How many judgments cite Pr. CIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd.?

105 judgments on BharatTax cite Pr. CIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. (383 ITR 448), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Pr. CIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(2), Section 148, Section 147, Section 143(3), Section 292BB, Section 144.

Pr. CIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd.

383 ITR 448High Court2016#1040 most cited

What is Pr. CIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

The issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act is a mandatory jurisdictional requirement for completing an assessment or reassessment. Failure to issue this notice renders the assessment order invalid, even if the return of income is filed belatedly or in response to a Section 148 notice.

105

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Pr. CIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. · 383 ITR 448 · Section 143(2) notice · mandatory requirement · Section 148 reassessment · jurisdictional defect · invalid assessment · belated return · failure to issue notice · reassessment proceedings quashed

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 148 Section 147 Section 143(3)Section 292BB Section 144 Section 142(1)Section 250

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 133(a)section 153b(1)(a)section 148(1)section 292bb time barred assessment section 153(1)(a)bona fide mistake section 90a section 153b(1)section 153(4)section 158bc section 292b

Judgments citing Pr. CIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd.

Parmanand, Agra vs. ITO, Ward, 2(1)(2), Agra

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 447/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra17 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…rguments: 1. CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandelwal, (2019) 310 CTR (SC) 8. 2. Rajender Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO, (2019) 414 ITR 286 (Del). 3. PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd., (2017) 398 ITR 701 (Del). 4. PCIT vs. Shri Jay Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd., (2016) 383 ITR 448 (Del). 5. CIT vs. Rajeev Sharma, (2011) 336 ITR 678 (All). 6. PCIT vs. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 404 ITR 299 (Del). 7. Anil Agarwal HUF vs. ITO, ITA No. 2594/Del/2024, dated 30.07.2025 (ITAT Delhi). 8. Deepak Kumar Gupta vs. ITO, ITA No. 4528/Del/2024, dated 17.10.2025 (ITAT Delhi). 9. PCIT & Anr vs. Ashish Gupta, ITA No 02/2026, Allaha…

Chanchal Bansal, Bahadurgarh vs. ITO Ward-3 Rohtak, Rohtak

ITA 4684/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalchanchal Bansal Vs. Ito Ward-3 Mohallamazid, 14, Aayakarbhawan Ward No.25, Rohtak, Jhajjar, Bahadurgarh, Haryana – 124001 Haryana – 124507 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bicpb3122P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sh. P.K. Jain, Ca Ms. Vrishti Jain, Ca Respondent By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…owing decisions in support of his contentions: 1. CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandewal 417 ITR 325 (SC); 2. Rajender Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO 414 ITR 286 (Del.); 3. PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. 398 ITR 701 (Del); 4. PCIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Trading P. Ltd. 388 ITR 448 (Del.); 5. CIT vs. Rajiv Sharma 336 ITR 678 (All.); 6. PCIT vs. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 404 ITR 299 (Del). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file return within the time specified in the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and therefore the Assessing Officer treated the return as invalid return and since the ret…

Arun Kumar Maurya, Lucknow vs. ITO-2(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 415/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

…Court in the case Sapthagiri Finance & Investments vs ITO (2012) 25 taxmann.com 341 (Mad.), order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax vs Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd (2015) 64 taxmann.com 220 (Delhi)/(2016) 383 ITR 448 (Del), order of the Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of ITO vs Ashish Gupta in ITA. No.560/Del/2024 order dated 30.06.2025, order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 108 taxmann.com 183 (SC)/(2019) 266 Taxman 171 (SC)/(2019) 417 ITR 324 (SC) and order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs H…

Goal Oriented Trade Link Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2576/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 158Section 250

…assessee. Implicit in the wording of Section 143(3) of the Act is the indispensability of a notice under Section 143(2) thereof. c). In case of PR. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd. [2015] 64 taxmann.com 220 (Delhi)/[2016] 383 ITR 448 (Delhi)/[2016] 282 CTR 435 (Delhi)[14-10-2015] “12. The narration of facts as noted above by the Court makes it clear that no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the Assessee after 16th December 2010, the date on which the Assessee informed the AO that the return originally filed should be treated as the return filed pursuant to…

Ambika Uniyal (Old Name Ambika Rawat), Dehradun vs. Income Tax Officer, Rishikesh

ITA 145/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ambika Uniyal (Old Name Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ambika Rawat), 237, Jolly Ward-1(4)(1), Grant, Bhaniyawala, Rishikesh Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan : Buupr4730B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Virsain Aggarwal, Adv. Sh. Rohit Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…authority seeking to treat the earlier return under section 139(1) as that in response to the reopening herein. This clinching fact has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. We thus conclude in light of PCIT Vs. Sh. Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 448 (Del) that even such a letter reiterating the earlier return ought to be followed by a valid section 143(2) notice to hold that the impugned reassessment in 2 | P a g e absence thereof is indeed a non-est one only. The same stands quashed in very terms. All other remaining pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic. 3. This assessee’s…

Dynamo Realcon Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1999/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1999/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Dynamo Realcon Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito Ward-1(1), Kolkata 27, Narayani, 2Nd Floor, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. :Aadcd 1630 R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Sima Das Biswas, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…to issue notice is an irregularity, which is curable when subsequently the law is well settled that it being an inherent defect is not curable. To the same effect are the decisions in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-vs-Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt. Ltd. 383 ITR 448 (Delhi) and Tiwari Kanhaiya Lal -vs- Commissioner of Income-Tax 154 ITR 109 (Raj). In the light of the above, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is legal and valid and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the substantial question of law is answered against the revenue. 4. It was s…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal vs. Ashutosh Foods, Nissing

ITA 234/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmadeputy Commissioner Of Vs. Ashutosh Foods Income Tax, Karnalkaithal Road, Aayakarbhawan, Nissingkarnal, Sector-12, Karnal Haryana – 132024 Haryana – 132001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aavfa2840F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Dr.Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148

…wing decisions in support of his contentions: 1. CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandewal 417 ITR 325 (SC); 2. Rajender Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO 414 ITR 286 (Del.); 3. PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. 398 ITR 701 (Del); 4. PCIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Trading P. Ltd. 388 ITR 448 (Del.); 5. CIT vs. Rajiv Sharma 336 ITR 678 (All.); 6. PCIT vs. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 404 ITR 299 (Del). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file return within the time specified in the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and therefore the Assessing Officer treated the return as invalid return and since the re…

M/S. Urban Nirman LLP, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 12(1), Kolkta

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1730/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…t framed by the Id. AO is invalid and nullity in the eyes of law. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in case of PCIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd. [2015] 64 taxmann.com 220 (Delhi)/[2016] 383 ITR 448 (Delhi)/[2016] 282 CTR 435 (Delhi)[14-10-2015], wherein it is held that the failure by the AO to issue a notice to the Assessee under Section 143(2) of the Act, pursuant to a notice under Section 148 of the Act, is fatal to the order of re-assessment. Therefore, we respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in case of PC…

Shri Radha Krishan Mandir Trust, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Exemp 2(2), Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1481/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Shri Radha Krishan Mandir Vs. Income Tax Officer, Trust, Opposite E Block, Greater Ward Exemption 2(2) Kailsah, Part-1, Delhi Civic Centre, Delhi Pan: Aakts7362K Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. Shankar Lal Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 292BSection 69A

…f the Act was quashed in the absence of service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act even in case of a belated return of income. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd. 383 ITR 448 (Delhi), CIT vs. Delhi Kalyan Samiti ITA No.696/2015 (Del), Shaily Juneja 4 Shri Radha Krishan Mandir Trust Vs. ITO vs. ACIT W.P.(C) No.10298/2022 and Primary Real Estate Investments vs. Dy. CIT W.P.(C) No.9705/2023 both dated 27.08.2024 while quashing the reassessment proceedings for not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of IT Act. 8. Considering t…

Intact Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 825/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

…, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with." 11.8 Further, the above judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was followed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P) Ltd reported in 383 ITR 448 (Delhi) wherein it was held as follows:- "12. The narration of facts as noted above by the Court makes it clear that no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the Assessee after 16th December 2010, the date on which the Assessee informed the AO that the return originally filed should be treated as the return filed pursuant to the no…

Intact Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 824/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Zain Ahmed Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

…the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with.” 11.8 Further, the above judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P) Ltd reported in 383 ITR 448 (Delhi) wherein it was held as follows:- “12. The narration of facts as noted above by the Court makes it clear that no notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the Assessee after 16th December 2010, the date on which the Assessee informed the AO that the return originally filed should be treated as the return filed pursuant to the n…

Intact Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

ITA 823/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Zain Ahmed Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

Deepak Kumar Gupta, Kanpur vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Moradabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 4528/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Deepak Kumar Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 7/115, Flat No. B-1, Sai Niwas, Ward 2(1), Arya Nagar, Kanpur - 208020 Moradabad ( U.P) Uttar Pradesh. Pin: 244 001 Pan :Acmpg1836E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 69

Pelican Tobacco India Private Limited vs. ITO, Ward - 19(4), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 129/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. Udit Dad, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2

…tional defect and, hence, renders it invalid in the eyes of the law. This position is no longer res integra, as demonstrated by the observations made in Principal Commissioner of Income- tax v. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd. [2015] 64 taxmann.com 220/383 ITR 448 (Delhi) : "12. The narration of facts as noted above by the court makes it clear that no notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee after December 16, 2010, the date on which the assessee informed the Assessing Officer that the return originally filed should 6 Pelican Tobacco India Pvt. Ltd. be treated as the return filed…

Vinod Mongia, Wast Azad Nagar, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Vikas Bhawan, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1844/DEL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Vinod Mongia, Vs Ito, C-40, Street No.1A, West Ward-58(7), Azad Nagar, Delhi-110005. Vikas Bhawan, Pan-Akhpm6218R Delhi Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shivam Jain, Adv. & Shri Nitin Kanwar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.07.2025

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…. Thus, the contention now raised by Revenue cannot be accepted that notice u/s 143(2) was not issued as return in response to notice u/s 148 was filed late. Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jai Shiv Shankar Traders Pvt.Ltd. reported in [2016] 383 ITR 448 (Delhi) has held that even when the return was filed at the feg end of the proceedings then also the issue of notice u/s 143(2) is mandatory requirement before completion of assessment order. 11. As per the proviso to sub-clause (ii) of section 143(2), notice was to be issued within 6(Six) months i.e., on or before 30.09.2020 but the reassessmen…

Anil Agarwal HUF, Delhi vs. Income Tax Ward-28(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed as

ITA 2594/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2594/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Anil Agarwal Huf Income Tax Officer, F-71,Second Floor, Vs. Ward-28(1), Main Green Park, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aahha2179P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69

…g decisions in support of his contentions: 1. CIT vs. Laxman Das Khandewal 417 ITR 325 (SC); 2. Rajender Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO 414 ITR 286 (Del.); 3. PCIT vs. Paramount Biotech Industries Ltd. 398 ITR 701 (Del); 4. PCIT vs. Jai Shiv Shankar Trading P. Ltd. 388 ITR 448 (Del.); 5. CIT vs. Rajiv Sharma 336 ITR 678 (All.); 6. PCIT vs. Staunch Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 404 ITR 299 (Del). 4 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee did not file return within the time specified in the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and therefore the Assessing Officer treated the return as invalid return and since…

Pramod Lakra, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Amicus Healthcare Services & Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2572/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

…esponse to notice u/s 158BC(a), he must necessarily issue a notice under section 143(2) of the Act within the time prescribed in proviso to section 143(2) of the Act. In the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd [2015] 64 taxmann.com 220/383 ITR 448 (Delhi), the Assessee filed the return of income on 16/09/2008 and the Assessing Officer processed the return of income. Subsequently the Assessing Officer picked up the above return for scrutiny assessment and issued a notice to the assessee under section 148 of the Act. 5 M/s Amicus Healthcare Services & Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Thereupon the asses…

Krishan Kumar Makrania Pro. M/S. Makrania Oil Mill, Bhiwani vs. DCIT Central Circle-I, Gurgaon

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 3214/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & AnkitFor Respondent: Sh. Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…lay in furnishing of return making the return invalid. In this regard he has further relied on the following judgments: - 166 Taxmann.com 4 (Del) PCIT vs. Dart Infrabuild (P.) Ltd - 167 Taxmann.com 90 (Del) Shaily Juneja vs. ACIT 7 Krishna Kumar Makrania - 383 ITR 448 (Del) PCIT vs. Shri Jai Shiv Shankar Traders (P.) Ltd. - 383 ITR 455 (Del) PCIT vs. Silverline - 25 Taxmann.com 341 (Mad) Sapthagiri Finance & Investments vs. ITO - ITA 696/2015 (Del) CIT vs. Delhi Kalyan Samiti - ITA No. 733/Del/2016 DCIT vs. M/s. Taureg Properties & Securities Services Ltd. - ITA No. 3212/Del/2024 Bimla Devi vs. DCIT 9. A copy…

Subhash Chander Gupta, H.No. 16528 Vishnu Colony, Raliway Road, Kurukshetra, Haryana vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Kurukshetra

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

ITA 768/CHANDI/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Abhinav Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 153C

…on record : i Hotel Blue Moon of Apex Court, 321 ITR 362 (2010) ii) Latest SC-Laxmann Dass Khandelwal reported in (2019) 180 DTR 0313 (SC), (2019) 310 CTR 0008 (SC), (2019) 417 ITR 0325 (SC), (2019) 266 TAXMAN 0171 (SC). iii) Shri Shiv Shankar Traders (2016) 383 ITR 448 (Del.) 18.1 The ld. Counsel for the assessee further apprised us that the assessee has inspected the record and copy of notice was not found in the record. 18.2 The ld. CIT DR, on the other hand submitted that since AO has made an observation in the assessment order that notice under Section 143(2) was issued upon the assessee, therefore, it…

Subhash Chander Gupta, H.No. 1652 8 Vishnu Colony, Railway Road, Kurukshetra, Haryana vs. ITO Ward-3, Kurukshetra, Haryana

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

ITA 765/CHANDI/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Abhinav Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 153C