Mahesh Babu v. Pr. CIT

407 ITR 14Reported decision2018#2574 most cited

What is Mahesh Babu v. Pr. CIT authority for?

An assessment order passed based on material gathered behind the assessee’s back and not supplied with an opportunity to rebut is not void ab initio; such an order can be rectified through a remand.

45

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

Also referred to as

G. Mahesh Babu v. Pr. CIT · Mahesh Babu 407 ITR 14 · natural justice assessment · opportunity to rebut material · assessment order void ab initio · remand procedural defect · cross-examination assessment · material gathered behind assessee · assessment validity · Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court · Supreme Court dismissal SLP

Judgments citing Mahesh Babu v. Pr. CIT

THUSE ELEKTRONICS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

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

ITA 563/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…ranted, when no such opportunity was ever sought at any time. 22 Bogus purchases group 33. In the case of G. Mahesh Babu, the Tribunal deleted the addition for not allowing cross-examination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Mahesh Babu Vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 14 (St.) dismissed the assessee’s SLP against the judgment dated 6.1.2017 of the Hon’ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.T.A. Nos. 226 and 208 of 2016 whereby the Hon’ble High Court held that an order of assessment passed on the basis of material gathered behind the assessee’s back and not supplied to the assessee with an opportunity…

DINESH SHRIVALLABH RATHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, PUNE

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

ITA 975/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…ranted, when no such opportunity was ever sought at any time. 22 Bogus purchases group 33. In the case of G. Mahesh Babu, the Tribunal deleted the addition for not allowing cross-examination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Mahesh Babu Vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 14 (St.) dismissed the assessee’s SLP against the judgment dated 6.1.2017 of the Hon’ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.T.A. Nos. 226 and 208 of 2016 whereby the Hon’ble High Court held that an order of assessment passed on the basis of material gathered behind the assessee’s back and not supplied to the assessee with an opportunity…

M/S. PNG JEWELLERY & GEMS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2),, PUNE

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

ITA 863/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…ranted, when no such opportunity was ever sought at any time. 22 Bogus purchases group 33. In the case of G. Mahesh Babu, the Tribunal deleted the addition for not allowing cross-examination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Mahesh Babu Vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 14 (St.) dismissed the assessee’s SLP against the judgment dated 6.1.2017 of the Hon’ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.T.A. Nos. 226 and 208 of 2016 whereby the Hon’ble High Court held that an order of assessment passed on the basis of material gathered behind the assessee’s back and not supplied to the assessee with an opportunity…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE,, PANVEL vs. M/S. NYKA STEEL PVT.LTD,, RAIGAD

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

ITA 451/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…ranted, when no such opportunity was ever sought at any time. 22 Bogus purchases group 33. In the case of G. Mahesh Babu, the Tribunal deleted the addition for not allowing cross-examination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Mahesh Babu Vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 14 (St.) dismissed the assessee’s SLP against the judgment dated 6.1.2017 of the Hon’ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.T.A. Nos. 226 and 208 of 2016 whereby the Hon’ble High Court held that an order of assessment passed on the basis of material gathered behind the assessee’s back and not supplied to the assessee with an opportunity…

ASHOK TANNA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

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

ITA 354/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…ranted, when no such opportunity was ever sought at any time. 22 Bogus purchases group 33. In the case of G. Mahesh Babu, the Tribunal deleted the addition for not allowing cross-examination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Mahesh Babu Vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 14 (St.) dismissed the assessee’s SLP against the judgment dated 6.1.2017 of the Hon’ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.T.A. Nos. 226 and 208 of 2016 whereby the Hon’ble High Court held that an order of assessment passed on the basis of material gathered behind the assessee’s back and not supplied to the assessee with an opportunity…

DADASAHEB VITTHALRAO URHE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

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

ITA 306/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…ranted, when no such opportunity was ever sought at any time. 22 Bogus purchases group 33. In the case of G. Mahesh Babu, the Tribunal deleted the addition for not allowing cross-examination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Mahesh Babu Vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 14 (St.) dismissed the assessee’s SLP against the judgment dated 6.1.2017 of the Hon’ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.T.A. Nos. 226 and 208 of 2016 whereby the Hon’ble High Court held that an order of assessment passed on the basis of material gathered behind the assessee’s back and not supplied to the assessee with an opportunity…

DADASAHEB VITTHALRAO URHE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

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

ITA 305/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…ranted, when no such opportunity was ever sought at any time. 22 Bogus purchases group 33. In the case of G. Mahesh Babu, the Tribunal deleted the addition for not allowing cross-examination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Mahesh Babu Vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 14 (St.) dismissed the assessee’s SLP against the judgment dated 6.1.2017 of the Hon’ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.T.A. Nos. 226 and 208 of 2016 whereby the Hon’ble High Court held that an order of assessment passed on the basis of material gathered behind the assessee’s back and not supplied to the assessee with an opportunity…

DADASAHEB VITTHALRAO URHE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

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

ITA 304/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…ranted, when no such opportunity was ever sought at any time. 22 Bogus purchases group 33. In the case of G. Mahesh Babu, the Tribunal deleted the addition for not allowing cross-examination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Mahesh Babu Vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 14 (St.) dismissed the assessee’s SLP against the judgment dated 6.1.2017 of the Hon’ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.T.A. Nos. 226 and 208 of 2016 whereby the Hon’ble High Court held that an order of assessment passed on the basis of material gathered behind the assessee’s back and not supplied to the assessee with an opportunity…

RENUKA AUTO COMPONENTS INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10,, PUNE

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

ITA 1660/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…ranted, when no such opportunity was ever sought at any time. 22 Bogus purchases group 33. In the case of G. Mahesh Babu, the Tribunal deleted the addition for not allowing cross-examination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Mahesh Babu Vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 14 (St.) dismissed the assessee’s SLP against the judgment dated 6.1.2017 of the Hon’ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.T.A. Nos. 226 and 208 of 2016 whereby the Hon’ble High Court held that an order of assessment passed on the basis of material gathered behind the assessee’s back and not supplied to the assessee with an opportunity…

RENUKA AUTO COMPONENTS INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10,, PUNE

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

ITA 1659/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…ranted, when no such opportunity was ever sought at any time. 22 Bogus purchases group 33. In the case of G. Mahesh Babu, the Tribunal deleted the addition for not allowing cross-examination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Mahesh Babu Vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 14 (St.) dismissed the assessee’s SLP against the judgment dated 6.1.2017 of the Hon’ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.T.A. Nos. 226 and 208 of 2016 whereby the Hon’ble High Court held that an order of assessment passed on the basis of material gathered behind the assessee’s back and not supplied to the assessee with an opportunity…

BALRAJ SINGH MANDER,,RAIGAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE,, PANVEL

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

ITA 1520/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…ranted, when no such opportunity was ever sought at any time. 22 Bogus purchases group 33. In the case of G. Mahesh Babu, the Tribunal deleted the addition for not allowing cross-examination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Mahesh Babu Vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 14 (St.) dismissed the assessee’s SLP against the judgment dated 6.1.2017 of the Hon’ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.T.A. Nos. 226 and 208 of 2016 whereby the Hon’ble High Court held that an order of assessment passed on the basis of material gathered behind the assessee’s back and not supplied to the assessee with an opportunity…

BALRAJ SINGH MANDER,,RAIGAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE,, PANVEL

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

ITA 1519/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…ranted, when no such opportunity was ever sought at any time. 22 Bogus purchases group 33. In the case of G. Mahesh Babu, the Tribunal deleted the addition for not allowing cross-examination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Mahesh Babu Vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 14 (St.) dismissed the assessee’s SLP against the judgment dated 6.1.2017 of the Hon’ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.T.A. Nos. 226 and 208 of 2016 whereby the Hon’ble High Court held that an order of assessment passed on the basis of material gathered behind the assessee’s back and not supplied to the assessee with an opportunity…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK vs. CHANDRASHEKHAR ASHOK JOSHI,, NASHIK

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

ITA 1507/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…ranted, when no such opportunity was ever sought at any time. 22 Bogus purchases group 33. In the case of G. Mahesh Babu, the Tribunal deleted the addition for not allowing cross-examination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Mahesh Babu Vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 14 (St.) dismissed the assessee’s SLP against the judgment dated 6.1.2017 of the Hon’ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.T.A. Nos. 226 and 208 of 2016 whereby the Hon’ble High Court held that an order of assessment passed on the basis of material gathered behind the assessee’s back and not supplied to the assessee with an opportunity…

ADROIT ENTERPRISES,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

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

ITA 12/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…ranted, when no such opportunity was ever sought at any time. 22 Bogus purchases group 33. In the case of G. Mahesh Babu, the Tribunal deleted the addition for not allowing cross-examination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Mahesh Babu Vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 14 (St.) dismissed the assessee’s SLP against the judgment dated 6.1.2017 of the Hon’ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.T.A. Nos. 226 and 208 of 2016 whereby the Hon’ble High Court held that an order of assessment passed on the basis of material gathered behind the assessee’s back and not supplied to the assessee with an opportunity…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE,, PANVEL vs. M/S. AGARWAL PETROCHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,, RAIGAD

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

ITA 1094/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…ranted, when no such opportunity was ever sought at any time. 22 Bogus purchases group 33. In the case of G. Mahesh Babu, the Tribunal deleted the addition for not allowing cross-examination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Mahesh Babu Vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 14 (St.) dismissed the assessee’s SLP against the judgment dated 6.1.2017 of the Hon’ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.T.A. Nos. 226 and 208 of 2016 whereby the Hon’ble High Court held that an order of assessment passed on the basis of material gathered behind the assessee’s back and not supplied to the assessee with an opportunity…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE,, PANVEL vs. M/S. AGARWAL PETROCHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,, RAIGAD

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

ITA 1093/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…ranted, when no such opportunity was ever sought at any time. 22 Bogus purchases group 33. In the case of G. Mahesh Babu, the Tribunal deleted the addition for not allowing cross-examination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Mahesh Babu Vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 14 (St.) dismissed the assessee’s SLP against the judgment dated 6.1.2017 of the Hon’ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.T.A. Nos. 226 and 208 of 2016 whereby the Hon’ble High Court held that an order of assessment passed on the basis of material gathered behind the assessee’s back and not supplied to the assessee with an opportunity…

M/S. AGARWAL PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE,, PANVEL

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

ITA 1003/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…ranted, when no such opportunity was ever sought at any time. 22 Bogus purchases group 33. In the case of G. Mahesh Babu, the Tribunal deleted the addition for not allowing cross-examination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Mahesh Babu Vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 14 (St.) dismissed the assessee’s SLP against the judgment dated 6.1.2017 of the Hon’ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.T.A. Nos. 226 and 208 of 2016 whereby the Hon’ble High Court held that an order of assessment passed on the basis of material gathered behind the assessee’s back and not supplied to the assessee with an opportunity…

M/S. AGARWAL PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE,, PANVEL

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

ITA 1002/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…ranted, when no such opportunity was ever sought at any time. 22 Bogus purchases group 33. In the case of G. Mahesh Babu, the Tribunal deleted the addition for not allowing cross-examination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Mahesh Babu Vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 14 (St.) dismissed the assessee’s SLP against the judgment dated 6.1.2017 of the Hon’ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.T.A. Nos. 226 and 208 of 2016 whereby the Hon’ble High Court held that an order of assessment passed on the basis of material gathered behind the assessee’s back and not supplied to the assessee with an opportunity…

M/S. AGARWAL PETROCHEM PVT.LTD,,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE,, PANVEL

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

ITA 1000/PUN/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…ranted, when no such opportunity was ever sought at any time. 22 Bogus purchases group 33. In the case of G. Mahesh Babu, the Tribunal deleted the addition for not allowing cross-examination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Mahesh Babu Vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 14 (St.) dismissed the assessee’s SLP against the judgment dated 6.1.2017 of the Hon’ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.T.A. Nos. 226 and 208 of 2016 whereby the Hon’ble High Court held that an order of assessment passed on the basis of material gathered behind the assessee’s back and not supplied to the assessee with an opportunity…

MADHUBAN TRADE STEELS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

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

ITA 963/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

…ranted, when no such opportunity was ever sought at any time. 22 Bogus purchases group 33. In the case of G. Mahesh Babu, the Tribunal deleted the addition for not allowing cross-examination. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Mahesh Babu Vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 407 ITR 14 (St.) dismissed the assessee’s SLP against the judgment dated 6.1.2017 of the Hon’ble Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.T.A. Nos. 226 and 208 of 2016 whereby the Hon’ble High Court held that an order of assessment passed on the basis of material gathered behind the assessee’s back and not supplied to the assessee with an opportunity…

Showing 1–20 of 45 · Page 1 of 3

Mahesh Babu v. Pr. CIT (407 ITR 14) — Cited in 45 Judgments | BharatTax