What is Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO authority for?

A notice under Section 148 or 149 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is considered 'issued' only when an overt act is made to dispatch it to the addressee, not merely when it is generated on the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) portal.

How many judgments cite Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO?

85 judgments on BharatTax cite Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO (449 ITR 517), spanning 2023 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 147, Section 148, Section 148A, Section 143(3), Section 149.

Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO (449 ITR 517)

Ivy Comptech Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 908/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2020-21 Ivy Competech Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle 2(1), Hyderabad. Pan : Aaac18884K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nageswara Rao, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. M. Narmada, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 (Hybrid Hearing) Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Nageswara Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…ections were uploaded on the portal. Hence, same must be treated to be a 'receipt' by the recipient i.e., the assessing officer on the same day 13 i.e., 30.06.2022. (See paragraph No.26.7 of Suman Jeet Agarwal v. Income-tax Officer 11, where the Delhi (2022) 449 ITR 517 High Court poignantly held that the portal of the department is the 'computer resource in the control of the department'). 32. In view of forgoing discussion, there is no cavil of doubt that assessing officer received the DRP's directions on 30.06.2022 and therefore, the limitation must be counted from that date and not from 05.07.2022. The impug…

M/S. Rana Iron & Power Ltd., Muzaffarnagar vs. DCIT, Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 155/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148A

…8 AM. In those facts and circumstances, the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court held as under:- “17. Section 149(1) of the Act proscribes issuance of notice beyond the period as stipulated in the said section. In Suman Jeet Agarwal v. Income Tax Officer and Ors.: (2022) 449 ITR 517, the Coordinate Bench of this Court had considered the question regarding as to the date of issue of a notice under Section 148 of the Act for ascertaining the period of limitation for issuance of such a notice. We consider it apposite to refer to the following extracts of the said decision: "25. Question No. (I) : Whether the jurisdictional Asse…

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bennett Coleman & Company Limited, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 1520/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्य्थी / (Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1520/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-1(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Assessee By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala A/W. Shri Madhur Agrawal, Shri Jas Sanghavi, Shri Yash Prakash & Shri Vikas Poojary Revenue By : Shri S. Srinivasu Cit Dr A/W. Shri Ashok Ambastha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 2 आदेश/Order आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 & 1520/Mum/2023 Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. Per Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w. Shri MadhurFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu CIT DR a/w. Shri Ashok

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 153

…sheet and therefore, the assessment order was well within the period of limitation. 15. In so far as the contention that the DIN has been generated has been answered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal vs. Income Tax Officer (449 ITR 517) wherein the Hon'ble High Court at para 25.19 of its order has observed “the counsel for the Department have also sought to argue that generation of a Notice with DIN on ITBA Screen conclusively indicates that the Notice has been irrevocably issued. The submission of the respondent is not borne out from the applicable circular regarding DIN issue…

Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre., Delhi

ITA 1387/MUM/2023[2018--2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2024

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्य्थी / (Respondent) Ι.Τ.Α. No.1520/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Acit-1(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd. The Times Of India Building, Dr. Dadabhai Naoroji Road Fort, Mumbai-400 001 [Pan: Aaacb4373Q] Assessee By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala A/W. Shri Madhur Agrawal, Shri Jas Sanghavi, Shri Yash Prakash & Shri Vikas Poojary Revenue By : Shri S. Srinivasu Cit Dr A/W. Shri Ashok Ambastha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2024 2 आदेश/Order आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ι.Τ.Α. No.1387/Mum/2023 & 1520/Mum/2023 Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. Per Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/w. Shri MadhurFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu CIT DR a/w. Shri Ashok

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 14ASection 14A(2)Section 153

…sheet and therefore, the assessment order was well within the period of limitation. 15. In so far as the contention that the DIN has been generated has been answered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal vs. Income Tax Officer (449 ITR 517) wherein the Hon'ble High Court at para 25.19 of its order has observed “the counsel for the Department have also sought to argue that generation of a Notice with DIN on ITBA Screen conclusively indicates that the Notice has been irrevocably issued. The submission of the respondent is not borne out from the applicable circular regarding DIN issue…

Bakers Spices & Ingredients Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corp Ward 1, Coimbatore

ITA 882/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R.Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’ सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ#वाल, लेखा सद&य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I TA No.: 882/CHNY/2024 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 M/s. Bakers Spices & Ingredients The Deputy Commissioner Private Limited, Vs. of Income Tax, 8/26, Lakshmi Nagar, Phase II Corporate Ward-1 Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore-641 025. Coimbatore. PAN: AAECB-6010-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri S.Sridhar,…

Rohit Goyal, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 329/IND/2023[2013-2014]Status: HeardITAT Indore07 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirohit Goyal Ito, Ward 5(3) A 2904, Oberoi Woods, Mohan Indore Gokhale Road, Goregaon East Vs. Maharashtra (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Akupg2685D Assessee By Shri Pankaj Shah & Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2024

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 271FSection 282A

…ctronically does not bear the signature of the AO authenticity of the same cannot be challenged and therefore, it is a valid notice. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Suman Jeet Agarwal vs. ITO 449 ITR 517. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record on the issue of validity of notice issued u/s 148 for want of signature of the AO. At the outset, we note that the assessee has challenged the communication dated 25.07.2018 in the grounds of appeal whereas the notice u/s 148 was issued by the AO on 01.03.2018 and…

Mark Electronics Corporation, Dissolved vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3262/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Ao, Accordingly

Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mark Electronics Income Tax Officer Corporation (Dissolved) Ward-29(1) Through erstwhile Vs. Delhi partner Ms. Manjula Bhargava U-1, 2nd Floor, Green Park Extension New Delhi-110016 PAN:AAFFM 7682M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Priyanshu Goel, CA Respondent by Sh. Anshul, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03/06/2024 Date of Pronouncement 12/06/2024 ORDER PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: 1. This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned C…

DCIT CC-4(4), Mumbai vs. Hazel Mercantile Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

ITA 3600/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 282ASection 69C

…resent case. We find that both the aforesaid issues came up for consideration in a batch of writ petitions before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court [Suman Jeet Agarwal Vs. Income Tax Officer : W.P.(C) Nos. 10 & 269 of 2022. Ors, Dated 27/09/2022 reported in [2022] 449 ITR 517 (Delhi) After taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the notice issued under Section 147 of the Act sent through email without digital/physical signature shall constitute valid notice provided the same meets the requirements of Section 282A of the Act read with Rule 127A of the Income Tax Rules,…

DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai vs. Hazel Mercantile Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

ITA 3596/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 282ASection 69C

…resent case. We find that both the aforesaid issues came up for consideration in a batch of writ petitions before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court [Suman Jeet Agarwal Vs. Income Tax Officer : W.P.(C) Nos. 10 & 269 of 2022. Ors, Dated 27/09/2022 reported in [2022] 449 ITR 517 (Delhi) After taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the notice issued under Section 147 of the Act sent through email without digital/physical signature shall constitute valid notice provided the same meets the requirements of Section 282A of the Act read with Rule 127A of the Income Tax Rules,…

Hazel Mercantile Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

Accordingly, Additional Ground No 2 raised in appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed,

ITA 3476/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 282ASection 69C

…resent case. We find that both the aforesaid issues came up for consideration in a batch of writ petitions before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court [Suman Jeet Agarwal Vs. Income Tax Officer : W.P.(C) Nos. 10 & 269 of 2022. Ors, Dated 27/09/2022 reported in [2022] 449 ITR 517 (Delhi) After taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the notice issued under Section 147 of the Act sent through email without digital/physical signature shall constitute valid notice provided the same meets the requirements of Section 282A of the Act read with Rule 127A of the Income Tax Rules,…

Rahul Gupta, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward-5, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 941/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Rahul Gupta, Vs Ito, H.No.-99, Shakti Colony, Mall Ward -5, Road, Karnal, Haryana-132001. Karnal. Pan-Amlpg6159M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Subhash Singhal, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.05.2024

Section 143Section 144Section 44Section 69A

…without considering the facts on the file of AO. 2. The Id CIT (A) posted notice for hearing only on ITBA portal and no notice as per old modes or by email was sent to the appellant. As per a decision of Delhi High Court reported as Suman Jeet Agarwal vs ITO 449 ITR 517 (Delhi), the posting of notice only on ITBA portal is not proper service as per Information Technology Act and thus non- est, in the light of provisions of sec 282 of Income Tax Act. So, no valid and effective opportunity as prescribed in law was given to the appellant to present his case. The order of CIT (A) be cancelled. 3. The assessment u/s…

Brett Lee, Australia vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 2(2)(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 867/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 3

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year: 2013-14 Brett Lee, Vs ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), 7 Gordon Street, Clontarf NSW 2093, International Taxation, Australia. Delhi. PAN- AGVPL 6640 C APPLICANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CA Shri Vijay B Vasanta CIT(DR) Department represented by Date of hearing 15.05.2024 Date of pronouncement 29.05.2024 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, VP: The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the final assessment or…

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, 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

…148A of the Act w.e.f. 01-04-2021. Mere digitally signing of a notice is not the issuance of notice. In this regard, we place our precious reliance on the following cases:-  Suman Jeet Agarwal and Other Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 61 (1), & Ors. {[2022] 449 ITR 517 (Del}, wherein Hon’ble Delhi High Court had, inter-alia, observed that “we are in respectful agreement with the law laid down by the various High Courts in Daujee Abhushan [2022 (3) TMI 784 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], Santosh Krishna HUF [2022 (5) TMI 420 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], Mohan Lal Santwani [2022 (5) TMI 421 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], Advance…

Zydus Wellness Products Ltd (Sucessor to Heinz India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT -4(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee succeeds on the legal issue raised in ground No

ITA 1488/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.1488/मुं/2021(िन.व. 2016-17) Zydus Wellness Products Limited (Successor To Heinz India Private Limited) Unit Nos. 1901 & 1902, 19Th Floor, Lotus Corporate Park, Off Western Expressway Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai 400 063. Pan: Aaach-0667-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(2)(1), Mumbai Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ....."ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nikhil Tiwari "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/11/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 92C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “जे”,मुंबई "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस. "रफौररहमान, लेखाकार सद"के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.1488/मुं/2021(िन.व. 2016-17) Zydus Wellness Products Limited (successor to Heinz India Private Limited) Unit Nos. 1901 & 1902, 19th Floor, Lotus Corporate Park, Off Western Expressway Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai 400 063. PAN: AAACH-0667-B ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-4(2)(1), Mumbai Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 4…

Unnati Jan Kalyaan Shikshan Samiti, Raipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 279/RPR/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.278 & 279/Rpr/2023 Unnati Jan Kalyaan Shikshan Samiti V The Commissioner Of Income Tax H. No.3, Om Bhawan, Avanti Vihar, S (Exemption), Bhopal (M.P) Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aabtu0915H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Goyal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashis Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80G

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, रायपुर "यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी र"वश सूद, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ण खोड़"पया, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.278 & 279/RPR/2023 Unnati Jan Kalyaan Shikshan Samiti V The Commissioner of Income Tax H. No.3, Om Bhawan, Avanti Vihar, s (Exemption), Bhopal (M.P) Raipur (C.G.) PAN: AABTU0915H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Praveen Goyal, CA राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 26.09.2…

Unnati Jan Kalyaan Shikshan Samiti, Raipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 278/RPR/2023[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.278 & 279/Rpr/2023 Unnati Jan Kalyaan Shikshan Samiti V The Commissioner Of Income Tax H. No.3, Om Bhawan, Avanti Vihar, S (Exemption), Bhopal (M.P) Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aabtu0915H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Goyal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashis Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 80G

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, रायपुर "यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी र"वश सूद, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ण खोड़"पया, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.278 & 279/RPR/2023 Unnati Jan Kalyaan Shikshan Samiti V The Commissioner of Income Tax H. No.3, Om Bhawan, Avanti Vihar, s (Exemption), Bhopal (M.P) Raipur (C.G.) PAN: AABTU0915H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Praveen Goyal, CA राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 26.09.2…

Rajasthan Avashan Mandal Karmachari Vikas Samiti, Mansarovar Jaipur vs. CIT Exemtion, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 257/JPR/2023[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2023-2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 257/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2023-24 Rajasthan Avashan Mandal Karamachari Vikash Samiti Arawali Marg Sector 8, Arawali Marg, Sector 8 Mansarovar, Jaipur cuke Vs. CIT Exemption Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATR 9142 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Ashok Kanodia (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. A

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kanodia (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT) a

Section 12A

…are being made.” 6.1 The ld. AR of the assessee filed the following documents to support the contentions so raised: S. No. Particulars Page No. 1 Written submission 1-2 2 Order of CIT(Appeals) 3-7 3 Form no. 10AB 8-14 4 Brief of Suman Agarwal vs. ITO (2022) 449 ITR 517 15-17 (Del) 5 Affidavit for condonation of delay 18-18 6 Copy of notice showing incorrect mail address 19 7 Rajasthan Avashan Mandal Karmachari Vikas Samiti vs. CIT(E) 7. Per contra, the ld. DR objected to this contention and submitted that the parties are not cooperating before in ITAT as well as the same were remained not cooperation and not…

Lg Soft India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 263/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2 (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(TP)A No.263/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. LG Soft India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner of Embassy Tech Square Income Tax, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road Vs. Circle – 4(1)(1), Marathalli Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 103. PAN : AAACL 3009 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT-2 (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 29.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 30.05.2023 O R D E R Per G…

Sri. Somashekar Markal Ananda, Bijapur vs. DCIT-Central Circle, Belgaum

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1039/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT – 2 (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1033 to 1039/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2015-16 Vs. DCIT, Shri Somashekar Markal Ananda, Centra Circle, 2, 3 and 4 Sajjan Building, Lingadgudi Road, Belgaum. Near Ashraya Hospital, Bijapur – 586 103. PAN : ADEPA 1726 G ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Prathibha R, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT – 2 (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 09.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 10.01.2023 O R D E R Per Bench : These are app…

Sri. Somashekar Markal Ananda, Bijapur vs. DCIT-Central Circle, Belgaum

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1038/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT – 2 (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1033 to 1039/Bang/2022 Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2015-16 Vs. DCIT, Shri Somashekar Markal Ananda, Centra Circle, 2, 3 and 4 Sajjan Building, Lingadgudi Road, Belgaum. Near Ashraya Hospital, Bijapur – 586 103. PAN : ADEPA 1726 G ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Smt. Prathibha R, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT – 2 (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 09.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 10.01.2023 O R D E R Per Bench : These are app…

Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO

What is Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO

Ivy Comptech Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

M/S. Rana Iron & Power Ltd., Muzaffarnagar vs. DCIT, Muzaffarnagar

ACIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Bennett Coleman & Company Limited, Mumbai

Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre., Delhi

Bakers Spices & Ingredients Private Limited, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Corp Ward 1, Coimbatore

Rohit Goyal, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3), Indore

Mark Electronics Corporation, Dissolved vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 29(1), New Delhi

DCIT CC-4(4), Mumbai vs. Hazel Mercantile Limited, Mumbai

DCIT CC 4(4), Mumbai vs. Hazel Mercantile Limited, Mumbai

Hazel Mercantile Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 4(4), Mumbai

Rahul Gupta, Karnal vs. ITO, Ward-5, Karnal

Brett Lee, Australia vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 2(2)(1), New Delhi

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

Zydus Wellness Products Ltd (Sucessor to Heinz India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT -4(2) (1), Mumbai

Unnati Jan Kalyaan Shikshan Samiti, Raipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

Unnati Jan Kalyaan Shikshan Samiti, Raipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

Rajasthan Avashan Mandal Karmachari Vikas Samiti, Mansarovar Jaipur vs. CIT Exemtion, Jaipur

Lg Soft India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

Sri. Somashekar Markal Ananda, Bijapur vs. DCIT-Central Circle, Belgaum

Sri. Somashekar Markal Ananda, Bijapur vs. DCIT-Central Circle, Belgaum