Mehsana Urban Co-oop Bank Ltd. v. Asst. CIT

451 ITR 510High Court2023#18439 most cited
5

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

Sections most often in play

Section 131Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 2(31)

Issues it is cited on

section 148(1)section 147(a)section 42section 292bbsection 65section 282section 18legal representativesection 149(1)(b)section 149(1)section 234csection 292b

Judgments citing Mehsana Urban Co-oop Bank Ltd. v. Asst. CIT

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

ITA 67/JODH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

…Courts and appellate authorities have followed these binding orders of Hon'ble Apex Court and quashed notices. Out of plethora of such judgments we are placing our reliance on some of under mentioned orders : Mehsana Urban Co-oop Bank Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2023) 451 ITR 514 (Guj). Neo Structo Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2023) 451 ITR 510 (Guj). 1.12 The mandate of section 148(1) is that reassessment shall not be made until there has been service of notice. Mere mentioned name of assessee on the notice cannot be equated with the proper service of notice as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. The bu…

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

ITA 66/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

…'ble Apex Court and quashed notices. Out of plethora of such judgments we are placing our reliance on some of under mentioned orders : Mehsana Urban Co-oop Bank Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2023) 451 ITR 514 (Guj). Neo Structo Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2023) 451 ITR 510 (Guj). 1.13 The mandate of section 148(1) is that reassessment shall not be made until there has been service of notice. Mere mentioned name of assessee on the notice cannot be equated with the proper service of notice as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. The burden to establish that notice under section 149(1)(b) read with section 14…

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

ITA 65/JODH/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

…'ble Apex Court and quashed notices. Out of plethora of such judgments we are placing our reliance on some of under mentioned orders : Mehsana Urban Co-oop Bank Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2023) 451 ITR 514 (Guj). Neo Structo Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2023) 451 ITR 510 (Guj). 1.13 The mandate of section 148(1) is that reassessment shall not be made until there has been service of notice. Mere mentioned name of assessee on the notice cannot be equated with the proper service of notice as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. The burden to establish that notice under section 149(1)(b) read with section 14…

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

ITA 64/JODH/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

…'ble Apex Court and quashed notices. Out of plethora of such judgments we are placing our reliance on some of under mentioned orders : Mehsana Urban Co-oop Bank Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2023) 451 ITR 514 (Guj). Neo Structo Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2023) 451 ITR 510 (Guj). 1.12 The mandate of section 148(1) is that reassessment shall not be made until there has been service of notice. Mere mentioned name of assessee on the notice cannot be equated with the proper service of notice as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. The burden to establish that notice under section 149(1)(b) read with 1.13 secti…

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

ITA 63/JODH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 May 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Lodha (CA)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 148Section 154Section 189(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 250Section 292BSection 42

…Courts and appellate authorities have followed these binding orders of Hon'ble Apex Court and quashed notices. Out of plethora of such judgments we are placing our reliance on some of under mentioned orders : Mehsana Urban Co-oop Bank Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2023) 451 ITR 514 (Guj). Neo Structo Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2023) 451 ITR 510 (Guj). 1.13 The mandate of section 148(1) is that reassessment shall not be made until there has been service of notice. Mere mentioned name of assessee on the notice cannot be equated with the proper service of notice as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. The bu…