Chatturam v. CIT

15 ITR 302Reported decision1947#9628 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 170Section 292BSection 143(3)Section 144Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

section 142section 142(1)section 143(2)transfersection 143section 14indiadocumentinterest

Judgments citing Chatturam v. CIT

MADAN LAL TOMAR,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 51/AGR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sarvesh Devi Vs. Ito, (Legal Heir Of Late Madan Lal Ward-2(1)(1), Tomar, 51, Keshav Kunj, Agra Pratap Nagar, Agra, 282 001, Up (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxpt3982D Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2025 O R D E R 1. The Appeal In Ita No. 51/Agr/2025 For Ay 2009-10, Arises Out Of The Order Of The Ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Nfac’, In Short] Dated 09.12.2024 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 25.07.2019 By The Ito, Ward-4(2), Agra (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’).

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 292B

…ce. In this backdrop, a two judge Bench of this Court held that the assessment proceedings were not null and void, and at the worst, that they were defective. In this context, reliance was placed on the decision of the Federal Court in Chatturam v. CIT [1947] 15 ITR 302 (FC) holding that the jurisdiction to assess and the liability to pay tax are not conditional on the validity of the notice : the liability to pay tax is founded in the charging sections and not in the machinery provisions to determine the amount of tax. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Maharaja of Patiala v. CIT [1943] 11 ITR 202 (Bom.…

SARVESH DEVI (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE MADAN LAL TOMAR),AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 311/AGR/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Agra13 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Sarvesh Devi (Legal Heir Vs. Income Tax Officer, Of Late Madan Lal Tomar), Ward-4(3)(1), 51, Keshavkunj Pratap Hathras Nagar, Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Eshpd4540M Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…ce. In this backdrop, a two judge Bench of this Court held that the assessment proceedings were not null and void, and at the worst, that they were defective. In this context, reliance was placed on the decision of the Federal Court in Chatturam v. CIT [1947] 15 ITR 302 (FC) holding that the jurisdiction to assess and the liability to pay tax are not conditional on the validity of the notice : the liability to pay tax is founded in the charging sections and not in the machinery provisions to determine the amount of tax. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Maharaja of Patiala v. CIT [1943] 11 ITR 202 (Bom.…

SATISHBHAI MOHANBHAI ZALAVADIA,NA vs. ARI,VS.THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 122/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. A.L. Saini, Am & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.122/Rjt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical He Aring) Satishbhai Mohanbhai Zalavadia, The Pr. Cit – 1, Vs. 2622, Sarvoday Park, Khundh Rajkot Khundh, Chikhli, Navsari - 396521 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acnpp0527F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ar Respondent By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : Heard On 23/07/2024 & Refix For Clarification On 24.04.2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…the beginning. For that, Ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the following judgments: Satishbhai Mohanbhai Zalavadia (i) Amarjit Singh Tut. vs. UOI, 8 taxmann.com 149 (P & H – HC) (ii) CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation, 181 Taxman 111 (SC) (iii) Chatturam vs. CIT, 15 ITR 302 (FC) 12. In rejoinder, the Learned Counsel for the assessee, submitted that issue relating to notice under section 143 (3) of the Act, is covered by the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Raipur in the case of ACIT vs. M/s Rajdhani Jewelleres and Gems Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.79/Rpr/2020, dated 24.01.2024, wherein it was held as follows: “27.…

ACIT CIRCLE-7(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S PIRAMAL ENTERPRISES LTD. (SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO PIRAMAL INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2338/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 2338/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) The Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Piramal Enterprises Tax, Circle 7(3)(2), Room No. Ltd. 128A, 1 St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Successor In Interest To M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Piramal International Pvt. फनाभ/ Ltd. 10, Piramal Tower, G.K. Vs. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aabcp6125D अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshai, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Ms. Mansi Padhiyar, Ar ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 24.03.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 09.04.2021

For Appellant: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshai, DRFor Respondent: Ms. Mansi Padhiyar, AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 292B

…t in Chatturam v CIT39 holding that the jurisdiction to assess and the liability to pay tax are not conditional on the validity of the notice : the liability to pay tax is founded in the charging sections and not in the machinery 38 (1996) 3 SCC 525 39 (1947) 15 ITR 302 (FC)provisions to determine the amount of tax. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Maharaja of Patiala v CIT40 (―Maharaja of Patiala‖). That was a case where two notices were issued after the death of the assessee in his name, requiring him to make a return of income. The notices were served upon the successor Maharaja and the assessment o…

M/S. CHURU TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD NOW MERGED WITH SPRIT TEXTILES PVT.LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 6(2)(1)PRESENT IN CHARGE ACIT RANGE 8(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5709/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Churu Trading Co. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited (Now Income Tax, Range-8(2)(2) Merged With Spirit Textiles Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai – 400 020 18Th Floor, A-Wing Marathon Futurex N M Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aalcs5905J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Churu Trading Co. Private Income Tax, Range- Limited (Now Merged With Spirit 8(2)(2) Textiles Pvt. Ltd., 18Th Floor, A-Wing Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 020 Marathon Futurex N M Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacc4853G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ice. In this backdrop, a two judge Bench of this Court held that the assessment proceedings were not null and void, and at the worst, that they were defective. In this context, reliance was placed on the decision of the Federal Court in Chatturam v CIT [1947] 15 ITR 302 (FC) holding that the jurisdiction to assess and the liability to pay tax are not conditional on the validity of the notice : the liability to pay tax is founded in the charging sections and not in the machinery provisions to determine the amount of tax. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Maharaja of Patiala v CIT [1943] 11 ITR 202 (Bomba…

SIEMENS POWER ENGINEERING P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1772/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Siemens Power Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax – Circle – (Now Merged With M/S. 8(2)(1), Aayakar Bhavan Room No.624, 6Th Floor Siemens Limited) 130, Pandurang Budhkar M.K.Road, Marg Mumbai – 400 020 Worli, Mumbai – 400 019 Pan/Gir No.Aaccs5323F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92D

…ce. In this backdrop, a two judge Bench of this Court held that the assessment proceedings were not null and void, and at the worst, that they were defective. In this context, reliance was placed on the decision of the Federal Court in Chatturam v. CIT [1947] 15 ITR 302 (FC) holding that the jurisdiction to assess and the liability to pay tax are not conditional on the validity of the notice : the liability to pay tax is founded in the charging sections and not in the machinery provisions to determine the amount of tax. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Maharaja of Patiala v. CIT [1943] 11 ITR 202 (Bom.…

V3S INFRATECH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6515/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay KumarFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 391(2)Section 394

…tice. In this backdrop, a two judge Bench of this Court held that the assessment proceedings were not null and void, and at the worst, that they were defective. In this context, reliance was placed on the decision of the Federal Court in Chatturam v CIT(1947) 15 ITR 302 (FC) holding that the jurisdiction to assess and the liability to pay tax are not conditional on the validity of the notice : the liability to pay tax is founded in the charging sections and not in the machinery provisions to determine the amount of tax. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Maharaja of Patiala v CIT (1943) 11 ITR 202 (Bomba…

V3S INFRATECH LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6514/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay KumarFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 391(2)Section 394

…tice. In this backdrop, a two judge Bench of this Court held that the assessment proceedings were not null and void, and at the worst, that they were defective. In this context, reliance was placed on the decision of the Federal Court in Chatturam v CIT(1947) 15 ITR 302 (FC) holding that the jurisdiction to assess and the liability to pay tax are not conditional on the validity of the notice : the liability to pay tax is founded in the charging sections and not in the machinery provisions to determine the amount of tax. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Maharaja of Patiala v CIT (1943) 11 ITR 202 (Bomba…

DXN HERBAL MANUFACTURING INDIA PVT. LTD.,PONDICHERRY vs. DCIT, PONDICHERRY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1752/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. K. Ravi, Advocate
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 37Section 43B

…the Supreme Court in the case of Kesoram Industries & Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CWT [1966] 59 ITR 767 and then again in the case of Setu Parvati Bayi v. CWT [1968] 69 ITR 864 . Similar was the view of the Federal Court in the case of Chatturam v. CIT [1947] 15 ITR 302, which relied upon the decision of the House of Lords in Whitney v. IRC [1925] 10 TC 88 (HL), that liability to tax does not depend on assessment; that ex hypothesis has already been fixed : the assessment order only quantifies the liability which is already definitely and finally created by the charging sections [Ishwarlal Parekh v. State of Ma…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED

C.A. No.-005409-005409 - 2019Supreme Court25 Jul 2019

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 92C

…and the liability to pay tax are not conditional on the validity of the notice : the liability to pay tax is founded in the charging sections and not in the machinery 38 (1996) 3 SCC 525 39 (1947) 15 ITR 302 (FC) 30 provisions to determine the amount of tax. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Maharaja of Patiala v CIT40 (“Maharaja of Patiala”). That was a case where two notices were issued after the death of the assessee in his name, requiring him to make a return of income. The notices were served upon the successor Maharaja and the…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VISION INC

The appeals of the Revenue are disposed of accordingly

ITA/1142/2009HC Delhi25 May 2012
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 260ASection 68

…ITA 1142/2009 & 64/2010 Page 1 of 19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 16th May, 2012 % Date of Decision: 25th May, 2012 + ITA No.1142/2009 + ITA No.64/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Appellant Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel. Versus VISION INC. ....Respondent Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Vikas Jain and Mr. Ankit Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see…