S. B. Jain, Income Tax Officer, Nagpur v. Mahendra

83 ITR 104Supreme Court of India1972#18341 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Judgments citing S. B. Jain, Income Tax Officer, Nagpur v. Mahendra

Smt. Shakuntla Devi, Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1227/CHANDI/1996[01/04/1985 to 17/07/1995]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2025
For Appellant: Shri M.R. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 158B

…during the pendency of the proceedings initiated by way of notice under section 158BC dt. 28/02/1996, 26/04/1996 and 07/06/1996 for the same block period is against the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mr. S. B Jain, ITO Nagpur Vs. Mahandera 83 ITR 104, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Sanjay Kumar Garg (2015) TMI 390, Hon'ble Kerala High Court in case of Nilafer Hameed Vs. ITO(1999) 235 ITR 161. 15. It was further submitted that ACIT Investigation Circle -1, Chandigarh vide his letter dt. 01/10/1996 informed the assessee that the jurisdiction of the case has been transferred to him u…

ITO Ward 1, Tuticorin vs. J.Durairaj, Tuticori

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1716/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2009-2010 The Income Tax Officer, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri J.Durairaj, M/S. Thangam Shri J.Durairaj, M/S. Thangam Ward-1, Tuticorin 1, Tuticorin Finance, Finance, No.28 No.28-A, Chetti Pillaimar Street, Eral, Tuticorin Pillaimar Street, Eral, Tuticorin District Pan/Gir No.Ajupd 7674 F Ajupd 7674 F (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri G.Johnson, Addl Cit ( Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 25 /2/ 2022 2 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/3/20 /2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg, Jm , Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G.Johnson, Addl CIT (
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 148

…f original assessment or by way of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer cannot issue a notice u/s 148. The above decision was arrived at based on the authority of the Apex Court in the case of Shri S.B. Jain, Income Tax Officer, Nagpur vs Mahendra [83 ITR 104]. Accordingly, it is settled law that during the course of pendency of regular assessment, notice u/s 148 cannot be issued. Accordingly, the impugned reassessment proceedings are invalid and the same is cancelled. Even otherwise the impugned order is time barred if the notice u/s 148 is ignored as the same is not valid. The Assessing Officer calcu…

Soubhagya Projects, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 743/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri Md. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Smt. U. Minichandran, DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153

…or AY s 2001-02 to 2004-05 was impermissible in law. The assessments for the said AY s were annulled as being barred by limitation. :- 11 -: 10. The legal position appears to be fairly well settled. In S.B. Jain, Income Tax Officer, Nagpur v. Mahendra [1972] 83 ITR 104 (SC) a notice was issued a notice has been issued to the Assessee on 5th January 1962 under Section 34(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 1946-47. While the said proceedings were pending, the Income Tax Act, 1961 came into force with effect from 1st April 1962. The challenge by the Assessee to the validity of…

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/93/2012HC Delhi02 Sept 2015
Section 131Section 133ASection 147Section 260A

…Page 7 of 9 impermissible in law. The assessments for the said AYs were annulled as being barred by limitation. 10. The legal position appears to be fairly well settled. In S. B. Jain, Income Tax Officer, Nagpur v. Mahendra [1972] 83 ITR 104 (SC) a notice was issued a notice has been issued to the Assessee on 5th January 1962 under Section 34(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 1946-47. While the said proceedings were pending, the Income Tax Act, 1961 came into force with effect from 1st April 1962. The challenge by the Assessee to the validi…

JUDGEMENTopens in new window

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/92/2012HC Delhi02 Sept 2015
Section 131Section 133ASection 147Section 260A

…Page 7 of 9 impermissible in law. The assessments for the said AYs were annulled as being barred by limitation. 10. The legal position appears to be fairly well settled. In S. B. Jain, Income Tax Officer, Nagpur v. Mahendra [1972] 83 ITR 104 (SC) a notice was issued a notice has been issued to the Assessee on 5th January 1962 under Section 34(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 seeking to reopen the assessment for AY 1946-47. While the said proceedings were pending, the Income Tax Act, 1961 came into force with effect from 1st April 1962. The challenge by the Assessee to the validi…

S. B. Jain, Income Tax Officer, Nagpur v. Mahendra (83 ITR 104) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax