Sudesh Teneja v. ITO

442 ITR 289High Court2022#16294 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 143(3)Section 153DSection 153B(1)(b)Section 132Section 148Section 151Section 139

Issues it is cited on

section 7(1)section 119(2)(a)section 153b(1)(b)section 43(3)section 153b(1)section 153a(1)(a)section 151(ii)section 158bgsection 142(2a)section 153a(1)(b)section 234dsection 119(2)

Judgments citing Sudesh Teneja v. ITO

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 672/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. (Thr. V.C)&For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153DSection 234DSection 250

…sion of His Late Highness Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji of Mewar vs. ITAT & Ors. (1996) 133 CTR (Raj) 97: (1997) 223 ITR 192 (Raj). 3.3 Also,the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Sudesh Teneja vs. ITO (2022) 324 CTR (Raj) 577 : (2022) 210 DTR (Raj) 105 : (2022) 442 ITR 289 (Raj)held that (a) taxing statute must be interpreted strictly. Equity has no place in taxation. Nor while interpreting taxing statute intendment would have any place. (b) There is nothing unjust in the tax payer escaping if the letter of the law fails to catch him on account of the legislature’s failure to express itself clearly. (c) It is axiom…

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 671/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. (Thr. V.C)&For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153DSection 234DSection 250

…sion of His Late Highness Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji of Mewar vs. ITAT & Ors. (1996) 133 CTR (Raj) 97: (1997) 223 ITR 192 (Raj). 3.3 Also,the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Sudesh Teneja vs. ITO (2022) 324 CTR (Raj) 577 : (2022) 210 DTR (Raj) 105 : (2022) 442 ITR 289 (Raj)held that (a) taxing statute must be interpreted strictly. Equity has no place in taxation. Nor while interpreting taxing statute intendment would have any place. (b) There is nothing unjust in the tax payer escaping if the letter of the law fails to catch him on account of the legislature’s failure to express itself clearly. (c) It is axiom…

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED,KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 670/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. (Thr. V.C)&For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153DSection 234D

…of His Late Highness\nMaharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji of Mewar vs. ITAT & Ors. (1996) 133 CTR (Raj)\n97: (1997) 223 ITR 192 (Raj).\n3.3 Also, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Sudesh Teneja vs. ITO (2022)\n324 CTR (Raj) 577 : (2022) 210 DTR (Raj) 105 : (2022) 442 ITR 289 (Raj)held that (a)\ntaxing statute must be interpreted strictly. Equity has no place in taxation. Nor while\ninterpreting taxing statute intendment would have any place. (b) There is nothing unjust\nin the tax payer escaping if the letter of the law fails to catch him on account of the\nlegislature's failure to express itself clearly. (c) It is a…

RESONANCE EDUVENTURES LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. ACIT DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 669/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. (Thr. V.C)&For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153DSection 234DSection 250

…sion of His Late Highness Maharana Shri Bhagwat Singhji of Mewar vs. ITAT & Ors. (1996) 133 CTR (Raj) 97: (1997) 223 ITR 192 (Raj). 3.3 Also,the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Sudesh Teneja vs. ITO (2022) 324 CTR (Raj) 577 : (2022) 210 DTR (Raj) 105 : (2022) 442 ITR 289 (Raj)held that (a) taxing statute must be interpreted strictly. Equity has no place in taxation. Nor while interpreting taxing statute intendment would have any place. (b) There is nothing unjust in the tax payer escaping if the letter of the law fails to catch him on account of the legislature’s failure to express itself clearly. (c) It is axiom…

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 303/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nShri Chaitanya, Sr. Advocate a/wFor Respondent: \nMs. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

…arkets Pvt. Ltd. vs. NaFAC reported in (2022) 443 ITR 366 (Bombay)\nPage 10 of 86\nIT(TP)A Nos. 303 & 839/Bang/2022\n• Tata Communications Transformation Services Ltd. vs. ACIT reported in [2022] 443 ITR 49 (Bombay)\n• Sudesh Taneja vs. ITO reported in [2022] 442 ITR 289 (Rajasthan)\n• Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. DRP & Other reported in [2021] 432 ITR 192 (Madras)\n• Hope Textiles Ltd. vs. UOI reported in [1994] 205 ITR 508(SC)\n6.5 The Ld.Sr.Counsel also argued that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 does not apply to the instant case for the follow…

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

…y held that Time limit for issuing notice u/s 148 extended till 30-06-2021 is not applicable to AY 2013-14. We may also place reliance upon the decision of the the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court Judgment in Sudesh Taneja v. 2022 TaxPub(DT) 805 (Raj-HC) : (2022) 442 ITR 289 (Raj) holding that new time limits as per substituted section 149(1)(b) not to apply to notices time barred under old provisions The time limits for issuing notice for reassessment have been changed. The concept of income chargeable to tax escaping assessment on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly or fully all materia…