Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT (Exemptions)

463 ITR 560High Court2024#1521 most cited

What is Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT (Exemptions) authority for?

Service of notice through the ITBA portal is not a valid method of service under section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Consequently, matters where notice was deemed invalidly served via ITBA portal are remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de novo disposal to uphold principles of natural justice.

75

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship · section 282(1) · Rule 127(1) · service of notice · ITBA portal · invalid notice service · ex-parte assessment · de novo assessment · natural justice · reassessment · section 144 · section 148

Also reported as

160 Taxmann.com 629

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 282(1)Section 144Section 148Section 142(1)Section 147Section 250Section 127(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 282(1)section 282short deduction of tdssection 12a(1)(ac)section 12a(1)(ac)(iii)section 12a(1)service of noticesection 249(2)section 200a(1)section 12ab(1)(b)(i)section 249(3)section 28

Judgments citing Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT (Exemptions)

VIMALA,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, WARD 5, PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3986/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3985 & 3986/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vimala, Vs Income Tax Officer, No.16, 2Nd Cross Perumal Raja Ward-5, Garden, Reddiarpalayam, Puducherry. Pondicherry – 605010. Pan: Acppv7834C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr. N. Arjun Raj – Advocate Revenue By Ms. R Anitha – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 18/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Dated 18.03.2025 & 19.02.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively.

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

…served upon the appellant by the ld.CIT(A). To fortify our view, we would like to make reference to a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vs. CIT (Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for denovo disposal of case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below : “7. We are afraid that we cannot subscribe to the submissions as advanc…

VIMALA,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, WARD 5, PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3985/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3985 & 3986/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vimala, Vs Income Tax Officer, No.16, 2Nd Cross Perumal Raja Ward-5, Garden, Reddiarpalayam, Puducherry. Pondicherry – 605010. Pan: Acppv7834C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr. N. Arjun Raj – Advocate Revenue By Ms. R Anitha – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 18/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Dated 18.03.2025 & 19.02.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively.

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

…served upon the appellant by the ld.CIT(A). To fortify our view, we would like to make reference to a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vs. CIT (Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for denovo disposal of case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below : “7. We are afraid that we cannot subscribe to the submissions as advanc…

VIMALA,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, WARD 5, PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3986/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3985 & 3986/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vimala, Vs Income Tax Officer, No.16, 2Nd Cross Perumal Raja Ward-5, Garden, Reddiarpalayam, Puducherry. Pondicherry – 605010. Pan: Acppv7834C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr. N. Arjun Raj – Advocate Revenue By Ms. R Anitha – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 18/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Dated 18.03.2025 & 19.02.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively.

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

…served upon the appellant by the ld.CIT(A). To fortify our view, we would like to make reference to a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vs. CIT (Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for denovo disposal of case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below : “7. We are afraid that we cannot subscribe to the submissions as advanc…

VIMALA,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, WARD 5, PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3985/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3985 & 3986/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vimala, Vs Income Tax Officer, No.16, 2Nd Cross Perumal Raja Ward-5, Garden, Reddiarpalayam, Puducherry. Pondicherry – 605010. Pan: Acppv7834C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr. N. Arjun Raj – Advocate Revenue By Ms. R Anitha – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 18/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Dated 18.03.2025 & 19.02.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively.

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

…served upon the appellant by the ld.CIT(A). To fortify our view, we would like to make reference to a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vs. CIT (Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for denovo disposal of case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below : “7. We are afraid that we cannot subscribe to the submissions as advanc…

ARCH TECH BUILDING MATERIALS PRIVATE LIMITED,CUDDALORE vs. ITO, WARD 1, CUDDALORE, CUDDALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4044/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 282(1)

…notices were not served upon the appellant. To fortify our view, we would like to make reference to a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vs. CIT (Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for denovo disposal of case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below : 5 “7. We are afraid that we cannot subscribe to the submissions as adv…

SUMITRA DEVI,GURGAON vs. ITO,WARD 4(1),GURGAON, GURGAON

ITA 2499/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B', NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2499/Del/2025 (Asstt. Year :2013-14) SUMITRA DEVI, C/O M.R. SAHU, HOUSE NO. 651, 1ST FLOOR, SECTOR-10A, NEAR G.D. GOENKA PUBLIC SCHOOL, GURGAON-122001 HARYANA (PAN: AVPPD4710N) (Appellant) VS. ITO, WARD 4(1), GURGAON (Respondent) ASSESSEE BY : Sh. M.R. Sahu, CA Respondent by : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 23.02.2026 11.03.2026 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 25.3.2025…

AUDREY BERNICE ROY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM

ITA 494/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194JSection 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री रिीश सूद ,न्याधयक सदस्य BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.494/VIZ/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Vs. Audrey Bernice Roy Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(5) Plot No. 274, Sector – 3 Visakhapatnam – 530016 Opposite Hotel Vyasakhi Andhra Pradesh Parlour 2nd Lane, MVP Colony Visakhapatnam – 530017 Andhra Pradesh [PAN: AOIPR5255C] करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri M. Muralidhar, CA राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Re…

JASDEV SINGH,BATHINDA vs. ITO, WARD 1(1) , BTD, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 662/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 662/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jasdev Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(1), Gobindpura, Bathinda. Bathinda. [Pan:-Bzyps0363N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv & Sh. V.S. Appellant By Aggarwal, Itp Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 662/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Jasdev Singh, Vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Gobindpura, Bathinda. Bathinda. [PAN:-BZYPS0363N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv & Sh. V.S. Appellant by Aggarwal, ITP Respondent by Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. DR 22.01.2026 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 09.02.2026 ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, passed u…

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 725/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

…notices were not served upon the appellant. To fortify our view, we would like to make reference to a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vs. CIT (Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for de novo disposal of case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below : “7. We are afraid that we cannot subscribe to the submissions as advan…

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 724/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

…notices were not served upon the appellant. To fortify our view, we would like to make reference to a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vs. CIT (Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for de novo disposal of case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below : “7. We are afraid that we cannot subscribe to the submissions as advan…

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 723/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

…notices were not served upon the appellant. To fortify our view, we would like to make reference to a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vs. CIT (Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for de novo disposal of case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below : “7. We are afraid that we cannot subscribe to the submissions as advan…

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, THIRUVALLA

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 722/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

…notices were not served upon the appellant. To fortify our view, we would like to make reference to a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vs. CIT (Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for de novo disposal of case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below : “7. We are afraid that we cannot subscribe to the submissions as advan…

SANJEEV YADAV,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1843/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Sahu, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148A

…reassessment was made ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT(Exemptions) 463 ITR 560 wherein the Hon'ble High Court questioned the validity of service of notice through ITBA portal but at the same time, to uphold the principle of natural justice, remanded the matter to AO for denovo disposal of case. Similar stand was taken by the coordinate bench of Pune ITAT in the case of Shree Vyagreshwar Kulswami Pariwar vs. Commissione…

ANANDARAO KOTA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 238/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.238/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2015-16) Shri Anandarao Kota, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward 9(1), Pan: Cvopk0669Q Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश/Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 27.07.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is That The Assessee Is An Individual, No Regular Return Of Income U/S.139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Was Filed For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessing Officer Based On The Information That The Assessee Made Cash Deposits Of Rs.1,03,97,300/- In The Savings Bank Account Formed Opinion That The Income Had Escaped Assessment

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 282(1)

…the notice was not served upon the appellant. To fortify our view, I would like to make reference to a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vs. CIT (Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for de novo disposal of case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below : “7.We are afraid that we cannot subscribe to the submissions as advance…

PAVANA MANUEL XAVIER,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 2(3), KOCHI

ITA 572/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Padmanathan K.V., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 282(1)

…he notices were not served upon the appellant. To fortify my view, I would like to make reference to a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vs. CIT (Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon'ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for de novo disposal of case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below : "7. We are afraid that we cannot subscribe to the submissions as advanc…

PARAKKADATH SIMON VARGHESE,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , KOCHI CIRCLE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application stands dismissed

ITA 533/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm & Sa No. 72/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Parakkadath Simon Varghese .......... Appellant Parakkadath House, Koratty South, Thrissur [Pan: Afgpv9060G] Vs. Dcit (International Taxation), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Gibi C. George, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Gibi C. George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. DR
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)Section 282(1)

…notices were not served upon the appellant. To fortify our view, we would like to make reference to a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vs. CIT (Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for de novo disposal of case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below : “7. We are afraid that we cannot subscribe to the submissions as advan…

RINOO,PIMPRI- CHINCHWAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, THANE

In the result, grounds of appeal of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 918/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing)

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 254(1)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical hearing) RINOO Income Tax Officer Gate No. 1376, Rajgad Park, Vs Ashar IT Park, Thane (West), 6 More Wasti, Chikhali, Maharashtra – 400604. Maharashtra – 411062. [PAN: AEMPU1860Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Mr. Tanmay Phadke, Advocate Revenue by Shri AnnavaramKosuri, Sr. DR Date of Institution 03.02.2025 Date of hearing 31.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 20.08.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIA…

ABBOBACKER SIDDIEQUE,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1& TPS, TIRUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 537/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aboobacker Siddieque .......... Appellant Kundupuzhakkal House, Cherur Post Malappuram 676304 [Pan: Dzaps6853P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tps, Tirur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Shaji Paulose, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neethu, S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Paulose, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu, S., Sr. DR
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 282(1)Section 69C

…upon the appellant. To fortify our view, we would like to make reference to a decision 3 Aboobacker Siddieque rendered by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Vs. CIT (Exemptions) (2024) 463 ITR 560 (P&H), wherein the Hon’ble High Court after making reference to provisions of 282(1) held that service of notice through ITBA portal is not valid service and remanded the matter to AO for de novo disposal of case. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced below : “7. We are afraid that we cannot subscribe to the submissions as advan…

PADINJARETHIL SHAMSUDHEEN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, WARD 2, PALAKKAD

ITA 358/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing: 13.06.2025
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 282(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA Nos. 357 & 358/Coch/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Padinjarethil Shamsudheen Padijarethil House, Mulanhur Post, Chungad Ottapalam, Palakkad 678511 [PAN: DPOPS0689H] VS. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Palakkad Appellant Respondent Shri Pathmanathan K.V., Advocate Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Assessee by: Revenue by: Date of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 05.08.2025 ORDER Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against different orders of the Nati…

PADINJARETHIL SHAMSUDHEEN,PALAKKAD vs. ITO, WARD 2, PALAKKAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 357/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pathmanathan K.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 282(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM ITA Nos. 357 & 358/Coch/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Padinjarethil Shamsudheen .......... Appellant Padijarethil House, Mulanhur Post, Chungad Ottapalam, Palakkad 678511 [PAN: DPOPS0689H] vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Palakkad .......... Respondent Assessee by: Shri Pathmanathan K.V., Advocate Revenue by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 05.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against…

Showing 1–20 of 75 · Page 1 of 4