Shanabhai B. Patel v. R.K. Upadhyaya, Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

96 ITR 141High Court1974#18444 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Judgments citing Shanabhai B. Patel v. R.K. Upadhyaya, Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

Shri Harsh Vardhan, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

ITA 308/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Ravish Sood & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. Nirmal Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Trilochan Singh PS Khalsa, DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…t is the view taken by the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts in the CT v. Ramsukh Motilal and R.K. Das & Co. v. CT and we think that that view is right." 10. In the case of Shanabhai B. Patel vs. R.K. Upadhyaya, Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad reported in (1974) 96 ITR 141, the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court had examined similar issue and opined as under: 9. In our opinion, therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Income- tax Officer of reassessing an assessee is subject to the provisions contained in section 148 to 153 of the Act. Section 148 and 149, which we have reproduced above, clearly show that…

Benco Finance & Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2092/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () Benco Finance & Investment Dy. Cit, Central Circle-40 Private Limited; 205, Sujata Vs. (Now Dcit, Central Circle -7(2), Mumbai) Room No. 656, 6Th Floor, Chambers, 2Nd Floor, 1/3 Aaykar Bhawan, M.K Road, Abhichan Gandhi Marg, Off. Mumbai – 400 020. Katha Bazar, Masjid Bunder (W), Mumbai – 400 009 (Assessee) (Revenue) Pan No. Aabcb9349R Assessee By : S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Purushottam, A.Rs Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2021

For Appellant: S/shri Vijay Mehta & Purushottam, A.RsFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153Section 234BSection 68

…at is the view taken by the Bombay and Calcutta High Courts in the CT v. Ramsukh Motilal and R.K. Das & Co. v. CT and we think that that view is right." 10. In the case of Shanabhai B. Patel vs. R.K. Upadhyaya, Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad reported in (1974) 96 ITR 141, the Division Bench of ITA No. 2092/Mum/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 22 Benco Finance & Investment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-40, Mumbai Gujarat High Court had examined similar issue and opined as under: 9. In our opinion, therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Income-tax Officer of reassessing an assessee is subject to the provisions cont…

B.M. Land Developers and Builders, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1146/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri V. Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

…3(2) should not only be issued but also served within the stipulated period and in the absence of such a valid service, the assessment is vitiated. :- 10 -: 21.3. Similarly, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Shanabhai P. Patel vs. R. K. Upadhyaya, ITO (1974) 96 ITR 141 (Guj) dealt with a situation in which reassessment notice was issued within time-limit but served beyond the prescribed period of four years. The Hon’ble High Court held that sec. 149 enjoins that a notice should be issued within prescribed period. It held that the words "service of notice" or "issuance of notice" have no fixed connotation but are…

Anil Kisanlal Marda, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1763/PUN/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

Section 143(2)

…only be issued but also 18 Anil Kisanlal Marda served within the stipulated period and in the absence of such a valid service, the assessment is vitiated. 21.3. Similarly, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Shanabhai P. Patel vs. R. K. Upadhyaya, ITO (1974) 96 ITR 141 (Guj) dealt with a situation in which reassessment notice was issued within time-limit but served beyond the prescribed period of four years. The Hon’ble High Court held that sec. 149 enjoins that a notice should be issued within prescribed period. It held that the words "service of notice" or "issuance of notice" have no fixed connotation b…

Sh. Jaspal Singh S/O Sh. Swaran Singh, Amritsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 445/ASR/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 445/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 144Section 154

…’ble jurisdictional High Court in Jasbir Singh (infra) and V.R.A. Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2013] 359 ITR 495 (P&H). Both the Hon’ble jurisdictional and the Patna High Court dissented from the decision in Shanabhai P. Patel v. Upadhyaya [1974] 96 ITR 141 (Guj), which was subsequently reversed by the Apex Court. Service under the Act (referred to as a new Act), it held, is not a condition precedent to confer jurisdiction to the Income-Tax Officer (ITO), though is one for making the order of assessment. This would also meet the assessee’s reliance on CIT v. Ramendra Nath Ghosh [1971] 82 ITR 888 (SC)…