147—ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das

66 ITR 586Supreme Court of India1967#9332 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 139 Section 147 Section 148 Section 148A Section 149 Section 151 Section 56

Judgments citing 147—ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das

ACIT-19(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RISHABH AVNISH MODY, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8101/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad (CIT DR)

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 56Section 68

…as regards the assessment of income of the separated members by the application of the principle of the judgments of this court in Income-tax Officer v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [1964] 52 ITR 335 and N. Kt. Sivalingam Chettiarv. Commissioner of Income-tax [1967] 66 ITR 586 . In our opinion, the orders passed by the income-tax authorities and confirmed by the Tribunal suffer from a fundamental defect. As we have already stated, Karuppan Chettiar submitted returns of his income in his individual capacity for the years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53 in response to the notice issued under section 22(2) of the Act. By his…

BHOLARAM MALVIYA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER W-16(1)|(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5965/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj ManglaFor Respondent: Smt. Vranda U. Matkari (sr. AR)

…y was received could not have been done by the Ld. CIT(A) and for that he relied on the following decisions as under:- (a) Mrs. R. H. Dave Vs. CIT [140 ITR 1035 (Cal)] (b) ITO Vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [52 ITR 335 (SC)] (c) N. Kt Sivalingam Chettiar Vs. CIT [66 ITR 586 (SC)] (d) Bakshish Singh Vs. ITO [93 ITR 178 (SC)] 22 A.Y. 2013-14 Bholaram Malviya (e) ITO Vs. Sri Biswajit Chatterjee in ITA. No.565/Kol/2013 dated 10.11.2017 (f) Shri Sanjay Thakur Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 3785/Del/2015 dated 12.07.2018. 18. Per contra, the Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and contended that Explanation to Se…

ESTATE OF LATE A.M. FATIMA BIWI,RAJAPALAYAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VIRUDHUNAGAR

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2889/CHNY/2019[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2023AY 1987-88

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Ms. N. V. Lakshmi (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) – Ld. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 149Section 150(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘बी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी वी. दुगा1 राव, "ाियक सद3 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ8वाल ,लेखा सद3 के सम:। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2888/Chny/2019 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 1987-88) Shri A.M. Abdul Basheer Rahman, ITO बनाम/ 200 Seethakathi Street, Ward-I(1), Vs. Rajapalayam – 626 117. Virudhunagar. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. AMKPA-0160-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2889/Chny/2019 (िनधा1रण वष1 / As…

SHRI A.M. ABDUL BASHEER RAHMANM,RAJAPALAYAM vs. ITO, WARD-1,, VIRUDHUNAGAR

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2888/CHNY/2019[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2023AY 1987-88

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Ms. N. V. Lakshmi (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) – Ld. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 149Section 150(1)

SRI A.M. ABDUL BASHEER RAHMAN,,RAJAPALAYAM vs. ITO, WARD-2, , VIRUDHUNAGAR

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 3008/CHNY/2019[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Nov 2022AY 1987-88

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji &For Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar, (JCIT)- Ld. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 149Section 150Section 150(1)Section 153(3)(ii)

…the authority or court. It is a provision which merely raises the bar of limitation for making an assessment order under section 143 or section 144 or section 147—ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC) and N. Kt. Sivalingam Chettiar v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 586 (SC). The question formulated by the Tribunal raised the point whether the AAC could convert the provisions of section 147(1) into those of section 153(3)(ii) of the Act. In view of section 153(3)(ii) dealing with limitation merely, it is not easy to appreciate the relevance or validity of the point. 12. In the present case, the AAC found that the…

M/S. SAHARA CITY HOMES,BAREILLY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), RANGE- 3, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 24/LKW/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Bareilly V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2472C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Amritsar V. Ito-3(4) 2, Sahara India Centre Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs4654E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Kanpur(I) V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2468Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Sahara City Homes – Guwahati V. Acit 2, Sahara India Centre Range 3 Kapoorthala Complex Lucknow Aliganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Abzfs2462E (Appellant) (Respondent)

…t reliance has been placed on the following case laws: a. Mrs. R. H. Dave v CIT [140 ITR 1035 (Cal)] (ABP 640- 645). b. ITO v Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [52 ITR 335 (SC)] (ABP 646-666). ITA No.24 to 39/LKW/2019 Page 40 of 46 c. N. Kt. Sivalingam Chettiar v CIT [66 ITR 586 (SC)] (ABP 667-671). d. Bakshish Singh v ITO [93 ITR 178 (Cal)] (ABP 721- 729). e. Order of the ITAT, Kolkata Bench, in the case of ITO v. Sri Biswajit Chatterjee in ITA no. 565/Kol/2013 dated 10.11.2017 (ABP 672-679). f. Order of the ITAT, Indore Bench, in the case of ACIT v. Shri Mukesh Sharma and others in ITA(SS) no, 88/Ind/2013 dated 04.06.20…

JANARDAN MISHRA,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GUWAHATI

ITA 261/GTY/2018[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Dec 2019AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 153(3)(ii)Section 254

…e authority or Court. It is a provision which merely raises the bar of limitation for making an assessment order under s. 143 or s. 144 or s. 147: ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das (1964) 52 ITR 335 (SC); TC 41 R.2168 and N.K.T. Sivalingam Chettiar vs. CIT (1967) 66 ITR 586 (SC); TC 51R.2042. The question formulated by the Tribunal raises the point whether the AAC could convert the provisions of s. 147(1) into those of s. 153(3))(ii) of the Act. In view of s. 153(3)(ii) dealing with limitation merely, it is not easy to appreciate the relevance or validity of the point.” (Emphasis ours) 4. That in view of the above, i…

JANARDAN MISRA,GUWAHATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), GUWAHATI

ITA 260/GTY/2018[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Dec 2019AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 153(3)(ii)Section 254

DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

WP/11618/2016HC Karnataka27 Sept 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.B. Bajanthri Writ Petition No.11618 Of 2016 (T-It) Between:

Section 142(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 263Section 92C

…which merely raises the bar of limitation for making an assessment order under Section 143 or Section 144 or Section 34 147. (ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [AIR 1965 SC 342 : (1964) 52 ITR 335] and N. Kt. Sivalingam Chettiar v.CIT [(1967) 66 ITR 586 (SC)] ) The question formulated by the Tribunal raises the point whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could convert the provisions of Section 147(1) into those of Section 153(3)(ii) of the Act. In view of Section 153(3)(ii) dealing with limitation merely, it is not easy to appreciate the relevance or validity of the point.” I…

PURANMAL DELHIWALA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 14(3)(3), MUMBAI

Appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 4541/MUM/2014[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2017AY 1993-94

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4541/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1993-1994) Puranmal Delhiwala Income Tax Officer 14(3)(3) C/O M/S. Kabra Associates, Cas Earnest House बनाम/ 204, Niranjan Nariman Point Vs. 99, Marine Drive, Mumbai – 400 021. Mumbai – 400 002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaffp-5709-C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Nitesh Joshi, Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : B.S.Bist, Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / : 12/05/2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17 /05/2017 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Nitesh Joshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: B.S.Bist, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(3)(ii)Section 254

…jurisdiction of the authority or court. It is a provision which merely raises the bar of limitation for making an assessment order under S. 143 or S. 144 or S. 147: ITO V Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC) and N.K.T. Sivalingam Chettiar v. CIT[1967]66 ITR 586(SC). The question formulated by the Tribunal raises the point whether the AAC could convert the provisions of S. 147(1) into those of s. 153(3)(ii) of the Act. In view of S. 153(3)(ii) dealing with limitation merely, it is not easy to appreciate the relevance or validity of the point. 9. Therefore after appreciating the factual matrix vis-à-vis s…

SHREE SHANKAR PLASTIC LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3252/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta-ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Nayak-DR

Section 133Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254(1)

…lowing judgments: - (a)CIT vs C.M. Rajgarhia 121 ITR 778 (Pat.), 785. (b)C.M. Rajgarhia 121 ITR 778 (Pat.). (c) Pt. Hazari Lal 39 ITR 265 (All.) (d)Laxmi Narain Agarwal 47 ITR 456 (All.) (e) Mathuradas B. Mohta 56 ITR 269 (Bom.) (f) N. Kt. Sivalingam Chettiar 66 ITR 586 (SC) (g)Durga Prasad 57 ITR 583 (All.) (h)Nathalal Dhanjibhai 59 ITR 615 (Guj.) (i) Dave (Mrs. RH) 140 ITR 1035 (Cal.) (j) ITO vs Murlidhar Bhagwan Das 52 ITR 335 (SC) (k)Onkar Nath 64 ITR 347 (All.) (l) CIT vs Hirdey Narain Yogendra Prakash, 82 ITR 136 (All.). (m) CIT vs Rajgarhia (C.M.) 121 ITR 778 (Pat.) (n) Shri Ram Nutrient 14 ITJ 219 (ITAT I…

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SIMLA vs. M/S GREEN WORLD CORPORATION

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

C.A. No.-003312-003312 - 2009Supreme Court06 May 2009

Section 133Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 80I

…and for ascertaining it, it is legitimate to look also at that part of the enactment which has been held to be invalid.” To the similar effect are the decisions of this Court in N. KT. Sivalingam Chettiar vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras [66 ITR 586 (SC)] and Rajinder Nath vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi [120 ITR 14 (SC)]. In N.KT. Sivalingam Chettiar (supra), this Court held: 40 “Counsel for the commissioner contends that the principle of Murlidhar Bhagwan Das's case does not govern the present case, because in that case proceedings for assessment were commenced in consequence…