How many judgments cite VRA Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI?

12 judgments on BharatTax cite VRA Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (359 ITR 495), spanning 2015 to 2021.

VRA Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI

359 ITR 495High Court2013#9023 most cited

What is VRA Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI authority for?

The word 'served' in the proviso to Section 143(2) should be interpreted as 'issued' within the prescribed time limit. The date of service of a Section 143(2) notice is not relevant if it was issued within the statutory period, even if served later.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2021.

Also referred to as

VRA Cotton Mills Pvt Ltd · Union of India · Section 143(2) · notice issuance · notice service · time limit for notice · per incuriam · jurisdictional notice

Judgments citing VRA Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI

Simar Kaur, Kurukshetra vs. ACIT, Circle, Kurukshetra

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 220/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 May 2021AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 282

…waiver of his rights to challenge the jurisdiction assumed by the AO without service of notice u/s 148, which is against the facts and circumstances of the case. Judgement relied by AO & CIT(A) Distinguished: V.R.A. Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. reported at [2013] 359 ITR 495 (PH HC) is based on the issue of 'time limit for issue of notice' wherein it was held that the date of service of notice is not relevant, incase the notice was issued within time limit and served after the time limit for issue of notice. However, in the case of the assessee, the notice u/s 148 was never served on the assessee during the assessmen…

Anil Kisanlal Marda, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1763/PUN/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

Section 143(2)

…led `the Rules’) inserted w.e.f. 2.12.2015. She contended that the rule has a retrospective application. She commended us to the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in 13 Anil Kisanlal Marda V.R.A. Cotton Mills P. Ltd. VS. UOI & Ors. (2013) 359 ITR 495 (P&H) in which it has been held that the date of ‘issue’ of notice be considered as compliance of the requirement of proviso to section 143(2) of the Act, which talks of `service’ of notice within the stipulated period. Towing the aforesaid reasoning, she put forth that once the factum of `issue’ of notice u/s 143(2) was established beyond a…

Major Singh, Amritsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the afore-said terms

ITA 426/ASR/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Jul 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 426/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)

…unless the AO serves on the assessee the said notice within the stipulated time period. (The requirement of the service of notice u/s. 143(2) has been read down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in V.R.A. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2013] 359 ITR 495 (P&H) to an issue of notice u/s. 143(2) within the prescribed time.) That is, the notice u/s. 143(2) assumes a nature of a jurisdictional notice, i.e., for framing an assessment u/s. 143(3), invalidating the assessment framed without observing the same. The jurisdiction to frame an assessment qua an assessment u/s. 147, on the other hand, is upon…

Smt. Nirmal Kaur, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Amritsar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 700/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 700/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. K. R. Jain (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

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

…147, restored the matter back to the file of the AO for the causing the said service, setting aside the Tribunals’ order annulling the proceedings and, thus, the assessment, on that score. So much so, in V.R.A. Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2013] 359 ITR 495 (P&H), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has read down the words ‘service’ in proviso to section 143(2) to mean ‘issue’, so as to eschew attempts by the assessees to avoid service of notice u/s. 143(2), so that the said set aside, is also, in view of the latter decision by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, not required in view of no clai…

Sh. Jaspal Singh S/O Sh. Swaran Singh, Amritsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 445/ASR/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 445/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Padam Bahl (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 144Section 154

…of the notices by the assessees whose income had escaped assessment. Here one cannot help but refer to the similar sentiment expressed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in Jasbir Singh (infra) and V.R.A. Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India [2013] 359 ITR 495 (P&H). Both the Hon’ble jurisdictional and the Patna High Court dissented from the decision in Shanabhai P. Patel v. Upadhyaya [1974] 96 ITR 141 (Guj), which was subsequently reversed by the Apex Court. Service under the Act (referred to as a new Act), it held, is not a condition precedent to confer jurisdiction to the Income-Tax Officer (ITO), t…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar vs. M/S Khosla International, Batala

ITA 307/ASR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 307/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Avish Mahajan (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 14A

…no requirement in law to issue a fresh notice u/s. 148, or cause the service of that already issued again (refer: ITO v. Lal Chand Aggarwal [2012] 134 ITD 91 (Agra-TM). In fact, the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in VRA Cotton Mills (P.) Ltd. v. UOI [2013] 359 ITR 495 (P&H), held that the 9 Asst. CIT v. Khosla International expression ‘served’ in proviso to sec. 143(2), to bring certainty to the proceedings and pre-empt attempts on the part of the assessees to evade receipt of notices u/s. 143(2), be construed as ‘issued’. The jurisdiction to frame an assessment u/s. 147 gets vested by the issue of notice u/s…

Mr.Venkatareddy Manjunath, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 798/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 147Section 148Section 149

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. A.Y. APPELLANT(S) VS. RESPONDENT(S) 798/Bang/2018 2008-09 Mr. Venkatareddy The Assistant Manjunath, Commissioner of No.1, 7th Floor, Income Tax, Vokkaliga Bhavan, Circle 5(2)(1), Hudson Circle, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027. PAN: AFSPM 0587R 741/Bang/2018 2008-09 Dr. V. Sudarshini, The Income Tax # 1324, Sobha Dew Officer, Flower Apartments, Ward 5(3)(2), Sarakki Main Road, Bengaluru. 4th Cross, J.P. Nagar 1st Phase, Bengaluru – 560 078. PAN: ADCPV 3784B 12…

Dr. V. Sudarshini, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 741/BANG/2018[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 147Section 148Section 149

Smt B A Indiramma, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1203/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 147Section 148Section 149

Vidyavihar Containers Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 10(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 7469/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain M/S. Vidyavihar Containers Ltd. Dcit, Circle-10(2) Bajaj Bhawn, 3Rd Floor, Jumnalal Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Bajar Marg, 226, Nariman Point Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400021 Pan – Aaacn0291R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ms. S. Padmaja

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain , Judicial Member M/s. Vidyavihar Containers Ltd. DCIT, Circle-10(2) Bajaj Bhawn, 3rd Floor, Jumnalal Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Bajar Marg, 226, Nariman Point Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400021 PAN – AAACN0291R Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri J.D. Mistri Respondent by: Shri Ms. S. Padmaja Date of Hearing: 16.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 23.12.2016 O R D E R Per Jason P. Boaz, A.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)- 22, Mumbai dated 16.07.201…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(4), Bangalore vs. M/S Indo American Hybrid Seeds India P Ltd, Bangalore

ITA 1283/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Indo American Hybrid Seeds India Pvt.Ltd. Pb No.7099, 7Th Km, Banashankari-Kengeri Link Road,Channasandra Village, Subramanyapura Po, Bangalore-560001. … Respondent Pa No.Aaaci 4027 J & Cross Objn.No.142/Bang/2015 (In Ita No.1283/Bang/2014) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) (By The Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal,JCIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

…d by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Banarsi Devi vs. ITO reported in AIR 1964 SC 1742. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana ITA No.1283/B/2014 & CO No.142/B/2015 Page 10 of 23 High Court, in the case of V.R.A.Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India (2013)(359 ITR 495) after referring to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. AVI-OIL India (P) Ltd. (2010)323 ITR 242)(Punj.&Har.) & ACIT vs. Hotel Blue Moon (2010) 188 Taxman 113)(SC) as well as earlier decisions which have been rendered on the issue of notice u/s 143(2) held that earlier judgments are rendered in ignorance of statutory…

ADIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Abb Lummus Heat Transfer Bv, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2763/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Shah, Smt. Pooja Rao &For Respondent: Shri Peeyush Jain, CIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…to the AO. The ld. DR submitted that the word ‘served’ used in the proviso to section 143(2) should be read as the word ‘issued’ as has been held by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in V.R.A. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors. (2013) 359 ITR 495 (P&H). He contended that the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in this case dealt with the same question, being the service of notice in terms of proviso to section 143(2). Dismissing the assessee’s objection, the Hon’ble High Court has held that the expression ‘served’ used in proviso to section 143(2) should be read as ‘issued.’ Since, in t…