Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 383 (1.65 seconds)
Documents citing S N Enterprises vs Income Tax Officer & Ors. on 27 September, 2022

Sandhya Singh ,Bhopal vs Ito (2)(3), Bhopal on 17 April, 2026

10. On perusal of above, we find that after analysing the entire law relating to issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act, and relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Suman Jeet Agarwal v. ITO (449 ITR 517), the Hon'ble Telangana High Court has held that the date and time mentioned in the email by which the notice is communicated to the assessee shall be treated as the date of issuance of the notice for the purposes of section 148 of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court has further held that mere uploading or generation of the notice on the Income-tax portal does not amount to "issuance" unless the same is actually communicated to the assessee, and that the electronic evidence reflecting the date and time of email communication is determinative for this purpose. Respectfully following the said binding precedent, we hold that notwithstanding the Revenue's contention that the notice may have been generated or dispatched on the portal on 31.03.2021, the notice under section 148, for the purposes of the Act, must be treated as having been issued on 01.04.2021, being the date and time reflected in the email communication sent to the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajesh Chopra vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 62(1) Delhi on 28 May, 2025

20. It is material to note that a notice under Section 148 of the Act is a jurisdictional notice and issuance of such notice is necessary for the AO to assume jurisdiction to assess/re-assess the income under Section 147 of the Act. If the notice under Section 148 is found to be invalid, it would vitiate the proceedings commenced pursuant thereto. Thus, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA W.P,(C) 12561/2022 Page 15 of 16 Signing Date:29.05.2025 15:43:13 merely because the parties had laboured under a misconception at the initial stage that the initial notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was valid, would not invalidate the subsequent steps taken by the Revenue in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal (supra) as well as the decision of this Court in Suman Jeet Agarwal v. Income Tax Officer and Ors. (supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Aseem Sehgal,Delhi vs Ito,Ward-60(1), Delhi on 30 July, 2025

20. It is material to note that a notice under Section 148 of the Act is a jurisdictional notice and issuance of such notice is necessary for the AO to assume jurisdiction to assess/re-assess the income under Section 147 of the Act. If the notice under Section 148 is found to be invalid, it would vitiate the proceedings commenced pursuant thereto. Thus, merely because the parties had laboured under a misconception at the initial stage that the initial notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was valid, would not invalidate the subsequent steps taken by the Revenue in conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal (supra) as well as the decision of this Court in Suman Jeet Agarwal v. Income Tax Officer and Ors. (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pashupati Castings Limited,Aligarh, ... vs Ward 4(1)(3), Aligarh, Aligarh, Uttar ... on 24 March, 2026

In terms of the decision of this Court in Suman Jeet Agarwal v. Income Tax Officer and Ors. (supra), as noted above, where the notice is sent electronically, the date of dispatch of the e-mail is to be considered as the date of issue of the notice. Thus, in this case the date of issue of notice would have to be taken as 01.04.2021.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mercer Consulting (India) Private ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax & ... on 26 September, 2024

 Notice u/s 148 (old regime) issued in the name of non-existent amalgamating entity on 26.03.2021 despite intimation of amalgamation/surrender of old PAN/request for transfer of TDS/advance tax credit by the Petitioner (amalgamated entity).  The present case admittedly falls under Category I as notice has been issued in the name of the amalgamating entity alone (Pg. 133 of the writ petition-Annexure P-8).
Delhi High Court Cites 91 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Qualcomm India Pvt. Ltd. After Merger Of ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 26 September, 2024

 Notice u/s 148 (old regime) issued in the name of non-existent amalgamating entity on 26.03.2021 despite intimation of amalgamation/surrender of old PAN/request for transfer of TDS/advance tax credit by the Petitioner (amalgamated entity).  The present case admittedly falls under Category I as notice has been issued in the name of the amalgamating entity alone (Pg. 133 of the writ petition-Annexure P-8).
Delhi High Court Cites 91 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Rangoli Resorts Pvt Ltd (As Successor In ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & ... on 26 September, 2024

 Notice u/s 148 (old regime) issued in the name of non-existent amalgamating entity on 26.03.2021 despite intimation of amalgamation/surrender of old PAN/request for transfer of TDS/advance tax credit by the Petitioner (amalgamated entity).  The present case admittedly falls under Category I as notice has been issued in the name of the amalgamating entity alone (Pg. 133 of the writ petition-Annexure P-8).
Delhi High Court Cites 91 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next