How many judgments cite CIT v. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar?

85 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar (267 ITR 654), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 234B, Section 143(2), Section 132, Section 142(1), Section 153A, Section 271(1)(c).

CIT v. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar

267 ITR 654Supreme Court of India2004#1342 most cited

What is CIT v. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar authority for?

This case established a principle regarding the application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) versus domestic tax law, particularly concerning the use of more beneficial provisions for an assessee, though its specific impact has been nullified by subsequent legal amendments.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar · 267 ITR 654 · Section 90(3) · Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement · DTAA benefits · tax treaty override · beneficial provision · subsequent legal amendments · Azadi Bachao Andolan

Sections most often in play

Section 234B Section 143(2)Section 132 Section 142(1)Section 153A Section 271(1)(c)Section 69 Section 163

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 90(3)section 65(b)section 65b(4)section 163 section 276 section 43d section 36(2)(v)section 41(4)azadi bachao andolan section 153b(1)house property income section 43b(f)

Judgments citing CIT v. P.V.A.L. Kulandagan Chettiar

M.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2773/CHNY/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/S. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle Ii, Karaikudi Madurai [Pan Aaccm 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 6(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘ D’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2772 & 2773/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2005-06 & 2006-2007. M/s. M.R.M. Plantations P. Ltd, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No.40, M.R.M Arcade, Income Tax, Amman Sannathi Street, Circle II, Karaikudi Madurai [PAN AACCM 9058R ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos. 2946, 2947 & 2948/Mds/2014 "…

M.R.M.Plantations P. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Madurai

In the results, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2772/CHNY/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri. T.N. Seetharaman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 6(3)

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. M/S State Bank of Mysore, H Ead Office, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2008-09 are allowed and Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2008-09 are dismissed

ITA 1079/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jason P. Boazi.T. A. Nos.1079 & 1080/Bang/2014 (Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E.S. Nagendra Prasad, CIT (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 36(1)(viia)

…ter the date of decision cited by the learned CIT DR in the case of Tolaram Hassomal (supra), we 13 are inclined to follow the latest decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court decided after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported at 267 ITR 654. As all the facts relating the additional legal grounds taken before us are and accordingly proceed to decide the same.” From the above discussion, it is clear that when a legal question is raised, the Tribunal cannot be precluded from admitting the same and considering it in accordance with law and cannot refuse to entertain the same. 3.5.1 Now…

Shri. E. Krishnappa, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2009-10 are allowed

ITA 313/BANG/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2015AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 200Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ter the date of decision cited by the learned CIT DR in the case of Tolaram Hassomal (supra), we 13 are inclined to follow the latest decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court decided after considering the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported at 267 ITR 654. As all the facts relating the additional legal grounds taken before us are already on record, we are inclined to entertain the additional grounds which are purely legal in nature and accordingly proceed to decide the same.” From the above discussion, it is clear that when a legal question is raised, the Tribunal cannot be precluded from admitti…

Dy. Commr. of Income Tax, Ujjain vs. M/S Torqouise Investment & Finance Ltd

Appeals are dismissed

C.A. No.-004485-004485 - 2007Supreme Court20 Feb 2008

For Respondent: Torqouise Investment & Finance Ltd

Section 143(1)(a)Section 5(1)(c)

…." On question No.1, the High Court, following the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. SRM Firm & Ors. reported in 208 ITR 400 which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. PVAL Kulandagan Chettiar reported in 267 ITR 654, held that the Tribunal was justified in holding that dividend income derived by the assessee from a company in Malaysia is not liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee in India under any of the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the High Court has CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4485 OF 2007 -4- answered question No.1…