Which cases are most cited on Section 282(1)?

Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT (Exemptions) (463 ITR 560) — 75 citing judgments; 165 Taxman 95 (Del); (ii) CIT v. Atedhsy Films P. Ltd. (306 ITR 309) — 35 citing judgments; CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma (311 ITR 235) — 21 citing judgments; Fatechand Agarwal v. CWT (97 ITR 701) — 21 citing judgments; C.N. Nataraj and Others v. Vth Income Tax Officer, Bangalore (56 ITR 250) — 9 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 282(1)?

BharatTax indexes 46 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 282(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 282(1) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 282(1) is Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT (Exemptions) (463 ITR 560), cited in 75 of the 46 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 282(1)

Munjal BCU Centre of Innovation and Entrepreneurship v. CIT (Exemptions)

463 ITR 560 · 2024 · High Court

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.

165 Taxman 95 (Del); (ii) CIT v. Atedhsy Films P. Ltd.

306 ITR 309 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

If a second notice for reassessment is issued and the assessee appears without objecting to the service of the first notice for 30 days, it is a valid presumption that the first notice was duly served. Repeated appearances of an authorized representative further corroborate valid service.

CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma

311 ITR 235 · 2009 · High Court

citing judgments

Fatechand Agarwal v. CWT

97 ITR 701 · 1974 · High Court

citing judgments

C.N. Nataraj and Others v. Vth Income Tax Officer, Bangalore

56 ITR 250 · 1965 · Reported

citing judgments

Jayanthi Talkies Distributors v. Commissioner of Income-tax

120 ITR 576 · 1979 · High Court

citing judgments

CIT v. Ramsukh Motilal

30 ITR 439 · 1956 · High Court

citing judgments

Dina Nath v. CIT

204 ITR 667 · 1993 · Reported

citing judgments

30. In Dina Nath v. Commissioner of Income-tax

72 Taxmann 174 · 1994 · Reported

citing judgments

Laxmi Narain Anand Prakash v. CST

46 STC 71 · 1980 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 282(1)

VIMALA,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, WARD 5, PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3986/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3985 & 3986/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Vimala, Vs Income Tax Officer, No.16, 2Nd Cross Perumal Raja Ward-5, Garden, Reddiarpalayam, Puducherry. Pondicherry – 605010. Pan: Acppv7834C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr. N. Arjun Raj – Advocate Revenue By Ms. R Anitha – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 18/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Dated 18.03.2025 & 19.02.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively.

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

VIMALA,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, WARD 5, PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3985/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

VIMALA,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, WARD 5, PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3986/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

VIMALA,PONDICHERRY vs. ITO, WARD 5, PUDUCHERRY, PUDUCHERRY

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3985/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

ARCH TECH BUILDING MATERIALS PRIVATE LIMITED,CUDDALORE vs. ITO, WARD 1, CUDDALORE, 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)

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

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

MAHRATTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INDUSTRIES AND AGRICULTURE,PUNE vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 347/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 11Section 12Section 143(2)Section 144Section 25Section 270A

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)

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, 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)

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, 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)

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, 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)

MUDIYILATHU RADHAKRISHNAKURUP RESMIKALA,CHENGANNOOR vs. ITO, WARD-2, THIRUVALLA, 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)

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)

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, 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

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 771/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

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

PAVANA MANUEL XAVIER,ERNAKULAM vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 2(3), KOCHI

ITA 572/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Padmanathan K.V., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 282(1)

ANIL KUMAR MITTAL H.NO. 143, DLF VALLEY PANCHKULA,PANCHKULA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, PUNJAB

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1135/CHANDI/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who has since confirmed the order of the Ld. AO. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.3. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the notice under Section 148 dated 30/03/2019 has not been served on the assessee on his address and some other address has been mentioned in the notice which doesn't belong to the assessee. It was submitted that on inspection of the assessment records, it has been noted that the notice has been re

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 282Section 69A

PARAKKADATH SIMON VARGHESE,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , KOCHI CIRCLE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the stay application stands dismissed

ITA 533/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm & Sa No. 72/Coch/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Parakkadath Simon Varghese .......... Appellant Parakkadath House, Koratty South, Thrissur [Pan: Afgpv9060G] Vs. Dcit (International Taxation), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Gibi C. George, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Gibi C. George, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. DR

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)Section 282(1)

ABBOBACKER SIDDIEQUE,MALAPPURAM vs. ITO, WARD 1& TPS, TIRUR

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

ITA 537/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aboobacker Siddieque .......... Appellant Kundupuzhakkal House, Cherur Post Malappuram 676304 [Pan: Dzaps6853P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tps, Tirur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Shaji Paulose, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neethu, S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Paulose, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu, S., Sr. DR

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 282(1)Section 69C

Showing 1–20 of 46 · Page 1 of 3