CIT v. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani

357 ITR 713Supreme Court of India2013#4849 most cited

What is CIT v. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani authority for?

An assessee waives the right to object to the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction if they participate in proceedings without challenging the notices issued.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani · objection to jurisdiction · assumption of jurisdiction · Assessing Officer · participation in proceedings · Safetag International Ltd · IBC Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd

Also reported as

217 Taxmann 13835 Taxmann.com 580
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

substantive assessmentclarificatory amendmentprotective assessmentsection 158bdsection 120section 153c(1)section 292csection 34loose paperssection 44adsection 158bsection 153a(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani

Skylark Build, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 3237/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…lty Shri Sudhakar M. Shetty Sahana Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. . fairly pointed out to us by Mr.Mistry, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-assessee that the above decision was reversed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani [2013] 357 ITR 713/217 Taxman 138/35 taxmann.com 580. However, we find that the Apex Court reversed the view of Gujarat High Court on the ground that efficacious alternative remedy was available to the petitioner to raise its objections before the authorities under the Act. Therefore, the Gujarat High Court should not have exercised its extra ordinary writ jurisdic…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Sudhakar M. Shetty, Mumbai

ITA 2906/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…lty Shri Sudhakar M. Shetty Sahana Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. . fairly pointed out to us by Mr.Mistry, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-assessee that the above decision was reversed by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani [2013] 357 ITR 713/217 Taxman 138/35 taxmann.com 580. However, we find that the Apex Court reversed the view of Gujarat High Court on the ground that efficacious alternative remedy was available to the petitioner to raise its objections before the authorities under the Act. Therefore, the Gujarat High Court should not have exercised its extra ordinary writ jurisdic…

DCIT CC 3(4) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Jivesh Developers & Properties P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue‟s appeals are dismissed

ITA 5643/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

…see to whom notice is issued under Section 153C of the Act. It was fairly pointed out to us by Mr.Mistry, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-assessee that the above decision was reversed by the Supreme Court in CIT V/s Vijaybhai N. Chandrani [20131 357 ITR 713/217 Taxman 138/35 taxmann.com 580. However, we find that the Apex Court reversed the view of Gujarat High Court on the ground that efficacious alternative remedy was available to the petitioner to raise its objections before the authorities under the Act. Therefore, the Gujarat High Court should not have exercised its extra ordinary writ jurisdic…

Sarang & Associates, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1227/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Ita Nos. 1227 To 1229/Mum/2012 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2007-08 To 2009-10) M/S Sarang & Associates, Dy. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ 302, Shabnam Apartment, Tax, Central Circle-36, 33, S.V. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai-400058. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaafs0638J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir S. Chouhan, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153CSection 69

…ee to whom notice is issued under Section 153C of the Act. It was fairly pointed out to us by Mr. Mistry, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent assessee that the above decision was reversed by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Vijaybhai N. Chandrani (2013) 357 ITR 713. However, we find that the Apex Court reversed the view of Gujarat High Court on the ground that efficacious alternative remedy was available petitioner to raise its objections before the authorities under the Act. Therefore, the Gujarat High Court should not have exercised its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction to entertain the petition. However,…