Referring to Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bombay v. Devidayal and Sons.

68 ITR 425High Court1968#25467 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Judgments citing Referring to Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bombay v. Devidayal and Sons.

M/S. Steecon Infrastructure, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 61/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Steecon Infrastructure Income Tax Officer 1(4) 85, Subhash Nagar, Pal Road, Paota Jodhpur- 242008 Vs. Jodhpur- 342008 Pan No. Acdfs3423Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Piyush Chajed and Mr SumitFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, AR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…erprises ITA No. 3666/M/2015 (Mumbai Tribunal) 6. ACIT Vs. DLF Cyber City Developers Ltd (2015) 53 taxmann.com 81 (Delhi Tribunal) 12. Further, decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Devidayal & Sons reported in 68 ITR 425 (Bombay) was specifically brought to the knowledge of the learned counsel of the assessee by way of note- sheet entry dated 7/6/23 and ld counsel was heard on the same on 23/06/23. . The learned counsel of the assessee responded that said decision is distinguishable as it pertains to provisions of section 44 of Income-tax Act, 1922 and not to prov…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Sudev Industries Ltd

ITA/805/2005HC Delhi31 May 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 230A(1)Section 260ASection 282(2)

…an accounts officer. Question arose whether the said notice was served on the firm itself as it had not been issued to a specific partner or addressed to partners. Referring to Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bombay versus Devidayal and Sons, (1968) 68 ITR 425 (Bom), it was observed that notice if not addressed to a partner would not render it invalid if it was served and accepted and return was submitted in pursuance thereof. In Agricultural Company Rampur (supra), though no notice was served on the firm, yet it was treated as a valid service as notice was accepted by the accountant, who was work…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Sudev Industries Limited

ITA-805/2005HC Delhi31 May 2018
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 230A(1)Section 260ASection 282(2)

…an accounts officer. Question arose whether the said notice was served on the firm itself as it had not been issued to a specific partner or addressed to partners. Referring to Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bombay versus Devidayal and Sons, (1968) 68 ITR 425 (Bom), it was observed that notice if not addressed to a partner would not render it invalid if it was served and accepted and return was submitted in pursuance thereof. In Agricultural Company Rampur (supra), though no notice was served on the firm, yet it was treated as a valid service as notice was accepted by the accountant, who was work…

Referring to Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bombay v. Devidayal and Sons. (68 ITR 425) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax