Lok Developers v. DCIT

455 ITR 399High Court2023#25042 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(2)Section 149 Section 13 Section 139 Section 143(3)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 282 service of notice section 28 section 144 section 148 section 250 section 14 nfac

Judgments citing Lok Developers v. DCIT

Aakanksha Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 69(1), New Delhi, Delhi

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

ITA 2763/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2763/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Aakanksha Gupta, Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca Vaibhav Goel, Vs. Ward 69(1), 78, Navyug Market, 1St Floor, New Delhi. Ghazaibad, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No.Amhpg9430D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 54

…on which notice was first viewed by assessee on E-filing portal was to be construed as date of issuance of notice - Held, yes [Para 31.6] [Partly in favour of assessee]” Furthermore, the second case relied upon by the assessee of L.K. Developers reported in 455 ITR 399 (Bom.), the head notes may be extracted for reference: “Section 282, read with section 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 - Service of notice - General (Primary email id) - Assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 – Whether email address available in income tax return furnished by assessee to which c…

Rakesh Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 212/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CA and Shri Vikas Yadav AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…the notices on the postal address. But the impugned notices were not sent on the postal address given in Form-35, but was sent on the secondary email id mentioned in the ITBA profile The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Lok Developers vs. DCIT (2023) 455 ITR 399/149 taxmann.com 93 has held that a secondary email address has to be used as an alternative or in such circumstances when the authority is unable to effect service of any communication 11 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR on the primary address. There is no prudence in issuing an email on the secondary email address. The head note of…

Diesh Kumar Goyal, Kota vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kota

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

ITA 32/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 May 2025AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68Section 69

…id mentioned in For-35, i.e.deiwalag04@gmail.com But the impugned notices were not sent on any of these email ids, but was sent on the secondary email id mentioned in the ITBA profile. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Lok Developers vs. DCIT(2023) 455 ITR 399 / 149 taxmann.com 93 (Bom)(HC) has held that a secondary email address has to be used as an alternative or in such circumstances when the authority is unable to effect service of any communication on the primary address. There is no prudence in issuing an email on the secondary email address. The head note of the above case reads - S. 148 : Reass…