922 Act has been sprea…

RAMESH SALECHA HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3312/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 690

…ment subject to service of notice within the prescribed period. Therefore, service of notice within limitation was the foundation of jurisdiction. The same view has been taken by this Court in Janni v. Indu Prasad Bhat, 72 ITR 595 as also in C.I.T. v. Robert, 48 ITR 177. The High Court in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of 53 ITR 100 in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in section 34 of the 1922 Act has been spread out into three sections, being sections 147, 148 and 149 in the 45…

SOURAV ALLOYS AND STEEL PVT. LTD.,ANGUL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BHUBANESWAR

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

ITA 233/CTK/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.S Saini & Shri Aby T. Varkeyassessment Year :2006-07

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Asit Kumar Mohapatra, CIT DR
Section 12Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 158

…ment subject to service of notice within the prescribed period. Therefore, service of notice within limitation was the foundation of jurisdiction. The same view has been taken by this Court in Janni v. Indu Prasad Bhat, 72 ITR 595 as also in C.I.T. v. Robert, 48 ITR 177. The High Court in our opinion went wrong in relying upon the ratio of 53 ITR 100 in disposing of the case in hand. The scheme of the 1961 Act so far as notice for reassessment 19 is concerned is quite different. What used to be contained in section 34 of the 1922 Act has been spread out into three sections, being sections 147, 148 and 149 in the…

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2

Janni v. Indu Prasad Bhat (48 ITR 177) — Cited in 24 Judgments | BharatTax