What is DIN. In Dilip Kothari v. PCIT authority for?

An order passed under section 263 is invalid and can be declared so if it does not contain a Document Identification Number (DIN).

How many judgments cite DIN. In Dilip Kothari v. PCIT?

20 judgments on BharatTax cite DIN. In Dilip Kothari v. PCIT (146 Taxmann.com 442), spanning 2023 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does DIN. In Dilip Kothari v. PCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 119(1), Section 127, Section 132, Section 132(4), Section 132(4A), Section 143(3).

DIN. In Dilip Kothari v. PCIT (146 Taxmann.com 442)

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

ITA 700/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.695/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.696/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.697/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.698/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.699/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.700/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.701/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit Shri C. Vijayabaskar बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1) #14/28-1, Sowrastra Street, Chennai. Illupur, Pudukottai-622 102. Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for department)- Ld. Sr. Counsel

Section 143(3)

…wherein Tribunal quashed an assessment order since there was no DIN quoted on the approval granted u/s 153D. In the case of Ankit Jain v DCIT (2023) 155 Taxmann.com, the assessment order was quashed since it did not have a DIN. In Dilip Kothari v. PCIT (2023) 146 Taxmann.com 442, the orders passed u/s 263 was declared invalid because the same did not contain DIN. Our Adjudication of additional legal grounds as raised by the assessee 39. So far as the challenge to order u/s 127, we find that the same is an administrative order to facilitate better management of the assessments in certain cases. Such an exercise co…

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

ITA 697/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.695/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.696/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.697/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.698/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.699/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.700/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.701/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit Shri C. Vijayabaskar बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1) #14/28-1, Sowrastra Street, Chennai. Illupur, Pudukottai-622 102. Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for department)- Ld. Sr. Counsel

Section 143(3)

…wherein Tribunal quashed an assessment order since there was no DIN quoted on the approval granted u/s 153D. In the case of Ankit Jain v DCIT (2023) 155 Taxmann.com, the assessment order was quashed since it did not have a DIN. In Dilip Kothari v. PCIT (2023) 146 Taxmann.com 442, the orders passed u/s 263 was declared invalid because the same did not contain DIN. Our Adjudication of additional legal grounds as raised by the assessee 39. So far as the challenge to order u/s 127, we find that the same is an administrative order to facilitate better management of the assessments in certain cases. Such an exercise co…

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

ITA 696/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for

Section 143(3)

…ein Tribunal quashed an assessment order since there was no DIN quoted on the approval granted u/s 153D. In the case of Ankit Jain v DCIT (2023) 155 Taxmann.com, the assessment order was quashed since it did not have a DIN. In Dilip Kothari v. PCIT (2023) 146 Taxmann.com 442, the orders passed u/s 263 was declared invalid because the same did not contain DIN. Our Adjudication of additional legal grounds as raised by the assessee 39. So far as the challenge to order u/s 127, we find that the same is an administrative order to facilitate better management of the assessments in certain cases. Such an exer…

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

ITA 695/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for

Section 143(3)

…ein Tribunal quashed an assessment order since there was no DIN quoted on the approval granted u/s 153D. In the case of Ankit Jain v DCIT (2023) 155 Taxmann.com, the assessment order was quashed since it did not have a DIN. In Dilip Kothari v. PCIT (2023) 146 Taxmann.com 442, the orders passed u/s 263 was declared invalid because the same did not contain DIN. Our Adjudication of additional legal grounds as raised by the assessee 39. So far as the challenge to order u/s 127, we find that the same is an administrative order to facilitate better management of the assessments in certain cases. Such an exercis…