← All Phrases

“Section 282(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 282Section 282(2)19 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 282(2) is Pr. CIT v. Silver Line (383 ITR 455), cited in 201 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 282(2)

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.

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.

165 Taxman 95 (Del); (ii) CIT v. Atedhsy Films P. Ltd.
306 ITR 309 · 2008 · High Court
35
citing judgments

A notice is presumed to have been properly served if it is not returned as unserved, and objections regarding non-service are not acceptable in such cases.

CIT v. L.G. Electronic (India) Ltd.
282 ITR 545 · 2006 · High Court
23
citing judgments

The setting up of a business and the commencement of a business are distinct events and do not necessarily occur on the same date. Expenses incurred before the commencement of business but after the setting up of business may be considered for determining profits.

CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma
311 ITR 235 · 2009 · High Court
21
citing judgments

Service of a notice or requisition under the Income-tax Act must be made in accordance with Section 282(1), which allows for service by post or as if it were a summons under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Rules 12 to 15 of Order V of the CPC are relevant, emphasizing personal service where practicable.

Fatechand Agarwal v. CWT
97 ITR 701 · 1974 · High Court
21
citing judgments

The Revenue bears the burden of proving that a notice was duly served on the assessee or their authorized representative. If no valid notice is served within the prescribed period, the Income-Tax Officer lacks the authority to initiate reassessment proceedings.

A.D. Jayaveerapandia Nadar (2013) 354 ITR 282 v. CIT
54 ITR 401 · 1964 · High Court
20
citing judgments

The admissibility of additional evidence in appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is governed by principles of natural justice and the specific provisions of the Income Tax Act, allowing for its admission if it is essential for a just decision and was not available or could not have been produced during assessment proceedings.

Judgments citing Section 282(2)

Rain Cements, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 540/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri Deepak Chopra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena, Sr. AR
Section 115Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 234CSection 246A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD

Philips International B.V, Kolkata vs. ACIT(I.T), Cir-2(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 555/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm M/S Philips International B.V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp, Tax (International Taxation), Bengal Intelligent Park, Building Circle 2(1), Kolkata Omega, 13Th & 14Th Floor, Room No. 210, 2 Nd Floor, Vs. Block-Ep & Gp, Sector-V Salt Aaykar Bhavan, Poorva, 110, Lake Electronic Complex, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Kolkata-700091 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aafcp4065J Assessee By : Shri Ketan K. Ved, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ketan K. Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 282(2)

under: - 16. The Id. Departmental Representative referred to the provisions of Rule 127A i.e.the Rule framed in pursuance to the provisions of section 282(2) of the Act for service of notice, summons, requisition order and other communications. The Id. Departmental Representative has pointed that since the assessment order communicated

Danieli and C Officine Meccaniche Spa, South Delhi vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 1(1), It, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2509/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2021-22 Danieli & C Officine Acit, Circle1(1), It, Meccaniche S P A Kolkata Vs Unit No.302, 3Rd Floor, Manisha Building, Plot No.75- 76, Nehru Place South Delhi, Delhi – 110019. (Pan: Aabcd9695E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Soumyadip Roy Choudhry, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 282A(2)

under :- 16. The Id. Departmental Representative referred to the provisions of Rule 127A i.e.the Rule framed in pursuance to the provisions of section 282(2) of the Act for service of notice, summons, requisition order and other communications. The Id. Departmental Representative has pointed that since the assessment order communicated

DCIT, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4593/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

assessee. ……… 16. The ld. Departmental Representative referred to the provisions of Rule 127A i.e. the Rule framed in pursuance to the provisions of section 282(2) of the Act for service of notice, summons, requisition order and other communications. The ld. Departmental Representative has pointed that since the assessment order

DCIT CC 5-1, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4591/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

assessee. ……… 16. The ld. Departmental Representative referred to the provisions of Rule 127A i.e. the Rule framed in pursuance to the provisions of section 282(2) of the Act for service of notice, summons, requisition order and other communications. The ld. Departmental Representative has pointed that since the assessment order

DCIT CC 5 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4590/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

assessee. ……… 16. The ld. Departmental Representative referred to the provisions of Rule 127A i.e. the Rule framed in pursuance to the provisions of section 282(2) of the Act for service of notice, summons, requisition order and other communications. The ld. Departmental Representative has pointed that since the assessment order

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4153/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

assessee. ……… 16. The ld. Departmental Representative referred to the provisions of Rule 127A i.e. the Rule framed in pursuance to the provisions of section 282(2) of the Act for service of notice, summons, requisition order and other communications. The ld. Departmental Representative has pointed that since the assessment order

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4151/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

assessee. ……… 16. The ld. Departmental Representative referred to the provisions of Rule 127A i.e. the Rule framed in pursuance to the provisions of section 282(2) of the Act for service of notice, summons, requisition order and other communications. The ld. Departmental Representative has pointed that since the assessment order

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4150/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

assessee. ……… 16. The ld. Departmental Representative referred to the provisions of Rule 127A i.e. the Rule framed in pursuance to the provisions of section 282(2) of the Act for service of notice, summons, requisition order and other communications. The ld. Departmental Representative has pointed that since the assessment order

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

ITA 4148/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

assessee. ……… 16. The ld. Departmental Representative referred to the provisions of Rule 127A i.e. the Rule framed in pursuance to the provisions of section 282(2) of the Act for service of notice, summons, requisition order and other communications. The ld. Departmental Representative has pointed that since the assessment order

J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -5(1), Mumbai

ITA 4147/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

assessee. ……… 16. The ld. Departmental Representative referred to the provisions of Rule 127A i.e. the Rule framed in pursuance to the provisions of section 282(2) of the Act for service of notice, summons, requisition order and other communications. The ld. Departmental Representative has pointed that since the assessment order

M/S. Philips Electronics Nederland B.V., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T.(International Taxation), Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 134/KOL/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.134/Kol/2023 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) M/S Philips Electronics Vs Acit(International Taxation), Nederland B.V. Circle-2(1), Kolkata C/O Deloitte Haskins & Sells Llp Bengal Intelligent Park, Building Omega, 13Th& 14Th Floor, Block- Ep & Gp, Sector-V, Salt Lake Electronic Complex, Kolkata- 700091 Pan No. :Aafcp4361F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ar राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Guru Bhashyam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.12.2022, Passed By The Acit, Circle-2(1), It, Kolkata Giving Effect To The Direction Given By The Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi(In Short The ‘Drp’), Dated 04.11.2022, Thereby Finalizing The Assessment Order In Accordance With The Provisions Of Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act. 2. At The Outset, Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To The Additional Ground Filed By The Assessee & Submitted That The Appeal Of The Assessee May Be Decided On The Following Additional Grounds Taken By The Assessee :-

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 156Section 90(2)

under :- 16. The Id. Departmental Representative referred to the provisions of Rule 127A i.e.the Rule framed in pursuance to the provisions of section 282(2) of the Act for service of notice, summons, requisition order and other communications. The Id. Departmental Representative has pointed that since the assessment order communicated

Jagdish R. Mookhey, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(2)_4, Mumbai

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

ITA 3152/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Us Is, Whether The ‘Reasons Recorded’ By The Ld. Ao U/S.148 Were Communicated To The Assessee During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Or Not. Here In This Case, This Issue Was Adjudicated By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 29/11/2013 Wherein, The Tribunal Has Held That, As Per The Order Sheet Entry Dated 08/12/2009, The Reasons For Reopening Was Given By Ld A.O Vide Letter Dated 18/12/2009 Alongwith Show-Cause Notice U/S.142(1). However, This Finding Of The Tribunal Was Challenged Before The Hon’Ble High Court Wherein The Hon’Ble High Court Has Set Aside This Issue To The Tribunal Vide Judgment & Order Dated 06/12/2016 In Income Tax Appeal No.965 Of 2014. For The Sake Of Ready Reference, The Entire Judgment Of The High Court Is Reproduced Hereunder:- 1. This Appeal Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act") Challenges The Order Dated 29Th November 2013. Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("The Tribunal') The Impugned Order Is In Respect Of Assessment Year 2005-06

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 260A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITO 11(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Jagdish R. Mookhey, Mumbai

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

ITA 2956/MUM/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Us Is, Whether The ‘Reasons Recorded’ By The Ld. Ao U/S.148 Were Communicated To The Assessee During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Or Not. Here In This Case, This Issue Was Adjudicated By The Tribunal Vide Order Dated 29/11/2013 Wherein, The Tribunal Has Held That, As Per The Order Sheet Entry Dated 08/12/2009, The Reasons For Reopening Was Given By Ld A.O Vide Letter Dated 18/12/2009 Alongwith Show-Cause Notice U/S.142(1). However, This Finding Of The Tribunal Was Challenged Before The Hon’Ble High Court Wherein The Hon’Ble High Court Has Set Aside This Issue To The Tribunal Vide Judgment & Order Dated 06/12/2016 In Income Tax Appeal No.965 Of 2014. For The Sake Of Ready Reference, The Entire Judgment Of The High Court Is Reproduced Hereunder:- 1. This Appeal Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act") Challenges The Order Dated 29Th November 2013. Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("The Tribunal') The Impugned Order Is In Respect Of Assessment Year 2005-06

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 260A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITO 24(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Ashokkumar Murajmal Raimalani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3569/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3569/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2009-10) The Income Tax Officer -24(1)(2), Room No.605, Piramal Chambers, Jeejeebhoy Lane,Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai 400 012 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Ashokkumar Murajmal Raimalani, 2Nd Floor, 108, Zaveri Bazar, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 058. Pan: Aaapr-8617-A .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam –Cit Dr ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ketan Shah सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/03/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam –CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Shah
Section 148Section 292B

could be 10 served. Thus, Rule 127 was inserted in the Income Tax Rules, 1962 w.e.f. 02/12/2015 in line with the provisions of section 282(2) of the Act. No doubt the assessment year under appeal is assessment year 2009-10, however, reassessment proceedings in the case of assessee were ... section 282 by that time were amended to include service of notice through E-mail and the relevant Rules as referred to in section 282(2) were in place for service of notice. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant extract of Rule-127 for service of notice, summons

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Soverign Commercial P. Ltd

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

ITA - 164 / 2002HC Delhi22 Feb 2016
Section 260A

Rattan Gupta & Co. by refusal of registered posts “did not amount to service of notices on the company”. It was held that “under Section 282(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act notice is required to be served in the case of a company on its principal officer”. Since ... Delhi. This question also becomes relevant to the issue concerning service of notice on the Assessees in terms of Section 148 read with Section 282 (2) of the Act. Statement of Rattan Gupta 42. The Court has examined the statement recorded by the Department of Mr. Rattan Gupta

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Swastik Commercial P. Ltd

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

ITA - 165 / 2002HC Delhi22 Feb 2016
Section 260A

Rattan Gupta & Co. by refusal of registered posts “did not amount to service of notices on the company”. It was held that “under Section 282(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act notice is required to be served in the case of a company on its principal officer”. Since ... Delhi. This question also becomes relevant to the issue concerning service of notice on the Assessees in terms of Section 148 read with Section 282 (2) of the Act. Statement of Rattan Gupta 42. The Court has examined the statement recorded by the Department of Mr. Rattan Gupta

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Trishul Commercial P. Ltd

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

ITA - 167 / 2002HC Delhi22 Feb 2016
Section 260A

Rattan Gupta & Co. by refusal of registered posts “did not amount to service of notices on the company”. It was held that “under Section 282(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act notice is required to be served in the case of a company on its principal officer”. Since ... Delhi. This question also becomes relevant to the issue concerning service of notice on the Assessees in terms of Section 148 read with Section 282 (2) of the Act. Statement of Rattan Gupta 42. The Court has examined the statement recorded by the Department of Mr. Rattan Gupta

Commissioner of Income Tax- Delhi vs. M/S Pasupati Nath Commr. P. Ltd

The appeals are allowed with costs of Rs

ITA - 168 / 2002HC Delhi22 Feb 2016
Section 260A

Rattan Gupta & Co. by refusal of registered posts “did not amount to service of notices on the company”. It was held that “under Section 282(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act notice is required to be served in the case of a company on its principal officer”. Since ... Delhi. This question also becomes relevant to the issue concerning service of notice on the Assessees in terms of Section 148 read with Section 282 (2) of the Act. Statement of Rattan Gupta 42. The Court has examined the statement recorded by the Department of Mr. Rattan Gupta