“Section 63(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 63Section 63(1)3 judgments

GAJENDER SINGH JADON,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-57(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6539/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)

Appellate Bench of the High Court. Bearing these facts in mind, let us now proceed to consider the relevant provisions of law. Section 63(1) of the Act reads: “A notice or requisition under this Act may be served on the person therein named either by post

M/S. STEECON INFRASTRUCTURE ,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 61/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Steecon Infrastructure Income Tax Officer 1(4) 85, Subhash Nagar, Pal Road, Paota Jodhpur- 242008 Vs. Jodhpur- 342008 Pan No. Acdfs3423Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Piyush Chajed and Mr SumitFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, AR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Officer without a notice or in pursuance of an invalid notice would be invalid and void. Mr. Kolah's argument is that section 63(1) requires that service of a notice has to be effected in the same manner as if it were a summons issued by the court under ... certain additional reliefs apart from a decree against the firm and is not a part of the service of summons on the firm Section 63(1) merely prescribes the mode of service of the notice to be the same as if it were summons issued by the court under

SEEMA PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS PVT LTD.,RAIGAD vs. DY CIT PANVEL CIRCLE, PANVEL

ITA 7073/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalseema Promoters & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Shop No.8, Nirman Plaza Society, Station Road, Narman Nagari, Neral, Raigad, Maharashtra-410101. Pan: Aamcs7221A ...... Appellant Vs. Dy.Cit, Panvel Circle 3Rd Floor, Trifed Tower, Opp. Khanda Colony, New Panvel-410206. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Vasudev Ginde & Kumar Kale, Respondent By : Sh. Manoj Sinha Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 30.09.2019Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Vasudev Ginde & Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 250Section 43CSection 63(1)Section 6h

provisions of Section 6h) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 read with Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Section 63(1) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Your appellant, therefore, prays that the addition of Rs.4,52,40,600/- be deleted.” 2. Brief ... appellant's case, and consequently, provisions of section 43CA of the Act do not apply. 6.3 Likewise after quoting relevant provisions of Section 63(1) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, stated that the aforesaid provision prohibits any sale, gift, exchange or lease of any agricultural land