Case LawHigh Court › M/S Gdm Rice And Pulse Private Limited v...

M/S Gdm Rice And Pulse Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Officer, Ward Circle

High Court 28 Jan 2022 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
M/S Gdm Rice And Pulse Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Officer, Ward Circle
Date of order
28 Jan 2022
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In M/S Gdm Rice And Pulse Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Officer, Ward Circle, the High Court (2022) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 939/2022 M/s GDM Rice And Pulse Private Limited, Through Its Director Mr.Brij Mohan Mittal S/o Late Gopal Das Mittal, Aged About 61 YearsHaving Office At Industrial Area, G-1 (19-20), Sarna Doongar,Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302013. ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Ward Circle 7,Jaipur Having Office At Sidhnath Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar Scheme,Lal Kothi Scheme, Behind New Vidhan Sabha, Janpath, Jaipur,Rajasthan - 302015. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Palash Shrivastav, Advocate through VC for Mr. Akarsh Mathur, AdvocateFor Respondent(s): Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Advocate throughVC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR Judgment / Order 28/01/2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counselfor the revenue at the outset would submit that the issue involvedin this petition is no longer res integra as it has been put to anend by Division Bench of this Court in the decision rendered on27.01.2022 in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) &Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions)where the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961 have been found to be invalid and impermissible in law andquashed. In view of the above statement made by learned counsel forboth the parties, the impugned notice issued in the present case,for the reasons stated in the order dated 27.01.2022 passed in theaforesaid cases, is also quashed and set aside and the petition isallowed. (BIRENDRA KUMAR),J(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J Mohita /21
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) notice → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan