Arun Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

286 ITR 89Supreme Court of India2006#2974 most cited

What is Arun Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. authority for?

A jurisdictional fact is a prerequisite for a court or tribunal to assume jurisdiction, and if it is wrongly assumed, the order can be challenged through a writ of certiorari.

40

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Arun Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. · jurisdictional fact · assumption of jurisdiction · writ of certiorari · court jurisdiction · tribunal jurisdiction · administrative agency power

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 143(2)Section 149

Issues it is cited on

section 153(a)(1)section 149(1)(a)section 153(a)abatement of assessmentsection 153a(1)(b)section 153c(1)section 149(1)(b)management feessection 149(1)block periodsection 260asection 153a(1)

Judgments citing Arun Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1259/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 | The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit Assessee By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

…tion, the Tribunal has to make up its mind whether to Act or not and can give a ruling on the preliminary or collateral issue; but that ruling is not conclusive. 6.3.16 In the case of Arun Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 205 CTR (SC) 193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) it has been held:- "A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal or an assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is one on existence or non-existence of which depends jurisdiction of a court, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which an administrative agency's power to act…

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1257/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit Assessee By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

…tion, the Tribunal has to make up its mind whether to Act or not and can give a ruling on the preliminary or collateral issue; but that ruling is not conclusive. 6.3.16 In the case of Arun Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 205 CTR (SC) 193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) it has been held:- "A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal or an assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is one on existence or non-existence of which depends jurisdiction of a court, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which an administrative agency's power to act…

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

ITA 1256/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 148Section 20Section 250

…l issue; but that r ruling on the preliminary or collateral issue; but that ruling is not conclusive. 6.3.16 In the case of In the case of Arun Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. Arun Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 205 CTR (SC) 193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) (2006) 205 CTR (SC) 193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) it has been held: it has been held:- "A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal "A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal "A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal or an assumes jurisdi or an…

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

ITA 1254/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 153CSection 250

…the preliminary or collateral issue; but that ruling is not issue; but that ruling is not conclusive. 6.6.19 In the case of In the case of Arun Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. Arun Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 205 CTR (SC) 193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) (2006) 205 CTR (SC) 193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) it has been held: it has been held:- "A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal "A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal "A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal or an assumes jurisdiction…

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

ITA 1238/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 153CSection 250

…the preliminary or collateral issue; but that ruling is not issue; but that ruling is not conclusive. 6.6.19 In the case of In the case of Arun Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. Arun Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 205 CTR (SC) 193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) (2006) 205 CTR (SC) 193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) it has been held: it has been held:- "A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal "A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal "A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal or an assumes jurisdiction…

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1237/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1254, 1255, 1258, 1260/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1233, 1235, 1237, 1238 /Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 M/S. Southern Agrifurane- V. The Dcit, Industries Pvt Ltd Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 250Section 80G

…tion, the Tribunal has to make up its mind whether to Act or not and can give a ruling on the preliminary or collateral issue; but that ruling is not conclusive. 6.6.19 In the case of Arun Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 205 CTR (SC) 193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) it has been held:-"A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal or an assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is one on existence or non-existence of which depends jurisdiction of a court, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which an administrative agency's power to act d…

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

ITA 1236/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 148Section 20Section 250

…l issue; but that r ruling on the preliminary or collateral issue; but that ruling is not conclusive. 6.3.16 In the case of In the case of Arun Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. Arun Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 205 CTR (SC) 193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) (2006) 205 CTR (SC) 193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) it has been held: it has been held:- "A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal "A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal "A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal or an assumes jurisdi or an…

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1235/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1254, 1255, 1258, 1260/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1233, 1235, 1237, 1238 /Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2017-18 M/S. Southern Agrifurane- Industries Pvt Ltd Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 250Section 80G

…tion, the Tribunal has to make up its mind whether to Act or not and can give a ruling on the preliminary or collateral issue; but that ruling is not conclusive. 6.6.19 In the case of Arun Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 205 CTR (SC) 193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) it has been held:-"A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal or an assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is one on existence or non-existence of which depends jurisdiction of a court, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which an administrative agency's power to act d…

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

ITA 1234/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

…tion, the Tribunal has to make up its mind whether to Act or not and can give a ruling on the preliminary or collateral issue; but that ruling is not conclusive. 6.3.16 In the case of Arun Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 205 CTR (SC) 193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) it has been held:- "A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal or an assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is one on existence or non-existence of which depends jurisdiction of a court, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which an administrative agency's power to act…

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1232/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

…tion, the Tribunal has to make up its mind whether to Act or not and can give a ruling on the preliminary or collateral issue; but that ruling is not conclusive. 6.3.16 In the case of Arun Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 205 CTR (SC) 193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) it has been held:- "A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal or an assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is one on existence or non-existence of which depends jurisdiction of a court, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which an administrative agency's power to act…

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT.. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the

ITA 1231/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

…tion, the Tribunal has to make up its mind whether to Act or not and can give a ruling on the preliminary or collateral issue; but that ruling is not conclusive. 6.3.16 In the case of Arun Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 205 CTR (SC) 193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) it has been held:- "A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal or an assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is one on existence or non-existence of which depends jurisdiction of a court, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which an administrative agency's power to act…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 (2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

ITA 1163/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 1163, 1256, 1257 & 1259/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.1231, 1232, 1234 & 1236/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2016-17 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250

…tion, the Tribunal has to make up its mind whether to Act or not and can give a ruling on the preliminary or collateral issue; but that ruling is not conclusive. 6.3.16 In the case of Arun Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 205 CTR (SC) 193: (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) it has been held:- "A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal or an assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is one on existence or non-existence of which depends jurisdiction of a court, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which an administrative agency's power to act…

ASSISSTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. ESTRA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 1653/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Mr. S.Senthil Kumaran, CITFor Respondent: Mr.R.Sivaraman, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 45(2)Section 53A

…jurisdictional facts and an application of mind as to its existence by the authority concerned before assuming jurisdiction. It is relevant to extract the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar v. Union of India [2006] 155 Taxman 659/286 ITR 89/1 SCC 732, which reads as under: "74. A…

TAMILNADU INDUSTRIAL GUIDANCE AND EXPORT PROMOTION BUREAU,CHENNAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONAS WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1660/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1659 & 1660/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Tamil Nadu Industrial The Income Tax Officer, Guidance & Export Vs Exemptions Ward 1, Promotion Bureau, Chennai No.19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Aacct 7538B (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri M.V. Swaroop, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Swaroop, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…e ld. Counsel cannot be accepted even the State Corporation Societies cannot be equated with State Government though it is instrumentality of the State as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (2006) 286 ITR 89. Further, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of National Diary Research Institute vs. ACIT (TDS), Circle 18(1), Bengaluru (2018) 171 ITD 271, wherein it was held as follow. ‘7. We heard rival submissions and perused material on record. The only issue in the present case is, for the purpose of valuing assessee society should be done un…

TAMILNADU INDUSTRIAL GUIDANCE AND EXPORT PROMOTION BUREAU,CHENNAI vs. ITO EXEMPTIONAS WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1659/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1659 & 1660/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Tamil Nadu Industrial The Income Tax Officer, Guidance & Export Vs Exemptions Ward 1, Promotion Bureau, Chennai No.19-A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Pan: Aacct 7538B (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri M.V. Swaroop, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Keerthi Narayanan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2024

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Swaroop, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Keerthi Narayanan, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)

…e ld. Counsel cannot be accepted even the State Corporation Societies cannot be equated with State Government though it is instrumentality of the State as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (2006) 286 ITR 89. Further, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of National Diary Research Institute vs. ACIT (TDS), Circle 18(1), Bengaluru (2018) 171 ITD 271, wherein it was held as follow. ‘7. We heard rival submissions and perused material on record. The only issue in the present case is, for the purpose of valuing assessee society should be done un…

DCIT, CIRCLE-3, BULANDSHAHR vs. ABID ALI KHAN, BULANDSHAHR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2055/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareekdcit, Circle, Vs. Shri Abid Ali Khan, Bulandshahr. S/O Shri Mohd. Ali Khan, Prop. M/S. All India Metal Traders, Hanifa Manzil, Upper Kote, Bulandshahr (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Adlpk3005F) Co No.62/Del/2021 (In Ita No.2055/Del/2018) (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Abid Ali Khan, Vs. Dcit, Circle, S/O Shri Mohd. Ali Khan, Bulandshahr. Prop. M/S. All India Metal Traders, Hanifa Manzil, Upper Kote, Bulandshahr (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Adlpk3005F) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.P. Garg, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2024 Date Of Order : 28.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya:

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Singh, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 234ASection 244ASection 33B

…y the DCIT- 3, Bulandshahr, with Hon'ble ITAT as without jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Tribunal in their order dated 28.11.2023 has quoted in detail in para-7, page-6, judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arun Kumar and Others vs Union of India reported in [2006] 286 ITR 89 (SC) and reproduced extracts of the same, which may please be gone into. In addition, we rely on the following cases: a. After transfer of jurisdiction only the transferee AO-CIT- A has the jurisdiction on the assesse. CIT vs. Anjali Dua (2008) 219 CTR 183. DHC - on the issue of notice U/S 148. Once the jurisdiction is transferred U/S 120 the orig…

ACIT, CIRCLE- 74(1), NEW DELHI vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, NEW DELHI

ITA 6560/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2012-13 Acit Vs. Indian Institute Of Technology, Circle-74(1), Delhi New Delhi Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016 Pan : Aaati0393L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Karanjot Singh Khurana, Shri Devashish Jain & Ms. Kanika Jain, Advocates Revenue By : Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Karanjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Ms. Maimun Alam, Sr. DR
Section 17(2)(ii)Section 201Section 201(1)

…been extended by the Respondent to its employees. Hence, the perquisite value of the accommodation provided to the employees should be treated as NIL and reference was made to Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Arun Kumar v. Union of India, (2006) 286 ITR 89 and the order of Tribunal in the case of Superintendent (DDO): [2012] 24 taxmann.com 203 (Delhi). 6. Ld. AR submitted that the accommodation is not provided as a benefit but as a compulsion in terms of Clause 18(1) to IIT Statutes which provides as under: "(1) Every employee of the Institute may be allotted an unfurnished house within the campus…

ABID ALI KHAN,BULANDSHAHR vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), BULANDSHAHR

In the result, the instant appeal of the assessee is disposed of without addressing any of the issue on merits of the dispute

ITA 2171/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challan Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble & [Assessment Year: 2011-12] Shri Abid Ali Khan, Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), S/O Mohd. Ali Khan, Bulandshahr (U.P.) Prop. M/S All India Traders, Vs C/O Vineet Garg, Advocate, 203, Skipper Corner, 88, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019 Pan-(Adlpk3005F) Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. K.P. Garg, Ca Revenue By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

Section 143(3)Section 263

…exercise of power by an authority constituted by law. The significance and import of existence or non-existence of a jurisdictional fact has been highlighted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar & Others vs. Union of India reported in [2006] 286 ITR 89 (SC) in the following words:- “A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal or an Authority assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is one on existence or non-existence of which depends jurisdiction of a court, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which an administrative agency…

SHRI ABID ALI KHAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, BULANDSHAHR

In the result, the instant appeal of the assessee is disposed of without addressing any of the issue on merits of the dispute

ITA 2042/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challan Nagendra Prasad, Hon’Ble & [Assessment Year: 2011-12] Shri Abid Ali Khan, Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), S/O Mohd. Ali Khan, Bulandshahr (U.P.) Prop. M/S All India Traders, Vs C/O Vineet Garg, Advocate, 203, Skipper Corner, 88, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019 Pan-(Adlpk3005F) Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. K.P. Garg, Ca Revenue By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2023

Section 143(3)Section 263

…exercise of power by an authority constituted by law. The significance and import of existence or non-existence of a jurisdictional fact has been highlighted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arun Kumar & Others vs. Union of India reported in [2006] 286 ITR 89 (SC) in the following words:- “A "jurisdictional fact" is a fact which must exist before a Court, Tribunal or an Authority assumes jurisdiction over a particular matter. A jurisdictional fact is one on existence or non-existence of which depends jurisdiction of a court, a tribunal or an authority. It is the fact upon which an administrative agency…

M/S. SHREE GURJARI INDUSTRIES LTD.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT,, SURAT

In the result, ground No. 1of the appeal is allowed

ITA 980/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) M/S Shree Gurjari Industries The Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Am-4, Prsident Plaza, Nr. Income Tax,Circle-2(1)(2), Vs Rto, Ring Road, Surat-395 002 Room No. 323, Pan : Abjfs2664J Aaykarbhavan, Majura Gate, Surat Appellant /Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 263Section 69

…g a bona fide belief that the income of the assessee has escape assessment, the reopening is not valid. To support his all submissions on the validity of reopening, the ld AR for the assessee relied on the following decisions;  Arun Kumar VS Union of India ( 286 ITR 89 SC),  Rajath Leasing & Finance Ltd Vs ACIT (1996) 85 taxmann.com 175 (Guj),  CIT Vs DN Dosani (2006) 197 TAXMAN 13(GUJ),  ACIT Vs Dhariya Construction Co. (2011) 197 TAXMAN 202-SC,  Adani Export Vs DCIT (1999) 240 ITR 224 (Guj),  Kantibhai Dharmshibhai Narola Vs ACIT 125 taxmann.com 348 (Guj),  PCIT VS Royal Western India Turf Club (2019) 10…

Showing 1–20 of 40 · Page 1 of 2