P&H), CIT vs. Bhan Textiles (P) Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 370 (Del), CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd.

287 ITR 360High Court2006#6051 most cited

What is P&H), CIT vs. Bhan Textiles (P) Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 370 (Del), CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. authority for?

An assessment made without a valid notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is void ab initio. Section 143(2) mandates service of notice on the assessee to ensure correct income computation.

19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. Bhan Textiles (P) Ltd. · CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. · 287 ITR 360 · Section 143(2) · service of notice · invalid proceedings · void ab initio assessment

Issues it is cited on

section 292bbsection 292bsection 292section 29service of noticelong term capital gainsection 142section 139section 143(2)previous yearsection 144section 143

Judgments citing P&H), CIT vs. Bhan Textiles (P) Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 370 (Del), CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd.

DHANOTTAM VASANT LONKAR,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2013-14
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 54FSection 68

…missioner of Income Tax vs Lunar Diamonds Ltd. on 3 March, 2005\nEquivalent citations: (2005) 197 CTR Del 312, 2006 281 ITR 1 Delhi\nGujarat High Court\nDeputy Commissioner Of... vs Mahi Valley Hotels And Resorts on 31\nAugust, 2005 Equivalent citations: 2006 287 ITR 360 G\nM/s. Cosmat Traders Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO (ITAT Kolkata)\nITA No. 457/Kol/2020 Date: 21/04/2021, Assessment Year: 2012-13\nAll ITAT Kolkata\nIt was further submitted that issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of\nthe Act being prerequisite, in the absence of such notice, the entire\nproceedings would be invalid.\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal-Mumb…

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

…Projects Ltd [2006] 100 ITD 113 (Lucknow) (Third Member) CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [2001] 119 Taxman 352/252 ITR 1 (SC) Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. CIT v. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts [2006] 287 ITR 360 (Guj.) Reference is also drawn to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal (Third Member) Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Anima Investment Ltd. [2000] 73 ITD 125 (Delhi) (TM) [18-01-2000] wherein it was discussed whether the AO should be given a second opportunity by setting aside matters, wherein the Third Member Bench held as under- "The powers of…

TATA CONSUMER PRODUCTS LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR
Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

…Projects Ltd [2006] 100 ITD 113 (Lucknow) (Third Member) CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala [2001] 119 Taxman 352/252 ITR 1 (SC) Tata Consumer Products Ltd. {erstwhile Tata Global Beverages Ltd.} AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Dy. CIT v. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts [2006] 287 ITR 360 (Guj.) Reference is also drawn to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal (Third Member) Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Anima Investment Ltd. [2000] 73 ITD 125 (Delhi) (TM) [18-01-2000] wherein it was discussed whether the AO should be given a second opportunity by setting aside matters, wherein the Third Member Bench held as under- "The powers of…

SHRI GIRISHBHAI NANJIBHAI SOLANKI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2), RAJKOT

ITA 32/RJT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 31 & 32/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Years:2011-12, 2012-13 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…refore, any assessment made based on notice which itself is not valid will also become void ab initio. In holding so we also draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of DCIT vs. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts reported in 287 ITR 360 wherein it was held as under: ITA Nos.31,32 & 38to40/Rjt/2020 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13 8 Section 143(2) requires that where a return has been made by an assessee, if the Assessing Officer considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income, or has not computed excessive loss, or has not underpaid tax in…

SHRI GIRISHBHAI NANJIBHAI SOLANKI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (1) (2), RAJKOT

ITA 31/RJT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 31 & 32/Rjt/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Years:2011-12, 2012-13 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…refore, any assessment made based on notice which itself is not valid will also become void ab initio. In holding so we also draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of DCIT vs. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts reported in 287 ITR 360 wherein it was held as under: ITA Nos.31,32 & 38to40/Rjt/2020 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13 8 Section 143(2) requires that where a return has been made by an assessee, if the Assessing Officer considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the income, or has not computed excessive loss, or has not underpaid tax in…

M/S NORTH SHORE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6830/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Sr.D.R
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I-2” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.6830/DEL/2015 Assessment Year 2011-12 North Shore Technologies Pvt. v. ITO, Ward-13(3), Ltd., New Delhi. H-9, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACN 9477H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Respondent by: Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing: 25 11 2019 Date of pronouncement: 13 02 2020 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the impugned order dated 15.09.2015, pa…

TODAY REALTY P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-25(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4029/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…383 ITR 448 (DHC). ii) CIT vs. CPR Capital Services Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 43 (DHC). iii) Virendra Deve Dixit vs. ACIT (2011) 331 ITR 483 (All. HC). iv) CIT vs. Cebon India Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 583 (P&H-HC). v) DCIT vs. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj. HC). vi) Sapthgiri Finance & Investments vs. ITO (2012) (Mad. HC.) vii) Meenakshi Aggarwal vs. ITO ITA No. 4171/Del/2015 (Delhi ITAT). 3.4 Ld. Counsel for the assessee finally stated that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has mentioned in the impugned order that inadvertently the AO has mentioned section 143(3)/147 of the Act 8 due t…

TODAY REALTY PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-25(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4028/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…3 ITR 448 (DHC). ii) CIT vs. CPR Capital Services Ltd. (2011) 330 ITR 43 (DHC). iii) Virendra Deve Dixit vs. ACIT (2011) 331 ITR 483 (All. HC). iv) CIT vs. Cebon India Ltd. (2012) 347 ITR 583 (P&H-HC). 4 v) DCIT vs. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj. HC). vi) Sapthgiri Finance & Investments vs. ITO (2012) (Mad. HC.) vii) Meenakshi Aggarwal vs. ITO ITA No. 4171/Del/2015 (Delhi ITAT). 3.2 Ld. Counsel for the assessee further requested that keeping in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (Supra) which was followed by…

THE DY. CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. MANGALALAXMI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Department’s appeal is dismissed and Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1558/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Shrivastava, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 68

…suance and service of notice u/s 143(2), the assessment framed suffered from lack of jurisdiction and it was null and void. He relied on the following decisions:- Panorama Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 45 taxmann.com 159 (Guj) Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj) Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P) Ltd (2015) 64 Taxmann.com 220 (Delhi) Aligarh Auto Centre (Agra ITAT)(2013) 34 taxmann.com 211 (Agra Trib) Sukhini P. Modi (2014) 52 Taxmann.com 50 (uj) Gitsons Engineering Co. (2015) 53 Taxmann.com 108 (Madras) Hotel Blue Moon 321 ITR 362 (SC) 6.1 He further submitted that even section 292BB cannot save th…

THE ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CEN.CIRCLE-1,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. M/S RAMCO GLOBAL TRADELINK PVT. LTD.,, MORBI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 448/RJT/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292Section 3

…the legal position on the issue had attained finality by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hotel Blue Moon-321 ITR 362. He also relied upon the following decisions :- Panorama Builders Pvt Ltd (Guj)-Tax appeal No.435 of 2011 Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts -287 ITR 360 (Guj) Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P) Ltd 2015 64 Taxman.com 220 (Delhi) Aligarh Auto Centre (Agra ITAT) (2013) 83 DTR 418 (Agra Trib) Sukhini P. Modi 367 ITR 682 (Guj) Nilesh Rameshwarprasad Gupta Tax appeal No.471 (2011) dated 13.6.2012 (Guj) Gitsons Engineering Co 370 ITR 87 (Madras) 5.2 He further mentioned that the assessee raised a speci…

SUNIL BHALLA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, whereas ITA Nos

ITA 1611/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…of CIT vs. M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Mad), Vipan Khanna vs. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 220 (P&H), CIT vs. Bhan Textiles (P) Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 370 (Del), CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Del), and Dy. CIT vs. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj), held that perusal of the provisions of s. 143(2) of the Act shows that the service of the notice on the assessee within the period provided under the proviso is mandatory. In the absence of the notice being served within the stipulated period under s. 143(2) of the Act, the assessment proceeding comes to an end and is deemed to have become…

SUNIL BHALLA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, whereas ITA Nos

ITA 1610/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…of CIT vs. M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Mad), Vipan Khanna vs. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 220 (P&H), CIT vs. Bhan Textiles (P) Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 370 (Del), CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Del), and Dy. CIT vs. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj), held that perusal of the provisions of s. 143(2) of the Act shows that the service of the notice on the assessee within the period provided under the proviso is mandatory. In the absence of the notice being served within the stipulated period under s. 143(2) of the Act, the assessment proceeding comes to an end and is deemed to have become…

SUNIL BHALLA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, whereas ITA Nos

ITA 1609/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…of CIT vs. M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Mad), Vipan Khanna vs. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 220 (P&H), CIT vs. Bhan Textiles (P) Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 370 (Del), CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Del), and Dy. CIT vs. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj), held that perusal of the provisions of s. 143(2) of the Act shows that the service of the notice on the assessee within the period provided under the proviso is mandatory. In the absence of the notice being served within the stipulated period under s. 143(2) of the Act, the assessment proceeding comes to an end and is deemed to have become…

SUNIL BHALLA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, whereas ITA Nos

ITA 1608/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(3)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…of CIT vs. M. Chellappan (2006) 281 ITR 444 (Mad), Vipan Khanna vs. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 220 (P&H), CIT vs. Bhan Textiles (P) Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 370 (Del), CIT vs. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 1 (Del), and Dy. CIT vs. Mahi Valley Hotels & Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj), held that perusal of the provisions of s. 143(2) of the Act shows that the service of the notice on the assessee within the period provided under the proviso is mandatory. In the absence of the notice being served within the stipulated period under s. 143(2) of the Act, the assessment proceeding comes to an end and is deemed to have become…

AMIT TYAGI,G B NAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2505/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10 Amit Tyagi, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(5), B-6 (Basement), J.S. Arcade, Ghaziabad Near Bikanerwala, Opp. Metro Pillar No. 65, Sector-18 Noida (Pan: Adupt6382P) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Chaman Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. SL Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 AMIT TYAGI, VS. ITO, WARD 1(5), B-6 (BASEMENT), J.S. ARCADE, GHAZIABAD NEAR BIKANERWALA, OPP. METRO PILLAR NO. 65, SECTOR-18 NOIDA (PAN: ADUPT6382P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Chaman Singh, CA Revenue by : Sh. SL Anuragi, Sr. DR. ORDER The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the Order dated 31.1.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Noida pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds:- 1. That the impugned Assessment order passed by the Ld. AO is bad in…

DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI vs. MHATRE ELECTRONICS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 6470/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(2)(ii)Section 144

…8. It is belated less than about two months. When the notice was issued after the expiry of the period of limitation, the effect of proceedings is void as per the ratio laid down by the Gujarat High Court in Deputy CIT v. Mahi Valley Hotels and Resorts [2006] 287 ITR 360 (Guj). It is well-settled that if any notice issued by the Department would become void for want of jurisdiction as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrhimji Mithiborwala [1971] 82 ITR 821 (SC). In view of the above, it appears that the impugned order / notice were issued by the Department were not within the period p…

MHATRE ELECTRONICS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 6349/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(2)Section 143(2)(ii)Section 144

…8. It is belated less than about two months. When the notice was issued after the expiry of the period of limitation, the effect of proceedings is void as per the ratio laid down by the Gujarat High Court in Deputy CIT v. Mahi Valley Hotels and Resorts [2006] 287 ITR 360 (Guj). It is well-settled that if any notice issued by the Department would become void for want of jurisdiction as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT v. Kurban Hussain Ibrhimji Mithiborwala [1971] 82 ITR 821 (SC). In view of the above, it appears that the impugned order / notice were issued by the Department were not within the period p…

D.C.I.T CIR - 53,KOLKATA., KOLKATA vs. M/S M.K ENTERPRISE., KOLKATA

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

ITA 181/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: S/Shri Sugata Shankar Roy &For Respondent: Shri Debasish Lahiri, JCIT, Ld.DR

…as contemplated and required u/s. 143(2) of the Act and urged to quash the assessment order and as confirmed by the CIT-A. The Ld. AR further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT v Mahi Valley Hotels and Resorts [2006] 287 ITR 360 (Guj). 13. The Ld.DR submits that the assessee participated in the assessment proceedings and did not raise such ground questioning the validity of notice issued u/s. 143(2) before the AO. The assessee raised such ground before the CIT-A for the first time. He further submits that with regard to filing of additional evidence as filed before us f…

OM NAMAH SHIVAY ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3881/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3881/Mum/2013 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Om Namah Shivay बनाम/ Income Tax Officer 15(2) (4), Enterprises, Matrumandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Shop No.6, Raj Umang Ii, Patil Estate, Ashokvan, Dahisar (E), Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400068 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सुं./ Pan : Aabfo0605 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Respondent: Shri Love Kumar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292BSection 40

…009, order dated 7.1.2010, Bombay High Court; C) CIT V/s Ms. Mudra G. Nanawati* (2009) 227 CTR (Bom) 387; D) Mangilal Jain V/s ITO (2009) 315 ITR 105 (Mad); E) CIT V/s Cebon India Ltd (2009) 347 ITR 583 (P&H); F) DCIT V/s Mahi Valley Hotels and Resorts (2006) 287 ITR 360 (Guj) G) CIT V/s Parikalpana Estate Development P Ltd (2012) 79 DTR (all) 246 and H) CIT V/s Pawan Gupta (2008) 304 ITR 177 (Del). 4 I T A N o . 3 8 8 1 / Mu m/ 1 3 5. The ld. AR further submitted that the provisions of section 292BB could not be applied in case of non-service notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. The ld. AR further submitted that sec…

P&H), CIT vs. Bhan Textiles (P) Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 370 (Del), CIT v. Lunar Diamonds Ltd. (287 ITR 360) — Cited in 19 Judgments | BharatTax