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

286 ITR 89Supreme Court of India2006#2932 most cited

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

A 'jurisdictional fact' is a fact that must exist before a court or tribunal can assume jurisdiction over a matter. The existence or non-existence of such a fact determines the jurisdiction.

40

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,369 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

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

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.

Indian Institute of Science vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/277/2015HC Karnataka14 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 17(2)Section 17(2)(ii)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)Section 260Section 260A

…Government. It is submitted that assessee is not a Central Government and therefore, is governed by Sl.No.2 of Table 1 appended to Rule 3(1) of the Rules. It is also submitted that the Supreme Court in 'ARUN KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA', (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) has drawn a distinction between Central Government, State Government and employee of the other statutory Corporation / Undertaking. It is further submitted that Explanation 1 has been incorporated to Section 17(2) of the Act by Finance Act, 2007 with retrospective effect i.e., from 01.04.2002. Therefore, the question of grant o…

Central Food Technological Research Institute vs. The Income-Tax Officer (TDS)

In the result, appeal is disposed of

ITA/486/2014HC Karnataka14 Jul 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 192Section 201(1)Section 260Section 260A

…Government. It is submitted that assessee is not a Central Government and therefore, is governed by Sl.No.2 of Table 1 appended to Rule 3(1) of the Rules. It is also submitted that the Supreme Court in 'ARUN KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA', (2006) 286 ITR 89 (SC) has drawn a distinction between Central Government, State Government and employee of the other statutory Corporation / Undertaking. It is further submitted that Explanation 1 has been incorporated to Section 17(2) of the Act by Finance Act, 2007 with retrospective effect i.e., from 01.04.2002. Therefore, the question of grant o…

Mr. Krishna Kumar Pant, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5574/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)(iii)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 234B

…(2)(i) or section 56. In our considered opinion existence of a “Benefit” is a “Jurisdictional Fact” which at the outset must be demonstrated by the Ld. AO by determinative rules while assuming jurisdiction. Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Arun Kumar reported in 286 ITR 89 (SC) has held as under: “68. 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’s…

Mr. Sanjiv Narayan, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5546/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)(iii)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 234B

…(2)(i) or section 56. In our considered opinion existence of a “Benefit” is a “Jurisdictional Fact” which at the outset must be demonstrated by the Ld. AO by determinative rules while assuming jurisdiction. Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Arun Kumar reported in 286 ITR 89 (SC) has held as under: “68. 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’s…

Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5513/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)(iii)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 234B

…(2)(i) or section 56. In our considered opinion existence of a “Benefit” is a “Jurisdictional Fact” which at the outset must be demonstrated by the Ld. AO by determinative rules while assuming jurisdiction. Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Arun Kumar reported in 286 ITR 89 (SC) has held as under: “68. 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’s…

Mr. J.S. Gujral, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5512/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)(iii)Section 2(24)(iv)Section 234B

…(2)(i) or section 56. In our considered opinion existence of a “Benefit” is a “Jurisdictional Fact” which at the outset must be demonstrated by the Ld. AO by determinative rules while assuming jurisdiction. Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Arun Kumar reported in 286 ITR 89 (SC) has held as under: “68. 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’s…

Madhya Pradesh Poorve Keshtra Vidyut Vitran Co.Ltd., Jabalpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1), Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 71/JAB/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur20 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2008-09 Madhya Pradesh Poorv Kshetra Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd., Income Tax, Jabalpur Circle 2(1), [Pan: Aadcm 6175E] Jabalpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sukesh Kumar, Ca Respondent By Shri I.B. Khandel, Senior Dr Date Of Hearing 11/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 20/01/2020

Section 115WSection 17(2)

…on. The Hon’ble High Court vide its’ order dated 19/7/2007 disposed the said matter, directing that all claims raised by the petitioner relating to perquisites be decided in light of the decision by the Apex Court in Arun Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India [2006] 286 ITR 89 (SC). The matter has thus been already disposed of by the Hon’ble Court and, in fact, in consonance with the law as clarified by the Apex Court. It was therefore obligatory on the part of the parties to have acted thereon. The assessee, a company ‘owned’ by the State Government, is an independent person, and not a part of the State. That is, was n…

Tamil Nadu Industrial Guidance & Export Promotion Bureau, Chennai vs. ADIT (Exemptions) Ward 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2868/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. B. Suresh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. M.S. Nethrapal, IRS, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 2(24)(iia)

…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 perquisites of the accommodatio…

Employees State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Oficer TDS Ward-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2170/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri R.G. Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 13Section 201Section 201(1)

…the assessee accordingly prayed that the orders u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) be cancelled. 16. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. According to him, the constitutional validity of Rule 3 was challenged in Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. UOI & Ors., 286 ITR 89 (SC). In the decision rendered on 15.9.2006, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that amendment to Rule 3 by the Income Tax 22nd Amendment Rules, 2001 was valid. According to him, after rendering of the aforesaid decision, the assessee could not have entertained a bona fide belief that it was a Central Govt. The ld. DR also pointed out that the Tribunal i…

Employees State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer TDS Ward-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2169/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri R.G. Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 13Section 201Section 201(1)

…the assessee accordingly prayed that the orders u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) be cancelled. 16. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. According to him, the constitutional validity of Rule 3 was challenged in Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. UOI & Ors., 286 ITR 89 (SC). In the decision rendered on 15.9.2006, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that amendment to Rule 3 by the Income Tax 22nd Amendment Rules, 2001 was valid. According to him, after rendering of the aforesaid decision, the assessee could not have entertained a bona fide belief that it was a Central Govt. The ld. DR also pointed out that the Tribunal i…

Employees State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer TDS Ward-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2168/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri R.G. Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 13Section 201Section 201(1)

…the assessee accordingly prayed that the orders u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) be cancelled. 16. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. According to him, the constitutional validity of Rule 3 was challenged in Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. UOI & Ors., 286 ITR 89 (SC). In the decision rendered on 15.9.2006, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that amendment to Rule 3 by the Income Tax 22nd Amendment Rules, 2001 was valid. According to him, after rendering of the aforesaid decision, the assessee could not have entertained a bona fide belief that it was a Central Govt. The ld. DR also pointed out that the Tribunal i…

Employees State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer TDS Ward-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2167/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri R.G. Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 13Section 201Section 201(1)

…the assessee accordingly prayed that the orders u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) be cancelled. 16. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. According to him, the constitutional validity of Rule 3 was challenged in Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. UOI & Ors., 286 ITR 89 (SC). In the decision rendered on 15.9.2006, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that amendment to Rule 3 by the Income Tax 22nd Amendment Rules, 2001 was valid. According to him, after rendering of the aforesaid decision, the assessee could not have entertained a bona fide belief that it was a Central Govt. The ld. DR also pointed out that the Tribunal i…

Employees State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer TDS Ward-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2166/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri R.G. Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 13Section 201Section 201(1)

…the assessee accordingly prayed that the orders u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) be cancelled. 16. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. According to him, the constitutional validity of Rule 3 was challenged in Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. UOI & Ors., 286 ITR 89 (SC). In the decision rendered on 15.9.2006, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that amendment to Rule 3 by the Income Tax 22nd Amendment Rules, 2001 was valid. According to him, after rendering of the aforesaid decision, the assessee could not have entertained a bona fide belief that it was a Central Govt. The ld. DR also pointed out that the Tribunal i…

Employees State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer TDS Ward-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2165/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri R.G. Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 13Section 201Section 201(1)

…the assessee accordingly prayed that the orders u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) be cancelled. 16. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. According to him, the constitutional validity of Rule 3 was challenged in Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. UOI & Ors., 286 ITR 89 (SC). In the decision rendered on 15.9.2006, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that amendment to Rule 3 by the Income Tax 22nd Amendment Rules, 2001 was valid. According to him, after rendering of the aforesaid decision, the assessee could not have entertained a bona fide belief that it was a Central Govt. The ld. DR also pointed out that the Tribunal i…

Employees State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer TDS Ward-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2164/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri R.G. Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 13Section 201Section 201(1)

…the assessee accordingly prayed that the orders u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) be cancelled. 16. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. According to him, the constitutional validity of Rule 3 was challenged in Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. UOI & Ors., 286 ITR 89 (SC). In the decision rendered on 15.9.2006, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that amendment to Rule 3 by the Income Tax 22nd Amendment Rules, 2001 was valid. According to him, after rendering of the aforesaid decision, the assessee could not have entertained a bona fide belief that it was a Central Govt. The ld. DR also pointed out that the Tribunal i…

Employees State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer TDS Ward-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2163/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri R.G. Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 13Section 201Section 201(1)

…the assessee accordingly prayed that the orders u/s. 201(1) and 201(1A) be cancelled. 16. The ld. DR relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. According to him, the constitutional validity of Rule 3 was challenged in Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. UOI & Ors., 286 ITR 89 (SC). In the decision rendered on 15.9.2006, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that amendment to Rule 3 by the Income Tax 22nd Amendment Rules, 2001 was valid. According to him, after rendering of the aforesaid decision, the assessee could not have entertained a bona fide belief that it was a Central Govt. The ld. DR also pointed out that the Tribunal i…

Central Silk Board Ministry of Textiles, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer TDS Ward-16(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1561/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pardeep Kumar, JCIT
Section 200(3)Section 201(1)Section 201(3)(i)

…e upon the order of the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in the case of Central Food Technological Research Institute Vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 1607 to 1611/Bang/2013 in which the Tribunal, following the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Arun Kumar Vs. Union of India 286 ITR 89 (SC), approved the additions confirmed by the CIT(A). The learned DR however contended that since the issue is covered by the Tribunal order against the assessee, the order of CIT(A) should be confirmed. 4. Having carefully examined the orders of authorities below and documents placed on record we find that there was amendment in rule 3 of IT Rul…

Central Silk Board Ministry of Textiles, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer TDS Ward-16(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1560/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pardeep Kumar, JCIT
Section 200(3)Section 201(1)Section 201(3)(i)

…e upon the order of the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in the case of Central Food Technological Research Institute Vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 1607 to 1611/Bang/2013 in which the Tribunal, following the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Arun Kumar Vs. Union of India 286 ITR 89 (SC), approved the additions confirmed by the CIT(A). The learned DR however contended that since the issue is covered by the Tribunal order against the assessee, the order of CIT(A) should be confirmed. 4. Having carefully examined the orders of authorities below and documents placed on record we find that there was amendment in rule 3 of IT Rul…

Central Silk Board Ministry of Textiles, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer TDS Ward-16(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1559/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pardeep Kumar, JCIT
Section 200(3)Section 201(1)Section 201(3)(i)

…e upon the order of the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in the case of Central Food Technological Research Institute Vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 1607 to 1611/Bang/2013 in which the Tribunal, following the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Arun Kumar Vs. Union of India 286 ITR 89 (SC), approved the additions confirmed by the CIT(A). The learned DR however contended that since the issue is covered by the Tribunal order against the assessee, the order of CIT(A) should be confirmed. 4. Having carefully examined the orders of authorities below and documents placed on record we find that there was amendment in rule 3 of IT Rul…

Superintendent (Ddo), Hisar vs. ITO (TDS), Hisar

The appeals are allowed

ITA 4820/DEL/2011[2006-07 (F.Y.-2005-06)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2016

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant

For Respondent: Shri Anima Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 17(2)Section 201Section 201(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI O.P. KANT ITA No. 4820 to 4824/Del/2011 Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2009-10 Superintendent (DDO), vs. ITO (TDS), Department of Plant Breeding, Income-tax Office, C/o. Anil Aggarwal & Co. CA, sector-14, Hissar. 22-Green Park, Hisar. (PAN: RTKDO2688A) (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 4807 to 4811/Del/2011 Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2009-10 Senior Scientist (DDO), vs. ITO (TDS), Department of Plant Breeding, Income-tax Office, C/o. Anil Aggarwal & Co. CA, sector-14, Hissar. 22-Green Park, Hisar. (PAN: RTKDO2674A ) (App…