Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597; Gangadharan Pillai vs. ACED

126 ITR 356High Court1980#8909 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68 Section 801A

Judgments citing Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597; Gangadharan Pillai vs. ACED

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…nt order. kindly\nsee,Jagadambika Pratap Narain Singh (Raja) v. CBDT (1975) 100 ITR 698 (SC), Government of\nIndia v. Maxim A Lobo (1990) 83 CTR (Mad) 103; CIT v. VimladenBhagwandas Patel (Smt.)\n(1979) 118 ITR 134 (Guj); Gangadharan Pillai (P) v. ACED (1980) 126 ITR 356 (Ker); A\nSociedade de Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. v. Lahiri (KC) (1983) Tax LR 2664 (Goa);\nMallappaKallappaUgare v. Ag ITO (1973) 91 ITR 529 (Mys); State Bank of Patiala v Union of\nIndia (1973) 91 ITR 630 (P&H); CIT v Sham Lal (1981) 127 ITR 816 (P&H); Jai Prakash Singh\nv CIT (1978) 111 ITR 507 (Gau); Thomakutty (MO) v CIT (1958) 34 ITR 501…

VENKATESHWARA WIRES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 801ASection 80I

…ty which is the subject-matter of that Article and that violation of principles of natural justice by a State action is a violation of Article 14. (b) Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597) Hon’ble Supreme Court/ Gangadharan Pillai Vs. ACED (1980) 126 ITR 356 (Kerala) 24 Venkateshwara Wires Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT A quasi-judicial or administrative decision rendered or an order made in violation of the rule of audi alteram partem is null and viod and the order mas in such a case can be struck down as invalid on that score alone. (c) Shri Ram Durgaprasad Vs. Settlement Commission (1989) 176 ITR 169 (SC)…

ITO, WARD-4(1), KOLKATA vs. RAUDDRAMUKHI COMMERCE PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

ITA 60/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 68

…rendered or an order made in violation of the rule of audi alteram partem is null and void and the order made in such a case can be struck down as invalid on that Score alone - Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597, Gangadharan Pillai v. ACED [1980] 126 ITR 356 at pp. 365 to 367 (Ker.). In other words, the order which infringes the fundamental principle, passed in violation of audi alteram partem rule, is a nullity. When a competent Court of authority holds such an order as invalid or sets it aside, the impugned order becomes null and void- Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat AIR 1974 SC 1471 at p.…

RAJ AUTO WHEELS (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, AJMER

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

ITA 929/JPR/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocawteFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena, C IT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…ndered or an order made in violation of the rule of audi alteram partem is null and void and the order made in such a case can be struck down as invalid on that score alone (Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597; Gangadharan Pillai vs. ACED: (1980) 126 ITR 356 (Ker) : (1978) 8 CTR (Ker) 352 at pp. 365 to 367). In other words, the order which infringes the fundamental principle, passed in violation of audi alteram partem rule, is a nullity. When a competent Court or authority holds such an order as invalid or sets it aside, the impugned order becomes null and void. (Nb. Khan Abbas Khan vs. State of Guja…

M/S RAJ AUTO WHEELS P .LTD.,AJMER vs. JCIT, RANGE-1, AJMER

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

ITA 397/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocawteFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena, C IT-DR

Section 131Section 145(3)Section 194ASection 40

M/S RAJ AUTO WHEELS P LTD.,AJMER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, AJMER

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

ITA 396/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocawteFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena, C IT-DR

…rendered or an order made in violation of the rule of audialterampartem is null and void and the order made in such a case can be struck down as invalid on that score alone (Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597; Gangadharan Pillai vs. ACED: (1980) 126 ITR 356 (Ker) : (1978) 8 CTR (Ker) 352 at pp. 365 to 367). In other words, the order which infringes the fundamental principle, passed in violation of audialterampartem rule, is a nullity. When a competent Court or authority holds such an order as invalid or sets it aside, the impugned order becomes null and void. (Nb. Khan Abbas Khan vs. State of Gujara…

M/S. BANSIWALA IRON & STEEL ROLLING MILLS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3,, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1388/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1388/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Cuke M/S Bansiwala Iron & Steel Rolling Mills, D.C.I.T., 2Nd Floor, Somani Building, S.C. Link Vs. Circle-3, Road, Loha Mandi, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadfb 2375 A Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Mahendra Gargieya & Shri Dewang Gargieya (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (CIT-DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 69

SMT. SHARDABEN B. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1026/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…in violation of the rule of audi alteram partem is null and void and the order made in such a case can be struck down as invalid on that score alone (Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597; Gangadharan Pillai vs. ACED (1978) 8 CTR (Ker) 352 : (1980) 126 ITR 356 (Ker) at pp. 365 to 367). In other words, the order which infringes the fundamental principle, passed in violation of audi alteram partem rule, is a nullity. When a competent Court or authority holds such an order as invalid or sets it aside, the impugned order becomes null and void. (Nb. Khan Abbas Khan vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1974 SC 1471 at 1…

M/S BIHARI LAL MALPANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 43(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganeshi.T.A. No.527/Kol/2017 (Assessment Year 2013-14) M/S Bihari Lal Malpani Ito, Ward-43(1), Kolkata. -Vs- [Pan :Adupm 6438 R]

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…rendered or an order made in violation of the rule of audi alteram partem is null and void and the order made in such a case can be struck down as invalid on that score alone - Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC.597, Gangadharan Pillai v. ACED [1980] 126 ITR 356 at pp. 365 to 367 (Ker.). In other words, the order which infringes the fundamental principle, passed in I.T.A. No.527/Kol/2017 Assessment year 2013-14 M/s Bihari Lal Malpani violation of audi alteram partem rule, is a nullity. When a competent Court of authority holds such an order as invalid or sets it aside, the impugned order becomes null an…

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. M/S PRB SECURITIES PVT.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 211/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 211/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Prb Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcp 5425 G ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, AR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A T Varkey, JM, & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A No. 211/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 DCIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata -vs- M/s PRB Securities Pvt. Ltd. [PAN: AABCP 5425 G ] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri Manish Tiwari, AR Date of Hearing : 22.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 05.12.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolkata [in short the ld CIT(A)]…

ACIT, CIR-10(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S ADITYA POLYSACK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 1770/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Acit, Circle-10(2) V/S. M/S Aditya Polysack Pvt. P-7, Chowringhee Ltd., C/O S.N. Ghosh & Square, 3Rd Floor, Associate, Advocate, Seven Kolkata-69 Brothers’ Lodge, P.O.Burashibtola, P.S. Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly, Pin-712105 [Pan No.Aagca 9158 C] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri C.J. Singh, Sr-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 25-10-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-11-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata’S Order Dated 08.07.2016, Passed In Case No.376/Cit(A)-4/Cir.10(2)/Kol/15-16, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Sides. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Ground Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Findings Reversing Assessing Officer’S Action Treating The Taxpayer’S Share Application / Premium Amount Of ₹140,00,000/- Vide Following Detailed Discussion:- “5. I Have Considered The Issue In The Assessment Order Framed By The Ao In Light Of The Arguments Made By The Appellant. The Short Issue For My

Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “D” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2012-13 ACIT, Circle-10(2) V/s. M/s Aditya Polysack Pvt. P-7, Chowringhee Ltd., C/o S.N. Ghosh & Square, 3rd Floor, Associate, Advocate, Seven Kolkata-69 Brothers’ Lodge, P.O.Burashibtola, P.S. Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly, Pin-712105 [PAN No.AAGCA 9158 C] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri C.J. Singh, SR-DR अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 25-10-2018 सुनव…

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRATEEK KOTHARI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 552/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court.”

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Prithviraj Meena (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 132(4)Section 68

…ent order. kindly see, Jagadambika Pratap Narain Singh (Raja) v. CBDT (1975) 100 ITR 698 (SC), Government of India v. Maxim A Lobo (1990) 83 CTR (Mad) 103; CIT v. Vimladen Bhagwandas Patel (Smt.) (1979) 118 ITR 134 (Guj); Gangadharan Pillai (P) v. ACED (1980) 126 ITR 356 (Ker); A Sociedade de Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd. v. Lahiri (KC) (1983) Tax LR 2664 (Goa); Mallappa Kallappa Ugare v. Ag ITO (1973) 91 ITR 529 (Mys); State Bank of Patiala v Union of India (1973) 91 ITR 630 (P&H); CIT v Sham Lal (1981) 127 ITR 816 (P&H); Jai Prakash Singh v CIT (1978) 111 ITR 507 (Gau); Thomakutty (MO) v CIT (1958) 34 ITR 501 (K…