Nagesh v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

376 ITR 473High Court2015#20772 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 10A Section 10AA Section 10B Section 10BA Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Judgments citing Nagesh v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

SHRI SWAMI VIVEKANAND NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,PANDHARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 PANDHARPUR , PANDHARPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1406/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

…urn. We have already reproduced the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court, wherein Hon’ble High Court has held that Return filed beyond the time permitted u/s.139, 142 is Invalid Return. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of K.Nagesh Vs. ACIT [2015] 376 ITR 473 dated 20.04.2015 has held that “The word 'return', thus means, a legal and valid return.” Therefore, respectfully following, Hon’ble Kerala High Court and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, wehave already held that 17 ITA No.1406/PUN/2025 [A] the Return of Income filed by the Assessee on 21/07/2019 was Invalid, non-est Return. Therefore, no action wa…

MR. SHYAMRAJ SINGH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME

WP/19955/2021HC Karnataka25 Nov 2021

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar Writ Petition No.19955 Of 2021 (T-It) Between: Mr. Shyamraj Singh S/O B.S Balaji Singh Aged About 43 Years Presently At Embassy Habitat, No.1002, Next To Mount Carmel College Vasanthnagar, Bangalore – 560 052. …Petitioner (By Sri Gautam S Bharadwaj, Advocate) And: 1) Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Aayakar Bhavan No.1 Queens Road, Bengaluru – 560 001. 2) The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle 1 Bellary – 583 102. 3) The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Aayakar Bhavan No.1 Fort Road, Bengaluru – 560 001. 4) Income Tax Officer Ward – 1, "Aayakar Bhavan" Staff Road , Fort Bellari – 583 102. 5) The Tax Recovery Officer (Central) 4Th Floor Central Avenue, Queens Road Bangalore – 560 001.

…yamraj Singh Vs. The Deputy Commissioner (W.P.36004/2018 C/W 36005/2010 DD: 24.01.2019) produced at Annexure-E, as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of K. Nagesh Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2015) 376 ITR 473 produced at 4 Annexure-G, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional representation to the respondents within a period of two weeks from today.…

M/S MOOLCHAND KUMAWAT & SONS,BEAWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1013/JPR/2019[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2020AY 1998-99

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Written submissionFor Respondent: Ms Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)

Section 154Section 158BSection 240

…urn filed for block period under proviso (b) to section 240 of the Act. In support of the above contention, the assessee relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of K. Nagesh Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2015) 376 ITR 473 (Kar.) wherein it is held that "If the return itself is declared to be invalid by the authorities as well as by the Tribunal, such return does not exist i.e., it is void ab initio and non-est in the eye of law which has no legal sanctity". The assessee further relied on the following judgments, which have been duly discussed by Hon'ble Karnatak…

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S REDEX PROTECH P LTD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 462/AHD/2002[95-96]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 May 2019

Bench: The Tribunal Against Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)-Xi, Ahmedabad Dated 31.12.2001 Passed For The Asstt.Year 1995- 96. On Receipt Of Notice In The Revenue’S Appeal, The Assessee Has Filed Cross Objection Bearing No.28/Ahd/2002. Ita No.462/Ahd/2002 & Others With Co (Special Bench)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar with Shri P.M. Mehta and Shri Parin ShahFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(4)Section 255(4)Section 264Section 80I

…as defective within meaning of section 139(9) Explanation (c) and if the return is defective then no cognizance of such return for passing assessment order can be taken. For buttressing his contentions, the relied upon the following decisions: i) K. Nagesh, 376 ITR 473 (Kar) ii) Harjinder Kaur, 310 ITR 71 (P&H) iii) Bake Food Products P.Ltd., 356 ITR 690 (AP) 12. He also contended that ld.DR during the course of hearing made reference to the CBDT circular available on page no.295 of the Department’s PB and submitted that defective return, if not rectified, then become non est return, and accordingly , provisio…