Sardar Harvinder Singh Sehgal v. ACIT

227 ITR 512Reported decision1997#19954 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,627 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Judgments citing Sardar Harvinder Singh Sehgal v. ACIT

Sapphire Foods India Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5399/MUM/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Sathe / Asavari Kadam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292BSection 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(viib)

…ing if such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act." 9.1 It may be stated here that in the case of Sardar Harbindersingh Sehgal v CIT, (227 ITR 512 Gau), the Hon'ble Court held that the notice to be valid in view of section 292B of the Act as it conformed to the substance of the Act and was to effectuate the purpose of the Act. Defects or omissions, if any, in the notice did not cause any prejudice to the petitioners. The court went on to state that it can assume jurisdiction only when the n…

Narendra Kumar Gill, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on the grounds of

ITA 1532/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1532/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Narendra Kumar Gill, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Shri N.K. Arora, Adv., Ward-2(1), 219, Civil Line South, Muzaffarnagar Muzaffarnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acvpg8013G Assessee By : Sh. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.12.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 292BSection 50CSection 55(2)(b)Section 55A

…asons recorded were not of HUF but of the assessee in “individual” capacity. Neither the word “HUF” nor the PAN of “HUF” mentioned in the reasons record, hence we cannot assume something which is not on record. 21. In Sardar Harbindersingh Sehgal v CIT, (227 ITR 512 Gau), the Hon’ble Court held that the notice to be valid in view of section 292-B of the Act as it conformed to the substance of the Act and was to effectuate 25 Narendra Kumar Gill the purpose of the Act. Further it was held that defects or omissions, if any, in the notice did not cause any prejudice to the petitioners. The court went on to st…

O.P.Yadav, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circ Le-15, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5523/DEL/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2020AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 158B

…ry of assessment, Bhimraj v CIT 32 ITR 289, affirmed in 41 ITR 221 (SC); Radhakant v. Johri 39 ITR 182; Chhaganlal v ITO 46 ITR 351, 357; Dalmia v CIT 194 ITR 700, affirmed in 236 ITR 480 (SC) on another issue; CIT v Saraf 207 ITR 217; Sardar Harvinder v ACIT 227 ITR 512; and in interpreting provisions of this kind the rule is that that construction should be preferred which makes the machinery workable.CIT v Mahaliram 8 ITR 442, 448 (PC); CIT v Sun Engg. Works 198 ITR 297 (SC); and s.1 under Interpretation of the Income Tax Act; This, however, does not mean thatthe section is to be liberally construed; since the…

Smt. Meera Kapoor vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax

ITA/1395/2008HC Delhi31 Aug 2012

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 260ASection 68

…turn around and say "you accepted my lie, now your hands are tied and you can do nothing". It would be travesty of justice to allow the assessee that latitude." The next case that the Revenue has relied upon is Sardar Harvinder Singh Sehgal v. ACIT (1997) 227 ITR 512 wherein the court has held that: "27. The court can examine the reasons only in a limited way. If any authority is required for this proposition one can have a look at the following decision of the apex court (ITO v. Lahkmani Mewal Das : [1976]103ITR437(SC) ), wherein the Supreme Court at pages 445 and 446 pointed out as follows : 2012:DHC:…