2021-2022. In CIT v. Onkarmal Meghraj (H.U.F.)

93 ITR 233Supreme Court of India1974#8199 most cited
14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 149Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 132Section 143(1)Section 148A

Issues it is cited on

section 2(40)section 149(1)(a)beyond four yearsextension of limitationsection 149(1)(b)bogus long term capital gainsection 148 noticeretracted statementsection 149(1)section 148a(b)section 149section 148a

Judgments citing 2021-2022. In CIT v. Onkarmal Meghraj (H.U.F.)

NITU KHADARIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), NCRB BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1360/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 69A

…, for Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 proviso to Section 149 of the Act was not required. Hence, to give meaning to the proviso it has to be interpreted to be applicable for' Assessment Years upto 2021-2022. In CIT v. Onkarmal Meghraj (H.U.F.) [1974] 93 ITR 233 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with the question whether a proviso could be applied without reference to any period of limitation. It held that "it is a well-settled principle that no action can be commenced where the period within which it can be commenced has expired. It is unnecessary to cite authorities in support of this position. D…

COMFORT INTECH LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(1)(1) MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAWAN MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2926/MUM/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal&For Respondent: Shri Yogendra T. Wakare, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent Comfort Intech Assistant Limited, 2573/Mum/24 2011-12 Commissioner of A-301, Hetal Arch, Income Tax-4(1)(1), Opp: Natraj Market, 6th Floor, S.V.Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Malad West M.K. Road, 2926/Mum/24 2012-13 Mumbai Mumbai PAN: AAACC5567H 2218/Mum/24 2011-12 Comfort Intech Assistant Limited, Commissioner of A-301, Hetal Arch, Income Tax-4(1)(1), Opp: Natraj Market, 2216/Mum/24 2012-13 6th Floor, S.V.Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Malad Wes…

COMFORT INTECH LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(1)(1) MUMBAI, AAYKAR BHAWAN MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2573/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal&For Respondent: Shri Yogendra T. Wakare, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent Comfort Intech Assistant Limited, 2573/Mum/24 2011-12 Commissioner of A-301, Hetal Arch, Income Tax-4(1)(1), Opp: Natraj Market, 6th Floor, S.V.Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Malad West M.K. Road, 2926/Mum/24 2012-13 Mumbai Mumbai PAN: AAACC5567H 2218/Mum/24 2011-12 Comfort Intech Assistant Limited, Commissioner of A-301, Hetal Arch, Income Tax-4(1)(1), Opp: Natraj Market, 2216/Mum/24 2012-13 6th Floor, S.V.Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Malad Wes…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. COMFORT INTECH LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2218/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal&For Respondent: Shri Yogendra T. Wakare, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent Comfort Intech Assistant Limited, 2573/Mum/24 2011-12 Commissioner of A-301, Hetal Arch, Income Tax-4(1)(1), Opp: Natraj Market, 6th Floor, S.V.Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Malad West M.K. Road, 2926/Mum/24 2012-13 Mumbai Mumbai PAN: AAACC5567H 2218/Mum/24 2011-12 Comfort Intech Assistant Limited, Commissioner of A-301, Hetal Arch, Income Tax-4(1)(1), Opp: Natraj Market, 2216/Mum/24 2012-13 6th Floor, S.V.Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Malad Wes…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. COMFORT INTECH LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2216/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal&For Respondent: Shri Yogendra T. Wakare, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent Comfort Intech Assistant Limited, 2573/Mum/24 2011-12 Commissioner of A-301, Hetal Arch, Income Tax-4(1)(1), Opp: Natraj Market, 6th Floor, S.V.Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Malad West M.K. Road, 2926/Mum/24 2012-13 Mumbai Mumbai PAN: AAACC5567H 2218/Mum/24 2011-12 Comfort Intech Assistant Limited, Commissioner of A-301, Hetal Arch, Income Tax-4(1)(1), Opp: Natraj Market, 2216/Mum/24 2012-13 6th Floor, S.V.Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Malad Wes…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. COMFORT INTECH LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2212/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal&For Respondent: Shri Yogendra T. Wakare, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “C” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent Comfort Intech Assistant Limited, 2573/Mum/24 2011-12 Commissioner of A-301, Hetal Arch, Income Tax-4(1)(1), Opp: Natraj Market, 6th Floor, S.V.Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Malad West M.K. Road, 2926/Mum/24 2012-13 Mumbai Mumbai PAN: AAACC5567H 2218/Mum/24 2011-12 Comfort Intech Assistant Limited, Commissioner of A-301, Hetal Arch, Income Tax-4(1)(1), Opp: Natraj Market, 2216/Mum/24 2012-13 6th Floor, S.V.Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Malad Wes…

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(INTERNATIONAL TAX) 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2751/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 2751/Mum/2024

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker & Shri Nishit Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal, Sr. D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 234ASection 5(2)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(v)

…e, for Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 proviso to Section 149 of the Act was not required. Hence, to give meaning to the proviso it has to be interpreted to be applicable for Assessment Years upto 2021-2022. In CIT v. Onkarmal Meghraj (H.U.F.) [1974] 93 ITR 233 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with the question whether a proviso could be applied without reference to any period of limitation. It held that…

NISHA THOMAS,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-DRP-2 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2764/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

…e, for Assessment Years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 proviso to Section 149 of the Act was not required. Hence, to give meaning to the proviso it has to be interpreted to be applicable for Assessment Years upto 2021-2022. In CIT v. Onkarmal Meghraj (H.U.F.) [1974] 93 ITR 233 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with the question whether a proviso could be applied without reference to any period of limitation. It held that "it is a well-settled principle that no action can be commenced where the period within which it can be commenced has expired. It is unnecessary to cite authorities in support of this position. D…

KRISHNAMOORTHY HARIOBHASKAR,TIRUPPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), TIRUPPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1506/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1506/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. Shri Krishnamoorthy Haribhaskar, The Income Tax Officer, 35/11, Poochakkadu, 2Nd Street, Ward-2(1), Mangalam Road, Tirupur-641 604. Tirupur. [Pan: Abkph 9735 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.S.LakshmiFor Respondent: Shri Praveen, JCIT
Section 139Section 148Section 148ASection 149

…nt in a case, where the right to re-open the assessment was barred under the erstwhile Act, on the date when the amended Act came into force i.e. 01.04.2021 [refer ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Onkarmal Meghraj, HUF reported in [1974] 93 ITR 233 (SC) and ITO vs. Induprasad Devshanker Bhatt. reported in [1969] 72 ITR 595 (SC)]. In the present case, it is noted that for AY 2013-14, assessee had a vested right as on 31.03.2020 not to be disturbed by AO by issuance of notice u/s.148 of erstwhile Act and that right of assessee cannot be taken away. Thus, based on the well settled position of…

JESUDASON BIJI ,CHENNAI vs. OFFICE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER INT. TAXN WARD1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 567/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Swaroop, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 119(2)(b)Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 54ESection 54F

…nt in a case, where the right to re-open the assessment was barred under the erstwhile Act, on the date when the amended Act came into force i.e. 01.04.2021 [refer ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Onkarmal Meghraj, HUF reported in [1974] 93 ITR 233 (SC) and ITO vs. Induprasad Devshanker Bhatt. reported in [1969] 72 ITR 595 (SC)]. In the present case, it is noted that for AY 2014-15, assessee had a vested right as on 31.03.2021 not to be disturbed by AO by issuance of notice u/s.148 of erstwhile Act and that right of assessee cannot be taken away, thus, based on the well settled position of…

SRI.PARAYARUKANDY VETTATH GANGADHARAN,CALICUT vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-1(1), CALICUT

In the result, the instant appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 157/COCH/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasparayarukandy Vettath Gangadharan Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) Kerala Transport Company (Decd., Calicut Vs. Represented By Lrs.) K.T.C. Building, Ymca Calicut 673001 [Pan: Adhpg8318B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar C., CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 150(1)Section 153Section 2(22)(e)Section 268A

…numerous decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, including the jurisdictional High Court, as indeed the Supreme Court itself, as in CIT vs. Ambala Flour Mills [1970] 78 ITR 256 (SC); CIT v. Vadde Pullaiah & Co. [1973] 89 ITR 240 (SC); CIT v. Onkarmal Meghraj [1974] 93 ITR 233 (SC); Bhagwan Das Sita Ram (HUF) v. CIT [1984] 146 ITR 563 (SC); Lucy Kochuvareed v. CIT [1971] 82 ITR 845 (Ker- FB). The decisions include cases of a firm and partner/s; bigger and smaller HUF; a person as individual or karta of his family, etc. In each case the person concerned being intimately connected, assessment thereon, it was held, could b…

STATE BANK OF INDIA - CORPORATE CENTRE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS)-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals are allowed as indicated above

ITA 1526/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 State Bank Of India Deputy Commissioner Of Corporate Centre, Income Tax (Tds)-2(2), 2Nd Floor, Office Administration K.G. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Department, State Bank Bhawan, Vs. Bldg, Charni Road (W), Madam Cama Road, Mumbai - 400002 Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacs8577K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi (Ar) Revenue By : Shri T.S. Khalsa (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12/10/2021

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa (DR)
Section 10(5)Section 200(3)Section 201(1)Section 201(3)

…orders of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in assessment years 2008-09 and 2012-13. In this regard, he drew our attention to the relevant observations of the Tribunal. Further, he relied upon the following decision: 1. “CIT v. Onkarmal Meghraj (HUF) (1974) 93 ITR 233 (Supreme Court) 2. Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (2016) 72 taxmann.com 138 (Supreme Court) 3. Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT(2015) 376 ITR 411 (Delhi High Court) 4. Oracle India Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT (Writ Petition (C) No. 2061 of 2014) (Delhi High Court. 5. Tata Teleservices v. Union of India (2016) 385 ITR 497 (Gujarat High Court). 6. Noida Power C…

M/S. STATE BANK OF MAURITIUS LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DY DIT (INT TAX) 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3138/MUM/2008[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 1996-1997
For Appellant: Shri P.J.PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek A. Perumpurna
Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…brought in Section 148 by Finance Act, 2006, even if notice u/s.143(2) is served before completion of assessment, the same is deemed to be proper service. 7. Ld. AR placed on record the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Onkarmal Meghraj (HUF), 93 ITR 233, wherein it was held that any amendment brought in with retrospective effect if after completion of the limitation period, will only apply prospectively. As per ld. AR, in this case, notice u/s.143(2) was to be issued uptil 30-11-1999, however, it was issued only on 30-5-2001, and assessment u/s.143(3) was completed on 19-3-2002. As per ld. AR the…

M/S. STATE BANK OF MAURITIUS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DDIT (I.T) RG. 0 2(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5459/MUM/2005[1996-1997]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 1996-1997
For Appellant: Shri P.J.PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek A. Perumpurna
Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…brought in Section 148 by Finance Act, 2006, even if notice u/s.143(2) is served before completion of assessment, the same is deemed to be proper service. 7. Ld. AR placed on record the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Onkarmal Meghraj (HUF), 93 ITR 233, wherein it was held that any amendment brought in with retrospective effect if after completion of the limitation period, will only apply prospectively. As per ld. AR, in this case, notice u/s.143(2) was to be issued uptil 30-11-1999, however, it was issued only on 30-5-2001, and assessment u/s.143(3) was completed on 19-3-2002. As per ld. AR the…