Maharaja of Patiala v. CIT

11 ITR 202High Court1943#10311 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 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 170Section 292BSection 144Section 144BSection 148

Issues it is cited on

legal representativesection 292bamalgamationsection 292section 29service of noticesection 142section 153section 142(1)section 143(2)section 15transfer

Judgments citing Maharaja of Patiala v. CIT

MADAN LAL TOMAR,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 51/AGR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sarvesh Devi Vs. Ito, (Legal Heir Of Late Madan Lal Ward-2(1)(1), Tomar, 51, Keshav Kunj, Agra Pratap Nagar, Agra, 282 001, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpt3982D Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2025 O R D E R 1. The Appeal In Ita No. 51/Agr/2025 For Ay 2009-10, Arises Out Of The Order Of The Ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Nfac’, In Short] Dated 09.12.2024 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 25.07.2019 By The Ito, Ward-4(2), Agra (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’).

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 292B

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH “SMC”: AGRA BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through virtual hearing) Sarvesh Devi Vs. ITO, (legal heir of Late Madan Lal Ward-2(1)(1), Tomar, 51, Keshav Kunj, Agra Pratap Nagar, Agra, 282 001, UP (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAXPT3982D Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CA Revenue by: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date of pronouncement 13/11/2025 O R D E R 1. The appeal in ITA No. 51/AGR/2025 for AY 2009-10, arises out of the order of the ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. NFAC’, in short]…

SARVESH DEVI (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MADAN LAL TOMAR),AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 311/AGR/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sarvesh Devi (Legal Heir Vs. Income Tax Officer, Of Late Madan Lal Tomar), Ward-4(3)(1), 51, Keshavkunj Pratap Hathras Nagar, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Eshpd4540M Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…are not conditional on the validity of the notice : the liability to pay tax is founded in the charging sections and not in the machinery provisions to determine the amount of tax. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Maharaja of Patiala v. CIT [1943] 11 ITR 202 (Bom.) ("Maharaja of Patiala"). That was a case where two notices were issued after the death of the assessee in his name, requiring him to make a return of income. The notices were served upon the successor Maharaja and the assessment order was passed describing the assessee as "His Highness…late Maharaja of Patiala". The successor appealed again…

LATE SH. BIRDI CHAND THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MUKESH SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 502/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292BSection 54F

…are not conditional on the validity of the notice : the liability to pay tax is founded in the charging sections and not in the machinery provisions to determine the amount of tax. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Maharaja of Patiala v. CIT [1943] 11 ITR 202 (Bom.) ("Maharaja of Patiala"). That was a case where two notices were issued after the death of the assessee in his name, requiring him to make a return of income. The notices were served upon the successor Maharaja and the assessment order was passed describing the assessee as "His Highness…late Maharaja of Patiala". The successor appealed again…

ACIT CIRCLE-7(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD. (SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO PIRAMAL INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2338/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 2338/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Piramal Enterprises Tax, Circle 7(3)(2), Room No. Ltd. 128A, 1 St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Successor In Interest To M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Piramal International Pvt. फनाभ/ Ltd. 10, Piramal Tower, G.K. Vs. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aabcp6125D अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshai, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Ms. Mansi Padhiyar, Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 24.03.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 09.04.2021

For Appellant: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshai, DRFor Respondent: Ms. Mansi Padhiyar, AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “C” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष एविं श्री ए रयफ़ौय यहभान, रेखा दस्म के भक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND SRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आमकय अऩीर िं./ ITA No. 2338/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) The Asst. Commissioner of Income M/s. Piramal Enterprises Tax, Circle 7(3)(2), Room No. Ltd. 128A, 1 st Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Successor in interest to M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Piramal International Pvt. फनाभ/ Ltd. 10, Piramal tower, G.K. Vs. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/…

M/S. CHURU TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD NOW MERGED WITH SPRIT TEXTILES PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(2)(1)PRESENT IN CHARGE ACIT RANGE 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5709/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Churu Trading Co. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited (Now Income Tax, Range-8(2)(2) Merged With Spirit Textiles Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai – 400 020 18Th Floor, A-Wing Marathon Futurex N M Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aalcs5905J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Churu Trading Co. Private Income Tax, Range- Limited (Now Merged With Spirit 8(2)(2) Textiles Pvt. Ltd., 18Th Floor, A-Wing Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 020 Marathon Futurex N M Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc4853G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…x are not conditional on the validity of the notice : the liability to pay tax is founded in the charging sections and not in the machinery provisions to determine the amount of tax. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Maharaja of Patiala v CIT [1943] 11 ITR 202 (Bombay) ("Maharaja of Patiala"). That was a case where two notices were issued after the death of the assessee in his name, requiring him to make a return of income. The notices were served upon the successor Maharaja and the assessment order was passed describing the assessee as "His Highness…late Maharaja of Patiala". The successor appealed aga…

SIEMENS POWER ENGINEERING P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1772/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Siemens Power Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax – Circle – (Now Merged With M/S. 8(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan Room No.624, 6Th Floor Siemens Limited) 130, Pandurang Budhkar M.K.Road, Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Worli, Mumbai – 400 019 Pan/Gir No.Aaccs5323F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92D

…are not conditional on the validity of the notice : the liability to pay tax is founded in the charging sections and not in the machinery provisions to determine the amount of tax. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Maharaja of Patiala v. CIT [1943] 11 ITR 202 (Bom.) ("Maharaja of Patiala"). That was a case where two notices were issued after the death of the assessee in his name, requiring him to make a return of income. The notices were served upon the successor Maharaja and the assessment order was passed describing the assessee as "His Highness…late Maharaja of Patiala". The successor appealed again…

V3S INFRATECH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6515/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay KumarFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 391(2)Section 394

…x are not conditional on the validity of the notice : the liability to pay tax is founded in the charging sections and not in the machinery provisions to determine the amount of tax. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Maharaja of Patiala v CIT (1943) 11 ITR 202 (Bombay) (“Maharaja of Patiala”). That was a case where two notices were issued after the death of the assessee in his name, requiring him to make a return of income. The notices were served upon the successor Maharaja and the assessment order was passed describing the assessee as “His Highness…late Maharaja of Patiala”. The successor appealed aga…

V3S INFRATECH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6514/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay KumarFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 391(2)Section 394

…x are not conditional on the validity of the notice : the liability to pay tax is founded in the charging sections and not in the machinery provisions to determine the amount of tax. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Maharaja of Patiala v CIT (1943) 11 ITR 202 (Bombay) (“Maharaja of Patiala”). That was a case where two notices were issued after the death of the assessee in his name, requiring him to make a return of income. The notices were served upon the successor Maharaja and the assessment order was passed describing the assessee as “His Highness…late Maharaja of Patiala”. The successor appealed aga…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED

C.A. No.-005409-005409 - 2019Supreme Court25 Jul 2019

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 92C

…and 143(2). No objection was raised by the legal representative who had filed the return that a notice should also to be served to other legal representatives of the deceased assessee. No 40 (1943) 11 ITR 202 (Bombay) 31 objection was raised before the assessing officer. Similarly, the decision in Maharaja of Patiala was a case where the notice had been served on the legal representative, the successor Maharaja and the Bombay High Court held that it was not void merely because it omitted to state that it was served in that capacity. 33 In…

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

…a v. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 505 (SC), noted with approval in CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh [1996] 219 ITR 737 (SC), to which reference was made by the Bench during hearing, rendered after a review of the judicial precedents, including Maharaja of Patiala vs. CIT (1943) 11 ITR 202 (Bom), also quoting therefrom, would not annul the proceedings but render the same procedurally 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 IT…