Nagpur v. Lalitkumar Bardia

Go Iron Marketing, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3), Vishakapatnam

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee firm is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.483/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) Go Iron Marketing, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam. Ward-3(3), Pan: Aanfg6474D Visakhapatnam. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Mrs. K. Hemalatha, Ca (Hybrid Hearing) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 03/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Firm Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 26/07/2025 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 01/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The 2 Go Iron Marketing Vs. Ito

…e contends that the action of the Assessing Officer is without authority of law and, therefore, wholly without jurisdiction. Also, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income tax v. Lalitkumar Bardia [2017] 84 taxmann.com 213/[2018] 404 ITR 63 (Bombay) had addressed the contention of the department that where the assessee had not objected to the jurisdiction within the time prescribed under sub- section (3) of Section 124 of the Act, then, having waived its said right, it was barred from raising the issue of jurisdiction after having participated in the assessment proceedings. The Hon'b…

No 368 Kolakaluru Primary Agricultural Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee society is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.456/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2019-20) No.368 Kolakaluru Primary Vs. Income Tax Officer, Agricultural Cooperative Ward-1, Credit Society Limited, Tenali. Tenali. Pan: Aaban6994Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of 04/11/2025 Hearing: घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 05/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Society Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 08/07/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated

…Limited vs. ITO the action of the Assessing Officer is without authority of law and, therefore, wholly without jurisdiction. Also, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income tax v. Lalitkumar Bardia [2017] 84 taxmann.com 213/[2018] 404 ITR 63 (Bombay) had addressed the contention of the department that where the assessee had not objected to the jurisdiction within the time prescribed under sub- section (3) of Section 124 of the Act, then, having waived its said right, it was barred from raising the issue of jurisdiction after having participated in the assessment proceedings. The Hon'b…

M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt. Limited, Rourkela vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Altrade Minerals Pvt /S. Altrade Minerals Pvt Vs. Asst. Asst. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of Ltd., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Income Tax, Central Circle, Income Tax, Central Circle, C.A., C.A., Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Sambalpur Market, Market, Kachery Kachery Road, Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. No.Aafca 7136 F (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/12/20 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/12/20 024

…icial pronouncements: Sl No Citation Forum Forum 1 CIT Vs. Green World (2009) 314 ITR 81 SC Corporation 2 Deepchand Kothari (1988) 171 ITR 381 Raj.HC Vs. CIT 3 ACIT Vs. Greater (2015)397 ITR 14 Alld.HC Noida Industrial Development 4 CIT Vs. Lalitkumar (2018) 404 ITR 63 Bom.HC Bardia 5 Smt.Prabha Rani (2013) 351 ITR 275 Alld.HC Agarwal Vs. ITO P a g e 19 | 63 ITA No.65/CTK /2023 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (5.2.1).Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'CIT Vs. Green World Corporation (supra)' has held as under: "Para.18. Objection in regard to jurisdiction may be taken at any stage. (See Chief Engineer, Hyde! P…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Himalaya Drug Company

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

…e of law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not in error in permitting the assessee to raise such a point before it. 18. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income tax-1, Nagpur vs. Lalitkumar Bardia reported in (2018) 404 ITR 63 (Bombay), while considering the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority in issuing the notice under Section 158BC of the Act has observed that it is the assessing officer alone who has to serve notice upon the assessee calling upon him to furnish a return in terms of Section 158BC of the Act. Such notice was not issued by the Assessing Offi…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Himalaya Drug Company

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

…e of law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not in error in permitting the assessee to raise such a point before it. 18. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income tax-1, Nagpur vs. Lalitkumar Bardia reported in (2018) 404 ITR 63 (Bombay), while considering the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority in issuing the notice under Section 158BC of the Act has observed that it is the assessing officer alone who has to serve notice upon the assessee calling upon him to furnish a return in terms of Section 158BC of the Act. Such notice was not issued by the Assessing Offi…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Himalaya Drug Company

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

…e of law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not in error in permitting the assessee to raise such a point before it. 18. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income tax-1, Nagpur vs. Lalitkumar Bardia reported in (2018) 404 ITR 63 (Bombay), while considering the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority in issuing the notice under Section 158BC of the Act has observed that it is the assessing officer alone who has to serve notice upon the assessee calling upon him to furnish a return in terms of Section 158BC of the Act. Such notice was not issued by the Assessing Offi…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Himalaya Drug Company

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

…e of law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not in error in permitting the assessee to raise such a point before it. 18. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income tax-1, Nagpur vs. Lalitkumar Bardia reported in (2018) 404 ITR 63 (Bombay), while considering the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority in issuing the notice under Section 158BC of the Act has observed that it is the assessing officer alone who has to serve notice upon the assessee calling upon him to furnish a return in terms of Section 158BC of the Act. Such notice was not issued by the Assessing Offi…

M/S. Himalaya Drug Company vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

…e of law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not in error in permitting the assessee to raise such a point before it. 18. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income tax-1, Nagpur vs. Lalitkumar Bardia reported in (2018) 404 ITR 63 (Bombay), while considering the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority in issuing the notice under Section 158BC of the Act has observed that it is the assessing officer alone who has to serve notice upon the assessee calling upon him to furnish a return in terms of Section 158BC of the Act. Such notice was not issued by the Assessing Offi…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Himalaya Drug Company

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

…e of law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not in error in permitting the assessee to raise such a point before it. 18. The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income tax-1, Nagpur vs. Lalitkumar Bardia reported in (2018) 404 ITR 63 (Bombay), while considering the jurisdiction of the Assessing Authority in issuing the notice under Section 158BC of the Act has observed that it is the assessing officer alone who has to serve notice upon the assessee calling upon him to furnish a return in terms of Section 158BC of the Act. Such notice was not issued by the Assessing Offi…