TRIB.) v. JYOTI PAT RAM VS ITO

92 ITD 423Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#9195 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2021.

Judgments citing TRIB.) v. JYOTI PAT RAM VS ITO

DIGVIJAY ADVISOR PVT. LTD,GHAZIABAD UP vs. ITO WARD-7(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4540/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Farat Khan, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 68Section 69C

…TAXMAN 113 (SC) ii. CIT V. RAJEEV SHARMA [2011] 336 ITR 678 (ALL) iii. PR. CIT SHRI JAI SHIV SHANKAR TRADERS (P.) LTD. [2015] 64 TAXMANN.COM 220 (DELHI) iv. GULAB BADGUJAR (HUF)V ITO [2019] 111 TAXMANN.COM 90 (PUNE - TRIB.) v. JYOTI PAT RAM VS ITO (2005) 92 ITD 423 ((LKO) 7. The learned counsel for the assessee in his next plank of argument submitted that the reasons were stated to be recorded on 31.03.2015 on the basis of letter dated 31.03.2009 of ADIT about an accommodation entry of Rs. 30 lakhs of M/s Karol Bagh Trading Ltd. as per 6 statement of one Mr. Tarun Goyal. But the Assessing Officer has not t…

ANIL ANEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1477/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 154Section 2Section 54

…building thereupon. The above view also finds supports from the following judgments: — CIT Vs Ashok Kumar Ralhan 2014 146 taxmann.com 416 (Delhi) — CITVs P V Narsimhan 181ITR 101 (Mad.) — CIT Vs A.R.Mathavan Pillai 219 ITR 696 (Kerela) — Jvothi Pat Ram Vs ITO 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) — Elvis Stephenson Vs ITO (ITA No. 1924/Hvd/2011- IT AT) (Hvd.) The Ld. AR submitted that it is not disputed that altogether a new house has been built having four units after razing old construction to the ground. The Ld. AR further submitted that multiple flats constructed have to be construed as one house and deduction u/s 54 cannot…

TODAY REALTY P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-25(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4029/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…ime limit is mandatory and is not an inconsequential procedural requirement. Omission to issue notice u/s 143 (2) is not curable and the requirement cannot be dispensed with. S. 143(2) is applicable to proceedings u/s 147 & 148.” JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) - ShreeJai Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. - A.Y. - 2008-09 “Reassessment order passed under section 143(3)/148 without issue of a valid notice under section 143(2) was illegal.” CIT vs. Pawan Gupta & Ors. [(2009) 318 ITR 322 (Del) Hon'ble Delhi High Court held in Para 38 of the order observed as under:- "Thus, we are of the clear view th…

TODAY REALTY PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-25(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 4028/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Acountant Member

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…ime limit is mandatory and is not an inconsequential procedural requirement. Omission to issue notice u/s 143 (2) is not curable and the requirement cannot be dispensed with. S. 143(2) is applicable to proceedings u/s 147 & 148.” JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) - ShreeJai Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. - A.Y. - 2008- 09 “Reassessment order passed under section 143(3)/148 without issue of a valid notice under section 143(2) was illegal.” CIT vs. Pawan Gupta & Ors. [(2009) 318 ITR 322 (Del) Hon'ble Delhi High Court held in Para 38 of the order observed as under:- "Thus, we are of the clear view th…

SIYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 865/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 865/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Siya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Up-12, Pitampura, Ward-8(4), New Delhi-110034 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics7889N Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.12.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xi, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…25 ITR 340 (P&H) " Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC) " ITO Vs Rajeev Aggarwal 89 TTJ 1095 (Del.) " Kishenchand Chellaram Vs CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) " ACIT Vs G. M. Infrastructure IT(SS) No. 133/Ind/2008 to 135/Ind/2008 " Jyoti Pat Ram Vs ITO (2007) 92 ITD 423 (Luc.) " ACIT Vs Smt. Jyoti Devi (2004) 84 TTJ 689 (Jai) " CIT Vs Mudra G. Nanavati (HC-Bom) " CIT Vs Mudra G. Nanavati (HC-Bom) " Mudra G. Nanavati Vs WCIT (2007) 30 DTR 217 (Mum Trib) " MS. C. Malathy Vs ITO (2004) 88 ITD 37 (Chennai) " Smt. Amarjeet Kaur Vs ACIT(2009) 17 DTR 127 (Del Trib) " Aegis Chemical Ind. Limited Vs ITO (1998) 65 ITD 147…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. RAVNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the Cross Objection of the Assessee is allowed and Appeal of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 4889/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ime limit is mandatory and is not an inconsequential procedural requirement. Omission to issue notice u/s 143 (2) is not curable and the requirement cannot be dispensed with. S. 143(2) is applicable to proceedings u/s 147 & 148.” JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [ (2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) - ShreeJai ShreeJai JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [ JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [ (2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) (2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) ShreeJai ShreeJai Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. - A.Y. Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. A.Y. - 2008 2008-09 09 Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. Shiv Shonhor Traders (P)…

T V TODAY NETWORK LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Accordingly grounds raised by assessee on legal as well as on merits stands allowed

ITA 5617/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaischleicher India Ltd. Dcit C/O M/S Rra Taxindia Central Circle-09, Vs. D-28, South Extension, Part-I New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaacm1960G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh KuptaFor Respondent: Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…terial found in the course of search, then provisions of section 153 would be redundant. He placed reliance upon the decision of (Lucknow decision). He placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal, Lucknow Bench in case of Jyoti Pat Ram vs ITO reported in 92 ITD 423. 9. Ld. counsel submitted that in reasons recorded assessing officer has relied upon two alleged sale bills, issued by M/s BT Technet Ltd., to assessee being Annexure-A 21 for purchase of ‘PGSM Software’ module for an amount of Rs.1,83,600/-. Whereas assessee had actually purchased said software by way of invoice dated 20.12.2003, amounting to Rs.…

PARAMOUNT BIOTECH INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 4100/DEL/2015[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2017AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. S.D. Kapila, Adv., Sh. PnayushFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, DR

Section 10(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ime limit is mandatory and is not an inconsequential procedural requirement. Omission to issue notice u/s 143 (2) is not curable and the requirement cannot be dispensed with. S. 143(2) is applicable to proceedings u/s 147 & 148.” JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) - ShreeJai JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) ShreeJai ShreeJai ShreeJai Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. - A.Y. Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. A.Y. A.Y. - 2008 A.Y.…

PARAMOUNT BIOTECH INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 4099/DEL/2015[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. S.D. Kapila, Adv., Sh. PnayushFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, DR

Section 10(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ime limit is mandatory and is not an inconsequential procedural requirement. Omission to issue notice u/s 143 (2) is not curable and the requirement cannot be dispensed with. S. 143(2) is applicable to proceedings u/s 147 & 148.” JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) - ShreeJai JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) ShreeJai ShreeJai ShreeJai Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. - A.Y. Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. A.Y. A.Y. - 2008 A.Y.…

SH. RAM KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 785/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2006-07 Sh. Ram Kumar Ito, Ward 35(4), House No. 135, Surya Niketan, Vs. New Delhi Delhi – 110 092 (Pan: Aggpk6375E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv, ShFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

…ime limit is mandatory and is not an inconsequential procedural requirement. Omission to issue notice u/s 143 (2) is not curable and the requirement cannot be dispensed with. S. 143(2) is applicable to proceedings u/s 147 & 148.” JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) - ShreeJai JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) ShreeJai ShreeJai ShreeJai Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. - A.Y. Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. A.Y. - 2008 2008-09 09 Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd…

SMT. ANITA KUMARI,PROP M/S HARRE KRISHANA CHEMICAL,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5184/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2007-08 Smt. Anita Kumari Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Hare Krishna Vs. Ward 1(1), Chemcial, Ghaziabad C-118, Vardhman Apartment-Iv, Shalimar Garden, Extension-Ii, Ghaziabad (Pan: (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Appellant) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234B

…ime limit is mandatory and is not an inconsequential procedural requirement. Omission to issue notice u/s 143 (2) is not curable and the requirement cannot be dispensed with. S. 143(2) is applicable to proceedings u/s 147 & 148.” JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) - ShreeJai JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) ShreeJai ShreeJai ShreeJai Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. - A.Y. Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. A.Y. A.Y. - 2008 A.Y.…

ZAKIA BEGUM,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3002/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. WA Khan, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 44A

…ime limit is mandatory and is not an inconsequential procedural requirement. Omission to issue notice u/s 143 (2) is not curable and the requirement cannot be dispensed with. S. 143(2) is applicable to proceedings u/s 147 & 148.” JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) - ShreeJai JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) ShreeJai JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) JYOTI PAT RAM VS. ITO [(2005) 92 ITD 423 (Lucknow) ShreeJai ShreeJai Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. - A.Y. Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. A.Y. - 2008 2008-09 09 Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd. Shiv Shonhor Traders (P) Ltd…