R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel

253 ITR 334High Court2002#10678 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 148(1)section 292bbsection 292bsection 292section 149section 29service of noticeincome-tax officernotice under section 148section 142section 139section 142(1)

Judgments citing R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel

RANJEET SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 5 (5), PATNA

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

ITA 304/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(2)Section 69A

…sment Year: 2017-18 Ranjeet Singh. 13. It is further stated that the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court has unanimously been followed while dealing with assessment/reassessment under the provisions of 1961 Act and the assessee has relied upon (i) (2002) 253 ITR 334 (Gau) - CIT Vs. Mintu Kalita and (ii) (2010) 326 ITR 77 (Mad) - Smt. S. Nachiar Vs. ITO and Others. 14. We have gone through the facts of the case. Neither in the assessment order nor before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has filed any affidavit in regard to non-service of the notice but has disputed the same before the Tribunal as was also done bef…

SHRIMATI. HARBHAJAN KAUR,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 (20, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/ASR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Kanchan Garg, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 69

…42 to 45 case laws. c) Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Mani Kakar High Court Of Delhi (2009) 18 DTR (Del) 145 : (2009) 178 Taxman 315 Pg. 46 to 48 case laws. d) Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. MintuKalita High Court Of Gauhati (2001) 170 CTR (Gau) 149: (2002) 253 ITR 334 (Gau) : (2001) 117 Taxman 388 (Gau) Pg. 49 to 52 case laws. Harbhajan Kaur v. ITO e) Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Kumar Bharti & Vijay Kumar Goel High Court Of Allahabad (2005) 198 CTR (All) 260 : (2006) 282 Taxman 496 (All) : (2005) 149 Taxman 247 Pg. 53 to 58 case laws. f) Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Rajeev Sharma High Court Of Allah…

SHIV KUMAR MITTAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed

ITA 633/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2009-10 Shiv Kumar Mittal, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 8(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Acipm 3813 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Vikash Modi Revenue By: Smt. V. Aparna Date Of Hearing: 04/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/08/2019 O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Is An Appeal Of The Assessee For The Ay 2009-10 Against The Order Of Cit(A) – 8, Hyderabad, Dated, 16/02/2018. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Had Sold A Property Situated At Kondapur Grampanchayat, Serilingampally Mandal, Rr District Vide Sale Deed No. 4100/2008 Dated 5Th June, 2008 For A Consideration Of Rs. 15,48,000/-, Whereas The Guideline Value Of The Property As Adopted By The Stamp Valuation Authority Was Rs. 50,56,000/-. Since The Assessee Did Not Offer Any Capital Gains On This Transaction To Tax, Ao Initiated Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act By Issuing A Notice U/S 148 On 24/03/2016, Which Was Served On The Assessee By Way Of Affixture At The Last Known Address & Thereafter Notice U/S 142(1) Was Also Issued On 09/05/2016. Since There Was No Reply From The Assessee, A 2 I.T.A. No. 633/Hyd/18 Shiv Kumar Mittal, Hyd..

For Appellant: Shri Vikash ModiFor Respondent: Smt. V. Aparna
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 282(1)Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shiv Kumar Mittal, vs. Income-tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 8(2), Hyderabad. PAN – ACIPM 3813 D Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri Vikash Modi Revenue by: Smt. V. Aparna Date of hearing: 04/06/2019 Date of pronouncement: 30/08/2019 O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, J.M. This is an appeal of the assessee for the AY 2009-10 against the order of CIT(A) – 8, Hyderabad, dated, 16/02/2018. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the…

PAYAL JINDAL ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed

ITA 57/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Toshniwala, ARFor Respondent: Smt. V. Aparna, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292BSection 50C

…proceedings for reassessment is not a mere procedural requirement: it is a condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings for assessment under section 34 of the Act. (iii) The decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mintu Kalita [253 ITR 334] (Gau), wherein it was held that – after considering that the notice u/s. 148 was not served on the assessee, it :- 6 -: ITA. Nos. 56 & 57/Hyd/2019 was held that it is a condition precedent to initiation of proceedings for the assessment u/s.147 and hence where there is no evidence of service of notice, that re-assessment is not valid. (iv) The…

RAJKUMAR JINDAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeals of both the assessees are allowed

ITA 56/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Toshniwala, ARFor Respondent: Smt. V. Aparna, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292BSection 50C

…proceedings for reassessment is not a mere procedural requirement: it is a condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings for assessment under section 34 of the Act. (iii) The decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Mintu Kalita [253 ITR 334] (Gau), wherein it was held that – after considering that the notice u/s. 148 was not served on the assessee, it :- 6 -: ITA. Nos. 56 & 57/Hyd/2019 was held that it is a condition precedent to initiation of proceedings for the assessment u/s.147 and hence where there is no evidence of service of notice, that re-assessment is not valid. (iv) The…

LM WIND POWER BLADES (INDAI) PRIVATE LTD,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/BANG/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2000-01

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Farahat Hussain Qureshi, CIT-II(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 80Section 80I

…ice under the new Act is not a condition precedent to confirm of jurisdiction on the ITO to deal with the matter but it is a condition precedent to the making of the order of assessment.” The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. Mintu 14. Kalita, 253 ITR 334 (Gau) has held that service of notice for proceedings u/s. 147 is mandatory and that appearance of employee of the assessee before the ITO in response to notice u/s. 142(1) cannot be a substitute for non-service of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. 15. In the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that the reassessment proc…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THREE DEE EXIM PVT LTD

ITA - 1604 / 2010HC Delhi25 Mar 2011
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…ITA No.1604/2010 & 1778/2010 Page 1 of 20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + I.T.A. No.1604/2010 & ITA No. 1778/2010 1. I.T.A. No.1604/2010 % Date of Decision: 25.03.2011 Reserved on : 04.03.2011 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – VI ... APPELLANT Through: Ms.Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Deepak Anand, Advocate Versus THREE DEE EXIM PVT. LTD. ...RESPONDENT Through: Dr.Rakesh Gupta with Dr.Raj K. Agarwal, Ms.Poonam Ahuja, Ms.Rani Kiyala and Mr.Johnson Bara, Advocates.…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. THREE EXIM PVT LTD

ITA - 1778 / 2010HC Delhi25 Mar 2011
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…ITA No.1604/2010 & 1778/2010 Page 1 of 20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + I.T.A. No.1604/2010 & ITA No. 1778/2010 1. I.T.A. No.1604/2010 % Date of Decision: 25.03.2011 Reserved on : 04.03.2011 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – VI ... APPELLANT Through: Ms.Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Deepak Anand, Advocate Versus THREE DEE EXIM PVT. LTD. ...RESPONDENT Through: Dr.Rakesh Gupta with Dr.Raj K. Agarwal, Ms.Poonam Ahuja, Ms.Rani Kiyala and Mr.Johnson Bara, Advocates.…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – VI vs. THREE DEE EXIM PVT. LTD.

ITA/1778/2010HC Delhi25 Mar 2011
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…ITA No.1604/2010 & 1778/2010 Page 1 of 20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + I.T.A. No.1604/2010 & ITA No. 1778/2010 1. I.T.A. No.1604/2010 % Date of Decision: 25.03.2011 Reserved on : 04.03.2011 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – VI ... APPELLANT Through: Ms.Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Deepak Anand, Advocate Versus THREE DEE EXIM PVT. LTD. ...RESPONDENT Through: Dr.Rakesh Gupta with Dr.Raj K. Agarwal, Ms.Poonam Ahuja, Ms.Rani Kiyala and Mr.Johnson Bara, Advocates.…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – VI vs. THREE DEE EXIM PVT. LTD.

ITA/1604/2010HC Delhi25 Mar 2011
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…ITA No.1604/2010 & 1778/2010 Page 1 of 20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + I.T.A. No.1604/2010 & ITA No. 1778/2010 1. I.T.A. No.1604/2010 % Date of Decision: 25.03.2011 Reserved on : 04.03.2011 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – VI ... APPELLANT Through: Ms.Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Deepak Anand, Advocate Versus THREE DEE EXIM PVT. LTD. ...RESPONDENT Through: Dr.Rakesh Gupta with Dr.Raj K. Agarwal, Ms.Poonam Ahuja, Ms.Rani Kiyala and Mr.Johnson Bara, Advocates.…