Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar

Q: How many judgments cite Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar?

225 judgments on BharatTax cite Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar (1 SCC 591), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 250(6), Section 250(4), Section 1922, Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, Section 250(4) of the Income Tax Act.

1 SCC 591Reported decision1985#393 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar authority for?

The appellate tribunal must render a proper decision on both facts and law, disposing of an appeal on its merits rather than dismissing it solely due to the appellant's absence. This obligation is derived from Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, and reflects principles of natural justice.

225

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar · Chenniyappa Mudiliar · Section 33(4) Income Tax Act 1922 · appellate tribunal duties · appeal dismissal for absence · appeal disposal on merits · natural justice appellate proceedings · opportunity of being heard · right to be heard appeal

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 250(6)Section 250(4)Section 1922 Section 33(4) of the Income Tax Act Section 250(4) of the Income Tax Act Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act Section 1963

Issues it is cited on

section 33(4)section 33 section 250(4)rule of consistency speaking order section 25 opportunity of being heard section 250 assistant commissioner person company india

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax Madras v. Chenniyappa Mudiliar

Ratan Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3737/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 263

…rt in the case of the assessee or any other person. "] The assessee's case is clearly covered by Clause (a) of above explanation (2) to section 263 of the I.T. Act. 15.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundaram Filial v. Pattabiram reported in (1985) 1 SCC 591, culled out from earlier cases the following as objects of an explanation to a statutory provision (Reference Page 214-215, Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 13th Ed.):— (a) To explain the meaning and intendment of the Act itself, (b) Where there is any obscurity or vagueness in the main enactment to clarify the same so…

Uniliver India Exports Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2096/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri P.J. PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)

…nd the scope of the main provision. He submitted, the purpose of bringing an Explanation is to explain the main provision. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) S. Sundaram Pillai &Ors. v/s V.R. Pattaviraman & Ors. [1985] 1 SCC 591; ii) Zakiya Begum and Ors. v/s Shanaz Ali &Ors., [2010] 9 SCC 280; and iii) CIT v/s Knight Frank India Pvt. Ltd., [2016] 72 taxmann.com 300 (Bom.). 9. Drawing our attention to the Finance Bill 2010, the learned Sr. Counsel submitted, the main purpose for which Explanation to sub– section (8) of section 144C of the Act was introduced is to nullify…

Crompton Greaves Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT -6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

ITA 2836/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

For Respondent: Shri C.W. Angolkar

Section 143(3)Section 263

…or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. ]” We would like to refer at this stage to the meaning of ‘Explanation’ as inserted in the Act whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundaram Pillai v. Pattabiram reported in (1985) 1 SCC 591, whereby Fazal Ali , J culled out from earlier cases the following as objects of an explanation to a statutory provision (Reference Page 214-215,Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P.Singh ,13th Ed.):- (a) To explain the meaning and intendment of the Act itself , (b) Where there is any obscurity or vagueness in the main enactment t…

Dr (Ms) B K Naik vs. State of Karnataka

WP/21216/2014HC Karnataka10 Jul 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar

…mendment since it is in the form of an Explanation to Section 3(2). The object of an Explanation to a statutory provision has been culled out from the earlier judicial decisions and succinctly restated in S.Sundaram Pillai v. V.R.Pattabiraman - (1985) 1 SCC 591. “53. Thus, from a conspectus of the authorities referred to above, it is manifest that the object of an Explanation to a statutory provision is— (a) to explain the meaning and intendment of the Act itself, (b) where there is any obscurity or vagueness in the main enactment, to clarify the same as to make it consis…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-1) vs. Late Shri Sudhir Sareen

ITA/284/2015HC Delhi06 Jul 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 375

…dra Kumar14. The alleged object of the impugned Exception, she submits, of protection of conjugal rights and protection of the institution of marriage, would nullify the object of Section 375, of 13 (1985) 1 SCC 591 14 (1998) 5 SCC 192 Digitally Signed By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI Signing Date:11.05.2022 18:14:04 Signature valid This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001825 WP (C) No 284/2015 & connected matters Page 26 of 200 criminalising rape. The impugned Exception, she submits, is unconstit…