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.

Decision: In view of the above statement made by learned counselfor both the parties, the impugned notice issued in the presentcase, for the reasons stated in the order dated 27.01.2022passed in the aforesaid cases, is also quashed and set aside andthe petition is allowed.

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. 938/2022 M/s GDM Rice And Pulse Private Limited, Through Its DirectorMr. Brij Mohan Mittal S/o Late Gopal Das Mittal, Aged About 61Years Having Office At Industrial Area, G-1 (19-20), SarnaDoongar, 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 through VC 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 learnedcounsel for the revenue at the outset would submit that theissue involved in this petition is no longer res integra as it hasbeen put to an end by Division Bench of this Court in thedecision rendered on 27.01.2022 in Sudesh Taneja Vs. IncomeTax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.969/2022 and batch of petitions) where the notices issuedunder Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been foundto be invalid and impermissible in law and quashed. In view of the above statement made by learned counselfor both the parties, the impugned notice issued in the presentcase, for the reasons stated in the order dated 27.01.2022passed in the aforesaid cases, is also quashed and set aside andthe petition is allowed. (BIRENDRA KUMAR),J(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J Mohita /2
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