CIT v. G. Viswanatham

172 ITR 401High Court1998#15085 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 150Section 150(1)Section 150(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. G. Viswanatham

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Saamag Construction Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as above

ITA 3738/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132(1)Section 148Section 153ASection 69C

…on the decisions in the cases of Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. 355 ITR 345, A.B. Parikh 203 ITR 186 (Guj), C.A. Gulanikar vs. Ramnaran Sons (P) Ltd. 119 ITR 83 (Bom.), Uttrakhand Van Vikas Nigam (2016) 66 taxmnann.com 87 (Uttrakhand), G, Viswanatham 172 ITR 401 and Gupta Traders (1982) 10 Taxman 199 (Alld.). 5.3 The Ld. Counsel, drawing our attention to the following part of the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd. (supra), submitted that the present case was squarely covered by the said decision: “14. It is apparent from the said decision that bef…

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Vimal Chand Surana(HUF), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 62/JPR/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 150(2)Section 153CSection 2Section 250Section 69

…ted that Explanation 2 and 3 of Section 153 (3) (ii) (prior to substitution by Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 1-6-2016, now Section 153 (6) (i) expl.2) no doubt are relevant to Section 150 but as held by Gujrat High Court in case of CIT v. G. Viswanatham. (1988) 172 ITR 401, 408 (AP) Explanations 2 and 3, are relevant also to section 150, but their purpose is merely to illustrate and clarify the meaning of the words “in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction” contained in an appellate, revisional or any other order, and not to remove or obliterate the restriction contained in section 150 (2).…

Sadhana Bai, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the

ITA 3278/CHNY/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: 29.06.2022
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 150Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 69

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "याय पीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी . मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम$ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. Nos. 3277 & 3278 / Chny/ 2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04) Mrs. Sadhana Bai Vs The Income Tax Officer, 87, Mint Street, Sowcarpet, Non-Corporate Ward-6(3) Chennai-600 079. Chennai-6. PAN: AASPS 2515G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. T.Banusekar, C.A., अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT ""यथ"क"…

Sadhana Bai, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the

ITA 3277/CHNY/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: 29.06.2022
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 150Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 69

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "याय पीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी . मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम$ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. Nos. 3277 & 3278 / Chny/ 2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2002-03 & 2003-04) Mrs. Sadhana Bai Vs The Income Tax Officer, 87, Mint Street, Sowcarpet, Non-Corporate Ward-6(3) Chennai-600 079. Chennai-6. PAN: AASPS 2515G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. T.Banusekar, C.A., अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT ""यथ"क"…

Ramesh Chand Soni HUF, Jaipur vs. ITO, Beawar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1024/JPR/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Dec 2017AY 2001-02
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (J.CIT)
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1024/JP/2013 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2001-02 cuke Shri Ramesh Chand Soni HUF, The ITO, Vs. M/s M/s Tirupati Automobiles, Ward Behror, Village- Santera, NH-08, Kotputli, Behror. Jaiapur 303108. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAHHR9332K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1025/JP/2013 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Ye…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Neetee Clothing (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 267/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate and Shri Somil Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Senior DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)Section 150Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…be taken, such assessment, reassessment, or recomputation is barred on the date of the order which is the subject-matter of the appeal, reference or revision in which the finding or direction is contained. Reliance is placed on CIT V. G. Vishwanatham, (1998) 172 ITR 401 (AP). In view of the above as the order of Hon'ble High Court is not in respect of AY 2002-03, as no proceeding is pending for the said assessment year and as the proceeding initiated u/s 147 for the A.Y. 2002-03 are barred by limitation provided u/s 149, therefore, the AO is not empowered to reopen the same u/s 150(1), considering the restrictio…

CIT v. G. Viswanatham (172 ITR 401) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax