Which cases are most cited on Section 282?

Pr. CIT v. Silver Line (383 ITR 455) — 201 citing judgments; CIT v. Chetan Gupta (382 ITR 613) — 57 citing judgments; CIT v. Ramendra Nath Ghosh (82 ITR 888) — 42 citing judgments; B.K Gooyee v. CIT (62 ITR 109) — 26 citing judgments; CIT v. Naveen Chander (323 ITR 49) — 21 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 282?

BharatTax indexes 613 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 282 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 282 of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 282 of the Income Tax Act?

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

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.501

Section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 501 (Service of notice, generally) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 501 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 282 is Pr. CIT v. Silver Line (383 ITR 455), cited in 201 of the 613 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 282

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

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. Ramendra Nath Ghosh

82 ITR 888 · 1971 · Supreme Court

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.

B.K Gooyee v. CIT

62 ITR 109 · 1966 · High Court

citing judgments

A notice issued under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, that is not signed by the Income Tax Officer is invalid and considered no notice at all, as the signature is an essential and integral part of the notice.

CIT v. Naveen Chander

323 ITR 49 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

Service of notice by affixture is invalid if it is not done in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, specifically requiring the association of an independent local person.

B. Johar Forest Works v. CIT

107 ITR 409 · 1977 · Reported

citing judgments

For an assessee to be considered in default, a notice must be served in one of the modes provided by the Income Tax Act. Acquiring knowledge of a notice's issuance is not a substitute for proper service.

PCIT v. Broadway Shoe Co.

99 Taxmann.com 83 · 2018 · Reported

citing judgments

When no return is filed in response to a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, a separate notice under section 143(2) is not required to make the assessment.

Ashish Plastic Industries v. ACIT

373 ITR 451 · Reported

citing judgments

An assessee must be allowed credit for income surrendered and disclosed in another year or by another group assessee to avoid impermissible double taxation.

Dy. CIT v. Oman International Bank SAOG

100 ITD 2185 · 2006 · ITAT

citing judgments

APJ Abdul Kalam Education and Welfare Trust v. CIT (Exemption)

171 Taxmann.com 569 · 2025 · Reported

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 282

Ved Prakash Jallan Rakesh Jallan, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-1, Madurai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only in above terms

ITA 3582/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Nimashri KAFor Respondent: Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl. CIT

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 282Section 69A

V. Chandrasekar, Arni vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruvannamalai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only in above terms

ITA 720/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Honourable Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 720/Chny/2026 यनिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anshu Sharawat, Addl. CIT

Section 148Section 151ASection 44ASection 68Section 69A

Ashok Bhaurao Dumbre, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Thane

ITA 1730/MUM/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: AATPD2983J

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 282Section 69

Selvam Educational and Charitable Trust, Vadakankulam vs. ACIT Exemptions, Coimbatore

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

ITA 3282/CHNY/2026[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2026AY 2025-26

For Appellant: Mr. Pon Shivaram NL, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. K. Jayaganesh, CIT

Section 12ASection 282

Kuppusamy Rajkumar, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-6(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only in the light of directions and observations (supra)

ITA 3244/CHNY/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Honourable Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3244/Chny/2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Kuppusamy Rajkumar, V. Income Tax Officer, No.96/106, Sivan Nagar, 4Th Street, Non-Corp Ward-6(1), New Washermanpet, Chennai-600 081. Chennai. [Pan: Bzupr0257G] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A., Ld. Ar, प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) / Nfac, (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Delhi, Dated 05.03.2026, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2019-20. Grouds Of Appeal

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69C

Venkatachalam Elangovan, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only with above observations and directions

ITA 3220/CHNY/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Honourable Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3220 & 3121/Chny /2026 ननिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2022-23 Venkatachalam Elangovan, V. Income Tax Officer, No.293, Thandavan Nagar, Ward-1(1), Puthumariamman Kovil Street, Salem. Salem, Tamil Nadu-636 003. [Pan: Aagpe9702P] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. Hitesh, Advocate, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) / Nfac, (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Delhi Dated 18.03.2026, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2022-23. Grouds Of Appeal 1. The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Is Wrong, Illegal & Opposed To Facts Of The Instant Case. 2. The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Is Erroneous In Law, Contrary To Facts On Record, Vitiated By Non-Application Of Mind & Liable To Be Set Aside. 3. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Disposing The Appeal Without Providing Adequate Opportunity To The Appellant. The Said Order Is Opposed To The Provision Of Law & Principles Of Natural Justice.

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh, Advocate, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT

Section 10(1)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

Venkatachalam Elangovan, Salem, Tamilnadu vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Salem

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only with above observations and directions

ITA 3121/CHNY/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Aug 2026AY 2022-23

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh, Advocate, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT

Section 10(1)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

Wali Baba Mohammed, Warangal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Waragal

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

ITA 1277/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Aug 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Laxmi Kanth, Sr.AR

Section 282

Munusamy Muthu, Pillappakkam vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Kancheepuram

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

ITA 3283/CHNY/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Aug 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Honourable Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3283/Chny/2026 यनिाारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2016-17 Munusamy Muthu, V. Income Tax Officer , No.1, Perumal Koil Street, Kanchipuram. Kolathur, Pillapakkam, Sriperumbodur, Tamil Nadu-602 105. [Pan: Bekpm6633Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. K. Vishva Padmanabhan, C.A, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) / Nfac, (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’) Dated 11.03.2026, For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2016-17. Grouds Of Appeal

For Appellant: Mr. K. Vishva PadmanabhanFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT

Section 56(2)(vii)

Chokkadevar Asaithambi, Chennai vs. Non Corporate Ward 10(1) Chennai, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with above directions to both the sides

ITA 3207/CHNY/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Aug 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Honourable Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Manu Kumar Giri

For Appellant: Mr. T.V. Muthu AbiramiFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Raj Kumar Parwani, Agra vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(2), Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 445/AGR/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Aug 2026AY 2020-21

Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 282

Ferozpuria Humanity Club, New Kapoor Nagar, Sultanwind Road, Sultan Wind Gate vs. Ward 1(1), Amritsar, New C.R.Building

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

ITA 742/ASR/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Jul 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: The Tribunal. Considering The Reasons Adduced In The Condonation Petition & Keeping In View The Settled Proposition That Substantial Justice Should Prevail Over Technical Considerations, We Are Satisfied That The 2 742/Asr/2025 Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Period. Accordingly, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication 3. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Learned Cit(Exemptions) [ In Short Ld. ‘Cit(E)’] Was Justified In Rejecting The Application Filed In Form 10Ab Under Section 12A(1)(Ac)(Iii) Of The Act Seeking Registration Of The Society , In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

For Appellant: S/Sh. Rohit Kapoor, and Sh V.S. Aggrwal ITPFor Respondent: Smt. Kulwinder Kaur, Sr.DR

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 282