Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd vs. CIT ( 93 Taxmann 502); CIT v. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd (

418 ITR 662Supreme Court of India2019#7182 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 143(3)Section 120

Issues it is cited on

section 292bkelvinatormere change of opinionspecified authoritysection 292service of noticesection 29section 148a(b)section 148achange of opinionsection 149tangible material

Judgments citing Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd vs. CIT ( 93 Taxmann 502); CIT v. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd (

SUHIR FINANCE AND CHITS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-24(2), NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8767/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Assessing Officer but the Assessing Officer has not disposed of the above objections. Further he submitted that assessee has raised submissions before the ld. CIT (A) and ld. CIT (A) has not appreciated the submissions of the assessee and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESDIENT and SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO, Ward 24 (3), vs. M/s. Suhir Finance and Chits Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. WZ-13, Gali No.18, Krishna Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi – 110 018. (PAN : AAOCS7131F) M/s. Suhir Finance and Chits Pvt. Ltd., vs. ITO, Ward 24 (3), WZ-13, Gali No.18, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi. Tilak Nagar, New Delhi – 110 018. (PAN : AAOCS7131F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Vikash Jain, Advocate Ms. Sarawani, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearin…

ITO, WARD- 24(3), NEW DELHI vs. SUHIR FINANCE AND CHITS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8656/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESDIENT, SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 292B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESDIENT and SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO, Ward 24 (3), vs. M/s. Suhir Finance and Chits Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. WZ-13, Gali No.18, Krishna Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi – 110 018. (PAN : AAOCS7131F) M/s. Suhir Finance and Chits Pvt. Ltd., vs. ITO, Ward 24 (3), WZ-13, Gali No.18, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi. Tilak Nagar, New Delhi – 110 018. (PAN : AAOCS7131F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Vikash Jain, Advocate Ms. Sarawani, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearin…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAUTALIYA BHAVAN, BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 4378/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…nd, proceedings initiated for reassessment\ncould not be quashed. The relevant part of the order is\nreproduced below:\n7. On this very issue, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of\nPr. CIT v. I-ven Interactive Ltd. [2019] 110 taxmann.com\n332/267 Τахтап 471/418 ITR 662, held that issuance of\nnotice at the address listed in the PAN database is sufficient\ncompliance of issue of notice, and that in the absence of any\nspecific intimation to the Assessing Officer, the Assessing\nOfficer would be justified in sending notice at the available\naddress mentioned in the PAN Database.\n8. Reference has further been mad…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(3)(3), BKC vs. RAJNISH BHARTI HUF, DARUKHANA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed\nwhereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 4377/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…nd, proceedings initiated for reassessment\ncould not be quashed. The relevant part of the order is\nreproduced below:\n7. On this very issue, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of\nPr. CIT v. I-ven Interactive Ltd. [2019] 110 taxmann.com\n332/267 Taxman 471/418 ITR 662, held that issuance of\nnotice at the address listed in the PAN database is sufficient\ncompliance of issue of notice, and that in the absence of any\nspecific intimation to the Assessing Officer, the Assessing\nOfficer would be justified in sending notice at the available\naddress mentioned in the PAN Database.\n8. Reference has further been mad…

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI , LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3941/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 148

…rt in a case of 7. On this very issue, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of 7. On this very issue, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of Pr. CIT v. I-ven Interactive Ltd. ven Interactive Ltd. [2019] 110 taxmann.com [2019] 110 taxmann.com 332/267 Taxman 471/418 ITR 662 332/267 Taxman 471/418 ITR 662, held that issuance of , held that issuance of notice at the address listed in the PAN database is sufficient notice at the address listed in the PAN database is sufficient notice at the address listed in the PAN database is sufficient compliance of issue of notice, and that in the absence of any compliance of issue…

RAJNISH BHARTI HUF,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(3)(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUG, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed assessee are dismissed whereas appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 3912/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mrs. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. C.V. Jain
Section 143(3)Section 148

…rt in a case of 7. On this very issue, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of 7. On this very issue, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of Pr. CIT v. I-ven Interactive Ltd. ven Interactive Ltd. [2019] 110 taxmann.com [2019] 110 taxmann.com 332/267 Taxman 471/418 ITR 662 332/267 Taxman 471/418 ITR 662, held that issuance of , held that issuance of notice at the address listed in the PAN database is sufficient notice at the address listed in the PAN database is sufficient notice at the address listed in the PAN database is sufficient compliance of issue of notice, and that in the absence of any compliance of issue…

AMIT KUMAR GUPTA, RAMANUJGANJ,BALRAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, KORBA, KORBA

ITA 405/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 404 & 405/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2011-12 Amit Kumar Gupta House No.7, Shetpara, P.O. Ramanujganj, Dist. Balrampur-497 220 (C.G.) Pan: Axbpg1069P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…. That's why all the do so. Further the correspondences were made through the postal department on the address available with the department. 7.3.2 Reliance is placed on the Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Iven Interactive Limited, 2019 418 ITR 662 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows. 7 Amit Kumar Gupta Vs. ITO-1, Korba ITA Nos. 404 & 405/RPR/2024 "Mere mentioning of the new address in the return of income without specifically intimating the Assessing Officer with respect to change of address and without getting the PAN database changed, is not enough and suffic…

AMIT KUMAR GUPTA, RAMANUJGANJ,BALRAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, KORBA, KORBA

ITA 404/RPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 404 & 405/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2011-12 Amit Kumar Gupta House No.7, Shetpara, P.O. Ramanujganj, Dist. Balrampur-497 220 (C.G.) Pan: Axbpg1069P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…. That's why all the do so. Further the correspondences were made through the postal department on the address available with the department. 7.3.2 Reliance is placed on the Order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Iven Interactive Limited, 2019 418 ITR 662 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows. 7 Amit Kumar Gupta Vs. ITO-1, Korba ITA Nos. 404 & 405/RPR/2024 "Mere mentioning of the new address in the return of income without specifically intimating the Assessing Officer with respect to change of address and without getting the PAN database changed, is not enough and suffic…

PUSHPAGIRI MEDICAL SOCIETY,THIRUVALLA vs. ACIT, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 599/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeypushpagiri Medical Society Asst. Cit Thiruvalla 689101 (Exemptions) Vs. Pan – Aaatp2418H Cochin

For Appellant: Shri Abraham K Thomas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 10Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 272B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Aby T.Varkey, Judicial Member Pushpagiri Medical Society Asst. CIT Thiruvalla 689101 (Exemptions) vs. PAN – AAATP2418H Cochin [Appellant] [Respondent] Appellant by: Shri Abraham K Thomas, CA Respondent by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing: 14.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 16.06.2023 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 16.3.2022, dismissing the assessee’s ap…

MESERS DURGA MANIKANTA TRADERS,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), BHILAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 59/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 59/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Durga Manikanta Traders, Flat No. B-204, Rishabh City Prime Rishabh South City, Potiyakala, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 Pan : Aahfd2524P .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1),Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 44A

…(1) 12. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. The Ld. DR had drawn support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the Pr. CIT Vs. I-Ven Interactive Limited (2019) 418 ITR 662(SC). However, on being called upon to explain that as to how the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court which was in context of the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by an A.O on the basis of the address provided by an assessee in the PAN database, and was not in the context of the pecuniary jurisdiction that was vested with the…

SHRI SHRI HARISH KUMAR CHHABADA,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAIPUR (CG)

ITA 323/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 323/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Harish Kumar Chhabada H. No. 490, Near Rly Line Road, Samta Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Acapc7574M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C. Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

…no infirmity in the assumption of jurisdiction by him for issuing notice u/s 143(2), dated 08.08.2013 therein emerges. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the Pr. CIT Vs. I-Ven Interactive Limited (2019) 418 ITR 662(SC). In the case before the Hon’ble Apex Court, it was held that where the assessee had failed to file an application to change its address in the PAN database, and thus, the old 16 Shri Harish Kumar Chhabada Vs. ITO-2(1) address continued then, in absence of any intimation to the A.O with respect to change in address no infirmity did arise from…

SAURABH SINGHAI L/H LATE SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR JAIN,SAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3 SAGAR, SAGAR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5/JAB/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble & Sh. Manomohan Das, Hon‟Ble

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 263

…n address per se, but filing the return for a later year with a changed address. There is also no claim, or nothing on record to show, that the change of address was, as required by law to, intimated u/s. 139A. (refer: Pr. CIT v. I-Ven Interactive Ltd. [2019] 418 ITR 662 (SC)). There is, thus, no positive material on record as to the assessee communicating the AO the change in his address; rather no claim in its respect. On the contrary, there is positive material on record of the assessee having been served the notice u/s. 263, and which cannot be countered by a bald, much less inconsistent claim by the assessee…

BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU,KADAPA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 512/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

…. Pradeep Kumar and Anr ( 7 SCC 372); State of UP vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh and Ors (CA No. 3498/2020); Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd vs. CIT ( 93 Taxmann 502); CIT vs. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd (312 ITR 254); PCIT vs. I-Ven Interactive Ltd (418 ITR 662); PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd (412 ITR 161); NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd vs. PCIT 273 Taxman 14; Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT (50 ITR 1); Roshan Hatti vs. CIT (107 ITR 938); CIT vs. P. Mohankala ( 291 ITR 278) and CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio (P) Ltd (42 Taxmann.com 339). 31. To sum up, Section 68 of the Act provides that, if any sum found cred…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. BRAMHANI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR DIST., YSR DIST.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

…. Pradeep Kumar and Anr ( 7 SCC 372); State of UP vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh and Ors (CA No. 3498/2020); Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd vs. CIT ( 93 Taxmann 502); CIT vs. Woodward Governor India (P) Ltd (312 ITR 254); PCIT vs. I-Ven Interactive Ltd (418 ITR 662); PCIT vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd (412 ITR 161); NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd vs. PCIT 273 Taxman 14; Kale Khan Mohammed Hanif vs. CIT (50 ITR 1); Roshan Hatti vs. CIT (107 ITR 938); CIT vs. P. Mohankala ( 291 ITR 278) and CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio (P) Ltd (42 Taxmann.com 339). 31. To sum up, Section 68 of the Act provides that, if any sum found cred…

ARTSY INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROJECTS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH VATSAL INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CC- 29, NEW DELHI

ITA 4694/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…O, the assessment was framed in both the cases much after merger of the assessee company with amalgamated company. The ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pr. CIT, Mumbai vs. I-Ven Interactive Ltd. (2019) 418 ITR 662 (SC). 13. We are of the considered view that decision relied upon by the ld. DR for the Revenue is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case which is on the service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act whereas, in the instant case, the issue is simply “as to whether assessment framed of amalgamating company is sustainable in the eyes…

DART INFRABUILD PVT. LTD.(EARLIER KNOWN AS KIWI INFRABUILD PVT. LTD.),NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-14(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8774/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri K.N. Chary

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 151Section 151(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…not traceable or anyone representing the assessee refused to receive the notice or to sign the acknowledgement thereof. In the circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s I-Ven interactive Ltd 418 ITR 662 has no application to the facts of the case. 18 Though the Ld. AR submitted that a recovery survey was conducted on the assessee on 6/3/2020 on the two addresses of the assessee, namely, Mahajan house, E-1, South extension, part 2, New Delhi and building. Number 598, Chattarpur Pahari, Delhi-110074 and during the course of such survey, the asses…