What is 46 Taxmann.com 169 (Delhi); Kanji Mai & Sons. v. CIT authority for?

Income-tax authorities are of co-ordinate jurisdiction, and the Act does not prescribe their respective jurisdictions or functions, leaving it to be decided by the Board or Commissioner. Allocation of jurisdiction is for administrative convenience and does not invalidate actions due to defects in its exercise.

How many judgments cite 46 Taxmann.com 169 (Delhi); Kanji Mai & Sons. v. CIT?

25 judgments on BharatTax cite 46 Taxmann.com 169 (Delhi); Kanji Mai & Sons. v. CIT (189 ITR 326), spanning 2014 to 2024.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 46 Taxmann.com 169 (Delhi); Kanji Mai & Sons. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 127, Section 143(3), Section 10(38), Section 115WD, Section 115WE, Section 120.

46 Taxmann.com 169 (Delhi); Kanji Mai & Sons. v. CIT (189 ITR 326)

MAHAVIR SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-8(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 8602/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Singhla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anshul, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…tage irregularity had occurred. It was observed that the tribunal was not right in annulling the assessment. It would be also appropriate here to refer to the decision in Hindustan Transport Co. vs. Inspecting Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. (1991) 189 ITR 326 of the Allahabad High Court-Lucknow Bench, wherein it has been observed as under:- "A survey of the above provisions of the Act highlights the following situations. After creating the various Income Tax authorities, the Act does not prescribe their respective jurisdiction or functions. Any case can be dealt with by any Income Tax authority with t…

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

…in terms of Section 124(3)(b). Thus, the ITAT cannot entertain this ground of appeal on jurisdiction and it is a matter which can only be decided u/s 124(3)(b). 8.4 Further, while quoting the decision of Hindustan Transport Co. v. Inspecting Asstt. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 326/[1992] 63 Taxman 246 of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court-Lucknow Bench, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in S.S.Ahuluwalia (2014) 47 taxman.com 169 (Del) has observed as under:- "A survey of the above provisions of the Act highlights the following situations. After creating the various Income Tax authorities, the Act does Page No. 15 ITA NO.6832 & 6772…

M/S. G.P. INFRAVENTURES ,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(4), RAIPUR

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

ITA 94/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 68

…ctuous and liable to be dismissed. 14 ITA 76 & 94/RPR/2020 G.P. Infraventures 9. The issue of jurisdiction was also considered by the various appellate courts in various cases which are discussed as under: - 9.1 In the case of Hindustan Transport Co vs IAC, 189 ITR 326 (Allahabad), the Hon'ble HC dealt extensively with the various provisions of the Act and held that the allocation of jurisdiction is a measure of administrative convenience. In such a situation, the concept of jurisdiction cannot be imported and, certainly, not in the sense of invalidating the resultant action on account of the defect in the exer…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), RAIPUR vs. MESERS G P INFRAVENTURES, RAIPUR

The appeal of the department stands disposed off

ITA 76/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.76/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), V M/S G.P. Infraventures, 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, S Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, Central Revenue Building, Raipur (C.G.) Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) : (""यथ" / Respondent) (Ita No.94/Rpr/2020) (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S G.P. Infraventures, V Income Tax Officer-1(4), Shree Tower, Shankar Nagar, S Raipur Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aanfg6074B (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of : 23.11.2023 7Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 68

…ctuous and liable to be dismissed. 14 ITA 76 & 94/RPR/2020 G.P. Infraventures 9. The issue of jurisdiction was also considered by the various appellate courts in various cases which are discussed as under: - 9.1 In the case of Hindustan Transport Co vs IAC, 189 ITR 326 (Allahabad), the Hon'ble HC dealt extensively with the various provisions of the Act and held that the allocation of jurisdiction is a measure of administrative convenience. In such a situation, the concept of jurisdiction cannot be imported and, certainly, not in the sense of invalidating the resultant action on account of the defect in the exer…

BHARAT BHUSHAN VERMA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed in terms of the observations above

ITA 236/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 236/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bharat Bhushan Verma Main Road, Verma Transport Bharat, Baikunth, P.O.-Baikunth, Raipur (C.G.)-493 116 Pan : Acdpv7254J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Oficer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 119Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

…arding jurisdiction at this junction are infructuous and to be dismissed. 4.1.4 The issue of jurisdiction was also considered by the various appellate courts in various cases which are discussed as under:- 4.1.4.1 In the case of Hindustan Transport Co vs IAC, 189 ITR 326 (Allahabad), the Hon'ble HC dealt extensively with the various provisions of the Act and held that the allocation of jurisdiction is a measure of administrative convenience. In such a situation, the concept of jurisdiction cannot be imported and, certainly, not in the sense of invalidating the resultant action on account of the defect in the exer…

ARUNA TIWARI,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 90/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 90/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Aruna Tiwari 762, Sundar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Adbpt4977B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…). 4.1.7 The issue of jurisdiction was also considered Distinguishable on facts. by the various appellate courts in various cases which are discussed as under:- 21 Smt. Aruna Tiwari Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur 4.1.7.1 In the case of Hindustan Transport Co vs IAC, 189 ITR 326 (Allahabad), the Hon'ble HC dealt extensively…. 4.1.7.2 In the case of CIT vs Siri Paul Oswal, [2007] 293 ITR 273 (Punjab & Haryana)..... 4.1.7.3 In Mantoo Sarkar v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2009] 2 SCC 244... 4.1.7.4 In the case of Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340..... Distinguishable on facts. In the present case, objection reg…

M/S MATA ROAD CARRIERS,RAIPUR (CG) vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 79/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri N.C.Roy, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…l BIN] Raj Vs union of India 31ITR 565(SC) page 66 to 88. S.Deepak Agro Food vs state of Rajsthan 2008 TIOL 134 SC CT Page 89 to 94, 4. Abhishek Jain writ petition Civil 11844/23-04-2011 Delhi HC page 95 To 111. 5. Hindustan Transport CO. vs IAC and Anr 1991) 189 ITR 326 Allhabad High Court Page 112 to 120. 6. Kimtee Vs CIT(1985) 151 ITR 73 MP high court Page 121 to 123. 7. Guduthur bros vs ITO (1960) 40 ITR 298 (SC) Page 124 to 127. 8. Ashish Agrwal vs UOI (2022) 138 taxman com 64 SC page 128 to 141. 9. Harish kumar Chhabad , ITA 323/RPR/2016 ,ITAT Raipur bench Page 142 to 162. 10. Goyal Construction Co ITA 17/…

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1179/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 124Section 127Section 144Section 147Section 234

…tage irregularity had occurred. It was observed that the tribunal was not right in annulling the assessment. It would be also appropriate here to refer to the decision in Hindustan Transport Co. vs. Inspecting Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. (1991) 189 ITR 326 of the Allahabad High Court-Lucknow Bench, wherein it has been observed as under:- "A survey of the above provisions of the Act highlights the following situations. After creating the various Income Tax authorities, the Act does Sri Annesh, Udupi Page 30 of 40 not prescribe their respective jurisdiction or functions. Any case can be dealt with b…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1484/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

…vant statutory provisions by the department. Our above view find support from the following decisions of this Court :- (1) CWT v. Ravi Malhotra [2007] 292 ITR 171/[2008] 166 Taxman 253 (All.) ; and (2) Hindustan Transport Co. v. Inspecting Asstt. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 326/[1992] 63 Taxman 246 (All.).” 35. Respectfully following the above decisions of the Hon’ble High Court’s, we reject the contention of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in issuing notice as well as completing the assessment. The ground No. 12 (additional ground) of the appeal is dismissed. 36.…

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 487/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

…vant statutory provisions by the department. Our above view find support from the following decisions of this Court :- (1) CWT v. Ravi Malhotra [2007] 292 ITR 171/[2008] 166 Taxman 253 (All.) ; and (2) Hindustan Transport Co. v. Inspecting Asstt. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 326/[1992] 63 Taxman 246 (All.).” 35. Respectfully following the above decisions of the Hon’ble High Court’s, we reject the contention of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee challenging the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in issuing notice as well as completing the assessment. The ground No. 12 (additional ground) of the appeal is dismissed. 36.…

JYOTIBEN KETAN KUMAR RANA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(2), SURAT

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

ITA 354/SRT/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.354/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10 Smt. Jyotiben Ketankumar Income Tax Officer, Rana, Ward- 1(2)(2) Surat 79 Jangnath Society, Khatodara Udhna Surat Pan: Akapr 7370 L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 124Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 3

…laced on following decisions: Vishvanath Gopal Oil Mills 32 ITR 344 (Bombay), Rasulji Buxji Kathwala 32 ITR 592 (Raj.), Dhrangadhra Trading Co (P) Ltd. 60 ITR 674 (Gujarat). The CIT (A) further relying on the decision in the case of Hindustan Transport Vo. 189 ITR 326 (Allahabad) of SLP dismissed 188 ITR (St.) 84 (SC) held that the right to call any dispute and jurisdiction of the assessee is lost as soon as the assessment has been completed in pursuance to the return furnished by the assessee. Further, no appeal lies against the jurisdiction after completion of assessment. In Jyotiben Ketankumar Rana v. ITO…

SHRI ASHISH B SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 33(1)-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 329/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 329/Mum/2019 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2015-16) Shri Ashish B. Sanghvi The Income Tax Officer, B-39, C-1, Mahavir Nagar, Ward 33(1)-1, Shankar Lane, Kandivali The Pratykshkar Bhavan, Vs. (West) 705, C-12, Bkc, Bandra Mumbai-400 067 (E), Mumbai-400 051 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Avkps0725R अपीलाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Ashwin Chhag, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Satischandra Rajore, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13-05-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2019 Aadosa / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin Chhag, ARFor Respondent: Shri Satischandra Rajore, DR

Section 124(3)(a)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 292B

…sdiction shall be filed within 30 days, which is not done by the assessee. In support of the same, the learned Sr. DR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Hindustan Transport Co. vs. 4 Inspecting Assistant Commissioner [1991] 189 ITR 326 (Allahabad), wherein it is held as under: - “In this case it is held that as per section 292BB of the IT Act which is applicable with effect from 01.04.2008 and as per the deeming provisions contained in the aforesaid section 292BB of the IT Act where an assessee has appeared in any proceedings or co-operated in any enquiry relating to an assess…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. VISHAKHA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result appeals filed by revenue in both the cases stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5212/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. JK Mishra, CIT, DR

Section 127Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…egard, the Revenue relies on the following decisions CIT v S S Ahluwalia [2014] 225 Taxman 131 (Delhi) Abhishek Jain v ITO [2018] 405 ITR 1 (Delhi) Kanji Mai & Sons v CIT 138 ITR 391 (Delhi) Hindustan Transport Co. V Inspecting Asst Commissioner of Income Tax 189 ITR 326( Allahabad)Rai Bahadur Seth Teomal v In the case of Abhishek Jain(supra) and S S Ahluwalia(supra),Court has examined various issues pertaining to jurisdiction in detail and the Revenue strongly relies on the said orders. Kind attention of the Honours is drawn to Para 17-21 of the order in the case of Abhishek Jain(supra). It is also to submit tha…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PINGAL SALES SALES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result appeals filed by revenue in both the cases stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5211/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. JK Mishra, CIT, DR

Section 127Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…egard, the Revenue relies on the following decisions CIT v S S Ahluwalia [2014] 225 Taxman 131 (Delhi) Abhishek Jain v ITO [2018] 405 ITR 1 (Delhi) Kanji Mai & Sons v CIT 138 ITR 391 (Delhi) Hindustan Transport Co. V Inspecting Asst Commissioner of Income Tax 189 ITR 326( Allahabad)Rai Bahadur Seth Teomal v In the case of Abhishek Jain(supra) and S S Ahluwalia(supra),Court has examined various issues pertaining to jurisdiction in detail and the Revenue strongly relies on the said orders. Kind attention of the Honours is drawn to Para 17-21 of the order in the case of Abhishek Jain(supra). It is also to submit tha…