← All Phrases

“Section 282(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 282Section 282(1)113 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 282(1) is Pr. CIT v. Silver Line (383 ITR 455), cited in 201 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 282(1)

Pr. CIT v. Silver Line
383 ITR 455 · 2016 · High Court
201
citing judgments

For reassessment under Section 147, the Assessing Officer must record reasons and communicate them to the assessee. An assessee's participation in proceedings pursuant to a Section 148 notice does not obviate the mandatory requirement of recording and communicating reasons or issuing a Section 143(2) notice.

State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) (iii) CIT v. South India Corporation Ltd.
269 ITR 282 · 2004 · High Court
176
citing judgments

Employee contributions to provident fund or ESI are deductible if deposited with the authorities before the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), even if deposited after the due date prescribed by the respective fund's Act.

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Union of India
282 ITR 273 · 2006 · Supreme Court
136
citing judgments

The rule of consistency requires that in the absence of any change in material facts or law, a different view or decision on an issue cannot be adopted for subsequent assessment years, thus ensuring uniformity in tax assessments.

Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT (Exemptions)
463 ITR 560 · 2024 · High Court
75
citing judgments

Service of notice through the ITBA portal is not a valid method of service under section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Consequently, matters where notice was deemed invalidly served via ITBA portal are remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de novo disposal to uphold principles of natural justice.

CIT v. Chetan Gupta
382 ITR 613 · 2016 · High Court
57
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings and subsequent assessment orders are invalid if the notice under Section 148 is not validly served, such as when issued to an incorrect address or when affixture is improper.

CIT v. Hotline International Pvt. Ltd.
296 ITR 333 · 2008 · High Court
47
citing judgments

Section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 specifies the modes for serving notices, including by post or summons under the Code of Civil Procedure. A valid service of notice is essential for assessment or reassessment proceedings, and its absence renders such proceedings bad in law.

CIT v. Ramendra Nath Ghosh
82 ITR 888 · 1971 · Supreme Court
42
citing judgments

For substituted service of notice by affixation to be valid, the serving officer must exercise all due and reasonable diligence to find the assessee or their agent, strictly adhering to the procedure under Rule 17 of Order V of the Civil Procedure Code. Failure to follow this proper procedure renders the service invalid and cannot sustain subsequent proceedings.

282(Del) 3. Pee Aar Securities Ltd. v. DCIT
97 Taxmann.com 398 · 2018 · Supreme Court
40
citing judgments

The genuineness of transactions, particularly the creditworthiness of creditors for share capital, is a key factor in the addition under section 68. The assessee must provide sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of such transactions.

Judgments citing Section 282(1)

Arch Tech Building Materials Private Limited, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward 1, Cuddalore

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

ITA 4044/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 282(1)

considered opinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as specified under the provisions of section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the notices were ... afraid that we cannot subscribe to the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the Revenue-respondent. The provisions of section 282(1) of the Act of 1961 and rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 provides for a method and manner of service of notice

Audrey Bernice Roy, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam

ITA 494/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 194JSection 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री रिीश सूद ,न्याधयक

Nitin Chaturbhug Garg, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 2569/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Natekar, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

void ab-initio. 11. Per contra, the ld. DR representing the revenue submitted that notice was issued properly following the provisions of section 282(1) (b) of the Act following the procedure provided under Code of Civil Procedures, 1908 (5 of 1908). If there was any change of address

Nitin Chaturbhug Garg, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 2568/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Natekar, ARFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

void ab-initio. 11. Per contra, the ld. DR representing the revenue submitted that notice was issued properly following the provisions of section 282(1) (b) of the Act following the procedure provided under Code of Civil Procedures, 1908 (5 of 1908). If there was any change of address

Rajput Mohammadmuntasim Tashbihuddin, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 3958/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, G: NEW DELHI BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH

Techno Residency Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5742/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi & Ms. Vinita NaraFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249Section 271(1)(b)Section 69ASection 80P

days in filing the appeal. Rule 127 of the IT Rules provides that it would sufficient compliance for the purpose of Section 282(1) of the Act in case notices/orders are sent on the email address available (in PAN Data base, Income Tax Returns registered or address with

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Pankaj Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4188/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer Vs. Pankaj Enterprises Pvt. Room No.217, Cr Ltd., 130, First Floor, Building, D-Mall, Netaji Subhash New Delhi – 110002 Place, Pitampura, Saraswati Vihar, North West Delhi, Delhi - 110034 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcp9429N Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No.83/Del/2025 (Assessment Year:2015-16) Pankaj Enterprises Pvt. Vs. Ito, Ward 19(3) Ltd., 130, First Floor, Room No.217, Cr D-Mall, Netaji Subhash Building, Place, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110002 Saraswati Vihar, North West Delhi, Delhi - 110034 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcp9429N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Shilpi Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Krishna Kumar Ramawat, Sr
Section 13Section 147Section 148Section 282Section 282(1)

that communication may treated as compliant with the requirement of Income Tax Rules 127 & 127A. Now the same has to be read with Section 282(1) of the Act. Subsection (1) (c) of Section 282 of the Act provides that a communication may be transmitted in the form of electronic

Paila Venkata Padmavathi, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 121/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.121/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2015-16) Vs. Paila Venkata Padmavathi The Income Tax Officer Ward– 5(3) 3-47, Thanam Aayakar Bhavan Paravada Mandal Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam Paravada – 531021 Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Bsipp1954P]

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 282(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) श्री रिीश

Raghunath Singh, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-7(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

ITA 490/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69A

notices intimating fixation of hearing and the appellate order were validly served upon the assessee. The Ld. DR submitted that as per Section 282(1)(c) of the Act r.w Rule 127(2)(b) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, service on the e-mail address furnished by the assessee ... mail ID mentioned for form-filing purposes could not be regarded as valid service. Thus, the reliance placed by the Ld. DR on Section 282(1)(c) read with Rule 127(2)(b) does not carry the case of the Revenue any further. 13. In the backdrop of the above

Manavadariya Dharmendra Kantilal, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 318/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 69A

notices intimating fixation of hearing and the appellate order were validly served upon the assessee. The Ld. DR submitted that as per Section 282(1)(c) of the Act r.w Rule 127(2)(b) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, service on the e-mail address furnished by the assessee ... mail ID mentioned for form-filing purposes could not be regarded as valid service. Thus, the reliance placed by the Ld. DR on Section 282(1)(c) read with Rule 127(2)(b) does not carry the case of the Revenue any further. 13. In the backdrop of the above

Mudiyilathu Radhakrishnakurup Resmikala, Chengannoor vs. ITO, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 725/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

find that the NFAC had issued notices of hearing through ITBA Portal. In our considered opinion, it is not the provisions of section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the notices ... afraid that we cannot subscribe to the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the Revenue-respondent. The provisions of section 282(1) of the Act of 1961 and rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 provides for a method and manner of service of notice

Mudiyilathu Radhakrishnakurup Resmikala, Chengannoor vs. ITO, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 724/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

find that the NFAC had issued notices of hearing through ITBA Portal. In our considered opinion, it is not the provisions of section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the notices ... afraid that we cannot subscribe to the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the Revenue-respondent. The provisions of section 282(1) of the Act of 1961 and rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 provides for a method and manner of service of notice

Mudiyilathu Radhakrishnakurup Resmikala, Chengannoor vs. ITO, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 723/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

find that the NFAC had issued notices of hearing through ITBA Portal. In our considered opinion, it is not the provisions of section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the notices ... afraid that we cannot subscribe to the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the Revenue-respondent. The provisions of section 282(1) of the Act of 1961 and rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 provides for a method and manner of service of notice

Mudiyilathu Radhakrishnakurup Resmikala, Chengannoor vs. ITO, Ward-2, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 722/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 282(1)

find that the NFAC had issued notices of hearing through ITBA Portal. In our considered opinion, it is not the provisions of section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the notices ... afraid that we cannot subscribe to the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the Revenue-respondent. The provisions of section 282(1) of the Act of 1961 and rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 provides for a method and manner of service of notice

Archana Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose, in the terms aforesaid

ITA 3858/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri M R Sahu, Chartered AccountantFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148Section 5

notice to the assessee on the email id provided in Form No. 36, as well as through post in accordance with provisions of section 282(1)(a) of the Act. 9. The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) served by the AO, without fail. 10. In the result, impugned

Argos Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3633/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 194LSection 1ISection 260Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)

Income Tax Act for Extra-Territorial Service, and service on a Non-Existent Company render the proceedings to be Void. Under Section 282(1) of the Income Tax Act, r/w Rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, notices are required to be validly served upon the assessee’s known

Argos Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3632/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 194LSection 1ISection 260Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)

Income Tax Act for Extra-Territorial Service, and service on a Non-Existent Company render the proceedings to be Void. Under Section 282(1) of the Income Tax Act, r/w Rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, notices are required to be validly served upon the assessee’s known

Anandarao Kota, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 238/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.238/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2015-16) Shri Anandarao Kota, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward 9(1), Pan: Cvopk0669Q Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: None. रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश/Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 27.07.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is That The Assessee Is An Individual, No Regular Return Of Income U/S.139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act") Was Filed For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessing Officer Based On The Information That The Assessee Made Cash Deposits Of Rs.1,03,97,300/- In The Savings Bank Account Formed Opinion That The Income Had Escaped Assessment

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 282(1)

Portal. In my considered opinion, it is not a valid method and manner of service of notice as specified under the provisions of section 282(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Act ITA No.238/Hyd/2025 4 and Rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, it is crystal ... 7.We are afraid that we cannot subscribe to the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the Revenue-respondent. The provisions of section 282(1) of the Act of 1961 and rule 127(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 provides for a method and manner of service

Carissa Investment Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(2), New Delhi

Accordingly we are inclined to allow ground no. 2 in appeal of the assesse and that vitiates the whole assessment proceedings and the impugned assessment order. The appeal of assesse is allowed and...

ITA 901/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2014-15 Carissa Investment Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, B-97, 2Nd Floor, Circle-5(2), Amrit Puri, Garhi, New Delhi. East Of Kailash, New Delhi – 110 065. Pan: Aaacc3277A Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Vs. Carissa Investment Pvt. Ltd., B-97, 2Nd Floor, Circle-5(2), New Delhi Amrit Puri, Garhi, East Of Kailash, New Delhi – 110 065. Pan: Aaacc3277A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mayank Patawari, Advocate & Shri Aakash Ojha, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 31.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Dated 14.11.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 282Section 282(1)(c)

affixture at C-9, Third Floor, East of Kailash, New Delhi- 110 065 which was not the correct address. 3.7 As per Section 282(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, any notice or communication may be delivered electronically to the address provided by the assessee. The Central Board

Sh. Hari Prakash Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 772/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 44A

case of 5 CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma [2009] 311 ITR 235 (Delhi) wherein it has been held as under (page 237): "Section 282(1) of the Act provides that a notice or requisition under the Act may be served on the person therein named either by post ... that case it was held that the Revenue had sufficiently discharged the onus by producing the affidavit of the process server. Under section 282(1) of the Act, service of notice may be made by delivering or transmitting a copy thereof to the person to whom the notice is addressed