CIT v. Kanhaiyalal Gurmukh Singh

87 ITR 476High Court1973#16187 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148A(d)Section 149Section 149(3)Section 163Section 163(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 163section 16section 246section 144c(3)business connectionsection 144c(1)non-residentsection 24final assessment orderreason to believedraft assessment ordersection 131

Judgments citing CIT v. Kanhaiyalal Gurmukh Singh

Times Internet Limited (Representative Assessee of Willow Tv International Ltd), New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2239/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Times Internet Ltd. Vs. Dcit, (Representative Assessee Of New Delhi Willow Tv International Ltd.), Express Building, 9-10 Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aabct1559M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Sh. Shaurya, Ca Sh. Deepesh Jain, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 163Section 246

…d is whether the same position enures after the enactment of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The differences between the Act of 1922 and the Act of 1961 have been noted by a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Kanhaya Lal Gurumukh Singh [1973] 87 ITR 476. There was a difference of opinion initially, which was resolved on a reference 'to a third judge, and the majority judgment, after considering the language of the statutory provisions earlier extracted, observed that Nawal Kishore's case [1938] 6 ITR 61 (PC), was not applicable to a notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to…

DCIT, CC-2(4), Mumbai vs. Keystone Realtors P Ltd., As Representative Assessee of M/S. Mausmi Ventures Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 90/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.88/मुं/ 2023 से 90/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2011-12 से 2013-14)

For Appellant: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Naresh Kumar
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 148Section 163Section 163(1)

…ssessment was framed on a person in representative capacity without there being any order u/s. 163 of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court after considering facts of the case, provisions of section and the decision in the case of CIT vs. Kanhaiyalal Gurmukh Singh, 87 ITR 476 held that order u/s. 163 of the Act is to be passed in the first place and thereafter a notice u/s. 148 is to be served on (A.Y. 2011-12 TO 2013-14) the assessee who is sought to be made liable as representative assessee i..e. the agent of a Non-resident. In the absence of order u/s. 163 of the Act, notice issued u/s. 148 is invalid. 11. In the…

DCIT, CC-2(4), Mumbai vs. Keystone Realtors P Ltd., As Representative Assessee of M/S. Mausmi Ventures Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 89/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.88/मुं/ 2023 से 90/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2011-12 से 2013-14)

For Appellant: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Naresh Kumar
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 148Section 163Section 163(1)

…ssessment was framed on a person in representative capacity without there being any order u/s. 163 of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court after considering facts of the case, provisions of section and the decision in the case of CIT vs. Kanhaiyalal Gurmukh Singh, 87 ITR 476 held that order u/s. 163 of the Act is to be passed in the first place and thereafter a notice u/s. 148 is to be served on (A.Y. 2011-12 TO 2013-14) the assessee who is sought to be made liable as representative assessee i..e. the agent of a Non-resident. In the absence of order u/s. 163 of the Act, notice issued u/s. 148 is invalid. 11. In the…

DCIT, CC-2(4), Mumbai vs. Keystone Realtors P Ltd As Representative Assessee of M/S. Mausmi Ventures Ltd.), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 88/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.88/मुं/ 2023 से 90/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2011-12 से 2013-14)

For Appellant: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Naresh Kumar
Section 131Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 148Section 163Section 163(1)

…ssessment was framed on a person in representative capacity without there being any order u/s. 163 of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court after considering facts of the case, provisions of section and the decision in the case of CIT vs. Kanhaiyalal Gurmukh Singh, 87 ITR 476 held that order u/s. 163 of the Act is to be passed in the first place and thereafter a notice u/s. 148 is to be served on (A.Y. 2011-12 TO 2013-14) the assessee who is sought to be made liable as representative assessee i..e. the agent of a Non-resident. In the absence of order u/s. 163 of the Act, notice issued u/s. 148 is invalid. 11. In the…

Manish Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 5548/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Manish Tyagi, Vs. Ito, House No. 131, Sector-6, Ward-1(4), Chiranjeev Vihar, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad Pan: Acgpt1413J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Prem Late Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Dudeja, Sr. DR
Section 160Section 160(1)(i)Section 161(1)Section 163Section 2(14)Section 48Section 54F

…ce no such order had been made, the levy of penalty was held to be not justified also observing that not disputing the assessment proceeding cannot be the only foundation for laving penalty. d) The Punjab High Court in CIT vs Kanhaya Lai Gurmukh Singh (1973) 87 ITR 476 came to consider the phraseology of section 163 of the Act on the point. Upon difference of opinion between the two Ld. Judges constituting the Division Bench, the matter was referred to the Ld. Chief Justice. It was observed that under the provisions of 1922 Act, no appeal lay against an order of the Assessing Officer by which a person was deemed…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Narmil Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1152/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishidcit, Vs. Narmil Infosolutions Pvt. Circle-17(2), Ltd, New Delhi C/O Aar & Associates, Ca 701-702, Rg Trade Tower, Netaji Subash Place, Pitampur, New Delhi Pan : Aabcn9307R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 163Section 163(1)Section 195Section 4Section 5Section 9

…63 (2) of the act is mandatory. He submitted that no such order has been passed by the assessing officer and therefore the proceedings are void ab initio. The assessee relied upon the decision of the honourable Punjab and Haryana High Court in 311 ITR 266 and 87 ITR 476, wherein it has been held that the provisions of section 163 (2) are mandatory in character , therefore an order was required to be passed by the ITO declaring assessee as an ‘agent’ of the recipient of income. It was further stated that the order passed under section 163 of the act is also appealable under section 246A of the act and assessee has…

CIT v. Kanhaiyalal Gurmukh Singh (87 ITR 476) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax