Suresh K. Jajoo v. ACIT

39 SOT 514Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#4359 most cited

What is Suresh K. Jajoo v. ACIT authority for?

A protective assessment cannot be made without a prior substantive assessment.

27

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Suresh K. Jajoo v. ACIT · protective assessment · substantive assessment · section 143(3) · section 69A · income escaping assessment · section 147 · section 148

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 132(4)Section 68Section 69

Issues it is cited on

substantive assessmentprotective assessmentdate of transferlive linkdumb documentsbeneficial ownersection 292cblock periodsection 57income escaping assessmentloose paperssection 132(4)

Judgments citing Suresh K. Jajoo v. ACIT

ACIT-19(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RISHABH AVNISH MODY, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8101/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad (CIT DR)
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 56Section 68

…upport of such contention learned Counsel relied upon the following decisions: i. Vijaykumar Jain Vs. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 349 (Punjab and Haryana) ITA No. 8101/Mum/2025 & CO No. 35/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2016-17) Rishabh Avnish Mody ii. Suresh K. Jajoo vs. ACIT [2010] 39 SOT 514 (Mumbai) 8. Opposing the contentions of the learned Counsel for the assessee, the learned Departmental Representative submitted, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal [2024] 167 taxmann.com 70 (SC)/[2024] 301 Taxman 238 (SC)/[2024] 469 ITR 46 (SC), extension provided under Taxation and O…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. RAVI BHARADWAJ, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the AY 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 2232/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143

…protective assessment is invalid and without jurisdiction. For this, he relied on the following judgments: G.K Consultants Ltd vs. ITO, ITA No. 1502/Del/2013 i) M.P. RAMACHANDRAN vs. DCIT, (2010) 129 TTJ ii) (Mumbai) 190 iii) SURESH K. JAJJOO vs. ACIT, (2010) 39 SOT 514 (Mumbai) RAMESH CHAND PREM RAJ SONI (HUF) vs. ACIT, 105 iv) TTJ 904 17. The appellant also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of DCIT vs. Ashok Kumar Singh, (2023) 151 taxman.com 207 (Delhi-Trib) to buttress his point that once addition have been made under the BMA, the same addition cannot be made under the Act. Since, I…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. RAVI BHARADWAJ, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the AY 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 2231/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143

…protective assessment is invalid and without jurisdiction. For this, he relied on the following judgments: G.K Consultants Ltd vs. ITO, ITA No. 1502/Del/2013 i) M.P. RAMACHANDRAN vs. DCIT, (2010) 129 TTJ ii) (Mumbai) 190 iii) SURESH K. JAJJOO vs. ACIT, (2010) 39 SOT 514 (Mumbai) RAMESH CHAND PREM RAJ SONI (HUF) vs. ACIT, 105 iv) TTJ 904 17. The appellant also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of DCIT vs. Ashok Kumar Singh, (2023) 151 taxman.com 207 (Delhi-Trib) to buttress his point that once addition have been made under the BMA, the same addition cannot be made under the Act. Since, I…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. RAVI BHARADWAJ, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue for the AY 2013-14 is dismissed

ITA 2230/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143

…protective assessment is invalid and without jurisdiction. For this, he relied on the following judgments: G.K Consultants Ltd vs. ITO, ITA No. 1502/Del/2013 i) M.P. RAMACHANDRAN vs. DCIT, (2010) 129 TTJ ii) (Mumbai) 190 iii) SURESH K. JAJJOO vs. ACIT, (2010) 39 SOT 514 (Mumbai) RAMESH CHAND PREM RAJ SONI (HUF) vs. ACIT, 105 iv) TTJ 904 17. The appellant also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of DCIT vs. Ashok Kumar Singh, (2023) 151 taxman.com 207 (Delhi-Trib) to buttress his point that once addition have been made under the BMA, the same addition cannot be made under the Act. Since, I…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. RAMASAMY RAJASEHAR, PERAMBALUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3336/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 69

…Saraswati Devi [1995] 212 ITR 445 (Raj.)] 6.3.20 Also, an assessment can be considered as protective only when there is substantive assessment and, thus, substantive assessment has to precede protective assessment. [refer- Suresh K. Jajoo v. Asstt. CIT [2010] 39 SOT 514 (Mum.)]. 6.3.21 It is brought on record; the AO has not made any substantive addition in respect of the relevant entities for the year under consideration (AY 2014- 15). As there exists no substantive addition made in the AY 2014-15 in the hands of the corresponding entities i.e. M/s. Vasan Construction Company & M/s. DS Builders , the undersigned…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR vs. SHIVANI COTTON INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

ITA 460/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148

…e relied upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench, Delhi in the case of ITO vs., Fussy Financial Services Private Limited ITA.No.4227/Del./2014 and the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in the case of E. Suresh K. Jajoo vs., ACIT, Circle-4(2), Mumbai [2010] 39 SOT 514 (Mum.) 15. Sri Badicala Yadagiri, learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, submitted that, there is no merit in the legal ground taken by the assessee challenging the validity of 20 ITA.Nos.359, 367, 368 & 460/Hyd./2024 reopening of the assessment because, the Assessing Officer has rightly made addition in the case of the assessee towards advance give…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(1),, GUNTUR vs. POTTI KUMARA NAGA VENKATA SAI CHAKRAVARTHY, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

ITA 368/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148

…e relied upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench, Delhi in the case of ITO vs., Fussy Financial Services Private Limited ITA.No.4227/Del./2014 and the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in the case of E. Suresh K. Jajoo vs., ACIT, Circle-4(2), Mumbai [2010] 39 SOT 514 (Mum.) 15. Sri Badicala Yadagiri, learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, submitted that, there is no merit in the legal ground taken by the assessee challenging the validity of 20 ITA.Nos.359, 367, 368 & 460/Hyd./2024 reopening of the assessment because, the Assessing Officer has rightly made addition in the case of the assessee towards advance give…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, GUNTUR vs. MADHUSUSHANA VENKATA SUBBA RAO POTTI, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

ITA 367/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148

…e relied upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench, Delhi in the case of ITO vs., Fussy Financial Services Private Limited ITA.No.4227/Del./2014 and the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in the case of E. Suresh K. Jajoo vs., ACIT, Circle-4(2), Mumbai [2010] 39 SOT 514 (Mum.) 15. Sri Badicala Yadagiri, learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, submitted that, there is no merit in the legal ground taken by the assessee challenging the validity of 20 ITA.Nos.359, 367, 368 & 460/Hyd./2024 reopening of the assessment because, the Assessing Officer has rightly made addition in the case of the assessee towards advance give…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , GUNTUR vs. MS.VIJAYASAI LAKSHMI SRINIVASA COTTON MILLS, GUNTUR

In the result, appeals ITA

ITA 359/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148

…e relied upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench, Delhi in the case of ITO vs., Fussy Financial Services Private Limited ITA.No.4227/Del./2014 and the decision of ITAT, Mumbai Bench, Mumbai in the case of E. Suresh K. Jajoo vs., ACIT, Circle-4(2), Mumbai [2010] 39 SOT 514 (Mum.) 15. Sri Badicala Yadagiri, learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, submitted that, there is no merit in the legal ground taken by the assessee challenging the validity of 20 ITA.Nos.359, 367, 368 & 460/Hyd./2024 reopening of the assessment because, the Assessing Officer has rightly made addition in the case of the assessee towards advance give…

NAVDEEP EDUCATIONAL TRUST,KOLLAM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, KOLLAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 324/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17 Navdeep Educational Trust 38/109, Navdeep Mundakkal East 691001 Acit Vs. Kollam Circle Kerala Kollam Pan No : Aabtn0952H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Surendranath Rao, A.R. Respondent By : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)/ Nfac Dated 26.02.2024 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061508122(1) For The Ay 2016-17 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Navdeep Educational Trust, Kollam Page 2 Of 6

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…e considered opinion that such a course of action in making a protective addition first and substantive assessment later is not sustainable in the light of apex court’s judgement in the case of Lalji Haridas vs. ITO (supra) and Suresh K. Jajoo Vs. ACIT (2010) 39 SOT 514 (Mum.) supporting assessee’s case that a protective addition comes to play then there arises a doubt in the mind of the assessing officer regarding taxability of an income in case of more than one assessee, he could indeed make a substantive addition followed by the protective one and not vice versa. Faced with situation, we deem it fit to delete…

SIEMENS MOBILITY GMBH,GERMANY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INTERNATIONAL TAX), 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4713/MUM/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Josh a/w Bhavin
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 270A

…n protective basis is held to be correct. Thus, the appellant fails to get relief on this issue." 4. On this issue the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of Mumbai 'E' Bench in the case of Suresh K. Jajoo v. ACIT, Circle-4(2), Mumbai [2010] 39 SOT 514 (Mum.) and argued that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal relying on another decision of ITAT in the case of M.P. Ramachandran v. Dy. CIT [IT Appeal No. 587 (Mum) of 2005] has laid down the following principles :— "23. Before us, both the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned D.R have relied on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the IT…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MULLIAMBAL RATHNASAMY PITCHAKANNU ERAAVANAN, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 1810/CHNY/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1810/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 & C.O. No. 74/Chny/2024 [In Ita No. 1810/Chny/2024] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Arvind E & Mrs. Baskaravalli Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), (Legal Heir Of Late Shri Mrp Investigation Building, Eraavanan), No. 4, Rice Mill Road, Chennai. Erimedu, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore 641 045. [Pan:Aaape5554D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundar Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C. Khathiravan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 26.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-19, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Dr Shri S. Sundar Rajan, Cit Drew Our Attention To Additional Grounds Raised By The Appellant – Revenue. He Submits That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous On Facts Of The Case

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundar Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri C. Khathiravan, Advocate
Section 159Section 2

…substantive assessment the protective assessment cannot survive and the protective assessment framed by AO without making the substantive assessment is not sustainable." 6.16 A similar view was taken by Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Suresh. K. Jajoe vs ACIT (39 SOT 514) as under: - 11 I.T.A. No.1810/Chny/24 & C.O. No. 74/Chny/24 "Protective assessment has to be done only after substantive assessment is done. An assessment can be considered as protective only when there is substantive assessment. The substantive assessment has to precede protective assessment" 6.17 In the case of Pegasus Property (Pvt) Ltd vs DC…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGLAURU vs. SHRI KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJU, DOMLUR, BENGALURU

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1291/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

…t. There may be substantive assessment without any protective assessment, but there cannot be any protective assessment without there being a substantive assessment.” (b) The decision of the coordinate bench of the ITAT Mumbai in Suresh K Jajoo v. ACIT [2010] 39 SOT 514 (MUM.) [page nos. 338 to 363 of Case Laws Compliation] where it was held: “….Secondly, there is no substantive assessment already made treating the capital gain as short-term capital gain. Therefore, there can be no protective assessment.” [Para 28] In view of the above judicial precedents, the protective addition of Rs.95,45,000/- made in the han…

SHRI. KEMPAREDDY GOVINDRAJ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

ITA 1022/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

…may be substantive assessment without any \nprotective assessment, but there cannot be any protective \nassessment without there being a substantive assessment.”\n\n(b) The decision of the coordinate bench of the ITAT Mumbai in \nSuresh K Jajoo v. ACIT [2010] 39 SOT 514 (MUM.) [page nos. \n338 to 363 of Case Laws Compliation] where it was held:\n\n“….Secondly, there is no substantive assessment already made treating \nthe capital gain as short-term capital gain. Therefore, there can \nbe no protective assessment.” [Para 28]\n\nIn view of the above judicial precedents, the protective addition \nof Rs.95,45,000/- m…

BIJU THOTTATHIL MATHEW,KOZHIKODE vs. ITO, WARD-2, KALPETTA, KALPETTA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 905/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year 2015-16 Sri.Biju Thottathil Mathew The Income Tax Officer Thottathil, Kottooli V. Ward-2, Kalpetta. Mammilimeethal Paramba Kozhikode – 673 016. Pan : Adapt7151Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : ------- None ------ Respondent By : Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R. Date Of Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2024 Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 O R D E R Per Bench : This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2015-16 Arises Against The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)]’S Din & Order No. Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1057136409(1) Dated 17.10.2023 In Proceedings U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. We Accordingly Proceed Exparte.

For Appellant: ------- None ------For Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 250Section 69B

…w. assessment in proportional terms. We are afraid that such a course of action in making a protective addition first and substantive addition latter is not sustainable in light of Lalji Haridas v. ITO [1961] 43 ITR 387 (SC) and Suersh K. Jajoo v. ACIT [2010] 39 SOT 514 (Mum) supporting assessee’s case that a protective addition comes to play then there arises a doubt in the mind of the Assessing Officer regarding taxability of an income in case of more than one assessee, he could indeed make a substantive addition followed by the protective one and not vice versa. Faced with situation, we deem it as a fit case t…

LALITA NARENDRA KOTHARI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1732/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil Padvekar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Dhivya Ruth J., Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

…e question as to whether such a course of action making protective addition on “ex ascendant cautela” basis, in absence of a substantive addition, came up for consideration before this tribunal’s learned co-ordinate bench in Suresh K. Jajoo vs. ACIT (2010) 39 SOT 514 (Mum) wherein the Revenue’s contentions stood rejected as follows: 6 Ms. Lalita Narendra Kothari “24. The Tribunal firstly explained the concept of Protective assessment, which was judicially recognized in the case of Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO, 43 ITR 387 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where it appears to the IT authorities that certain…

DCIT (CENTRAL), BHOPAL vs. SHAILENDRA SHARMA, BHOPAL

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

ITA 305/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 153A

…scussed above. Thus in our considered view in the absence of such substantive assessment, the protective assessment cannot survive de holding so we draw support and guidance from the order of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Suresh K. Jajoo Vs. ACIT reported in 39 SOT 514 wherein it was held as under: Thus, protective assessment has to be done only after sustain assessment is done. An assessment can be considered as protective only when there is substantive assessment. Thus, assessment has to precede protective assessment 6.7 We also note that the ITAT Jodhpur in the case of Ramesh Chand Premraj Soni (HUF) VS. ACI…

M/S. PATEL AMBALAL HARGOVANDAS & CO.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

In the results, appeal filed by Revenue (in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 185/SRT/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 May 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.49/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2019-20) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Rasikbhai Narottamdas Patel, Surat. Flat No.9-10, Mahavir Nagar Co.Op H.S. Ltd., Bldg-12, Nr. Gayatri Mandir, Udhna Magdalla Road, Surat – 395007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Adgpp4550M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.It(Ss)A No.86/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2015-16) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Ashish Karamshibhai Koshiya, Surat. 40, Jivandeep Soceity, Singanpor Road, Katargam, Surat, Gujarat – 395004. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aojpk1118G (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.185/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2020-21) M/S. Patel Ambalal Hargovandas Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-2 & Co., Surat. 5/725, Haripura, Bhavaniwad, Opp. Dhobi Sheri, Surat – 395003. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No.: Aadfp2517N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) Shri Vartik Choksi, Shri Biren Shah & Shri Respondent By Nitin Gheewala, Ar Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 292CSection 69C

…e on record. Thus the very issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act is found to be illegal and absolutely without jurisdiction.” 12. Ld. Counsel of the assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Suresh K. Jajo vs ACIT (2010) 39 SOT 514 (Mumbai) wherein following the decision of the coordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of M.P. Ramachandaran vs DCIT (2009) 32 SOT 592 (Mumbai), it has been held that there may be substantive assessment without any protective assessment but there cannot be protective assessment without there being a substantive assessment. The relevant observ…

VIJAY KUMAR,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 13, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5755/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Had Filed A Condonation Petition Together With His Affidavit & Also An Affidavit From The Chartered Accountant Of The Assessee Narrating The Facts & Explaining The Reasons For Delay. We Have Gone Through Those Documents & We Are Convinced That Assessee Was Prevented From Reasonable Cause In Not Filing The Appeal Before Us Within The Prescribed Time. Hence, We Deem It Fit & Appropriate To Condone The Delay In Filing Of Appeal By The Assessee & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication.

Section 143(3)

…TO in Income Tax Appeals No.330-334 (Kol) of 2012 and in ITA Nos. 473-475 (Kol) of 2011 dated 01/07/2015. This issue was also subject matter of consideration by the Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Suresh K Jajoo vs. ACIT reported in 39 SOT 514 (Mum Trib.) and in the case of M.P. Ramachandran vs. DCIT in ITA No.587/Mum/2005. The said judgements laid down the following principles and held as under:- 4. On this issue the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of Mumbai 'E' Bench in the case of Suresh K. Jajoo v. ACIT, Circle-4(2), Mumbai [2010] 39 SOT 514 (Mum.) and argued…

PEGASES PROPERTIES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT - CC-2(3), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 350/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2021AY 2016-17
Section 153CSection 23

…n protective basis is held to be correct. Thus, the appellant fails to get relief on this issue.” 4. On this issue the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of Mumbai „E‟ Bench in the case of Suresh K.Jajoo vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Mumbai [2010] 39 SOT 514 (Mum) and argued that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal relying on another decision of ITAT in the case of M.P.Ramachandran vs D.CIT [IT Appeal No.587 (Mum) of 2005] has laid down the following principles :- “ 23. Before us, both the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned D.R. have relied on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the ITAT…

Showing 1–20 of 27 · Page 1 of 2

Suresh K. Jajoo v. ACIT (39 SOT 514) — Cited in 27 Judgments | BharatTax