Director of Inspection of Income-tax v. Poor

96 ITR 390Supreme Court of India1974#1257 most cited

What is Director of Inspection of Income-tax v. Poor authority for?

Taxing statutes do not have all provisions as mandatory; some can be directory, and strict interpretation primarily applies to the levy of tax, not necessarily to procedural provisions. No tax can be levied on the principle of estoppel, as Article 265 mandates that tax must be authorized by law.

90

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Director of Inspection of Income-tax v. Pooran Mal & Sons · 96 ITR 390 · mandatory vs directory provisions · strict interpretation of tax statutes · no estoppel in taxation · Article 265 · assessment procedure · section 132(5) Income Tax Act · reassessment proceedings · tax liability authorized by law

Issues it is cited on

section 31section 34section 254income-tax officersection 19reassessment proceedingsassistant commissionersection 139appeal before the tribunalsection 143prescribedsection 25

Judgments citing Director of Inspection of Income-tax v. Poor

National Industrial Corporation Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1871/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

…round of public policy even in such revenue statutes could not be waived, because of the underlying principle that jurisdiction could neither be waived nor created by consent. The decision in Director of Inspection of Income-tax v. Poor an Mall & Sons [1974] 96 ITR 390 (SC), which is so vehemently relied upon by the learned standing counsel, does not detract from the aforesaid ratio, and in fact, reiterates the same. In that case, the question had arisen regarding the waiver of a provision in section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act which permitted the Income-tax Officer to pass an order of seizure within 90 days. T…

M/S. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1864/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

…round of public policy even in such revenue statutes could not be waived, because of the underlying principle that jurisdiction could neither be waived nor created by consent. The decision in Director of Inspection of Income-tax v. Poor an Mall & Sons [1974] 96 ITR 390 (SC), which is so vehemently relied upon by the learned standing counsel, does not detract from the aforesaid ratio, and in fact, reiterates the same. In that case, the question had arisen regarding the waiver of a provision in section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act which permitted the Income-tax Officer to pass an order of seizure within 90 days. T…

National Industrial Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1658/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

…round of public policy even in such revenue statutes could not be waived, because of the underlying principle that jurisdiction could neither be waived nor created by consent. The decision in Director of Inspection of Income-tax v. Poor an Mall & Sons [1974] 96 ITR 390 (SC), which is so vehemently relied upon by the learned standing counsel, does not detract from the aforesaid ratio, and in fact, reiterates the same. In that case, the question had arisen regarding the waiver of a provision in section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act which permitted the Income-tax Officer to pass an order of seizure within 90 days. T…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. National Industrial Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1044/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

…round of public policy even in such revenue statutes could not be waived, because of the underlying principle that jurisdiction could neither be waived nor created by consent. The decision in Director of Inspection of Income-tax v. Poor an Mall & Sons [1974] 96 ITR 390 (SC), which is so vehemently relied upon by the learned standing counsel, does not detract from the aforesaid ratio, and in fact, reiterates the same. In that case, the question had arisen regarding the waiver of a provision in section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act which permitted the Income-tax Officer to pass an order of seizure within 90 days. T…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. National Industrial Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1043/DEL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

…round of public policy even in such revenue statutes could not be waived, because of the underlying principle that jurisdiction could neither be waived nor created by consent. The decision in Director of Inspection of Income-tax v. Poor an Mall & Sons [1974] 96 ITR 390 (SC), which is so vehemently relied upon by the learned standing counsel, does not detract from the aforesaid ratio, and in fact, reiterates the same. In that case, the question had arisen regarding the waiver of a provision in section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act which permitted the Income-tax Officer to pass an order of seizure within 90 days. T…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. National Industrial Corporation Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1042/DEL/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2003-04 Assessment Year: 2004-05 Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Agarwal, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

…round of public policy even in such revenue statutes could not be waived, because of the underlying principle that jurisdiction could neither be waived nor created by consent. The decision in Director of Inspection of Income-tax v. Poor an Mall & Sons [1974] 96 ITR 390 (SC), which is so vehemently relied upon by the learned standing counsel, does not detract from the aforesaid ratio, and in fact, reiterates the same. In that case, the question had arisen regarding the waiver of a provision in section 132(5) of the Income-tax Act which permitted the Income-tax Officer to pass an order of seizure within 90 days. T…

Sri. Cheriyan Abraham, Bangalore vs. Dy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1575/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri S.Venkataraman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R N Parbat, CIT-3 (D.R)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 292BSection 5

…andatory. For this proposition reliance has been placed on the decisions rendered in the cases of - (i) CIT vs. Shivanand Electronics (1994) 119 CTR (Bom) 94 : (1994) 209 ITR 63 (Bom) (ii) Direction of Inspection vs. Puranmal & Sons 1974 CTR (SC) 243 : (1974) 96 ITR 390 (SC) (iii) Topline Shoes Ltd. vs. Corpn. Bank (2002) 6SCC 33 (Paras 6 to 8 at 37-8). 39. It may be noted that no doubt, the foundation to assess or reassess is laid by issue of a valid notice under s. 148, but such jurisdiction is subject to further compliance as has been stipulated in the statute itself. If compliance of the proviso is not made,…

DCIT, Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Discoverture Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed

ITA 50/CTK/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Bibek Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 10ASection 10BSection 139(1)

…iscuss, each of those judgments cited before us as under : Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 12 – The first judgement submitted in paper book II is the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Director of Inspection of Income Tax v. Pooran Mall & Sons (96 ITR 390). In that case, the issue involved was regarding the validity of the order passed by the A.O. u/s 132(5) for retaining the seized assets and hence, this judgement is not relevant in the present case. – The 2nd judgement cited is the judgement of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High court rendered in the case of CIT v. Panama Chemical Works (113 Taxman 717)…

M/S. Vaildor Capital India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1979/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. S.D. Kapila, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. T.M. Shivakumar, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 92C

…ound, the appellant relied upon the following case laws : (i). Kedarnath Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 82 ITR 363 (SC) (ii). CWT vs. Mettles (P) Ltd.. 156 ITR 569 (Del.) (iii). CIT vs. Mrs. V. Chandra, 245 ITR 610 (Del.) (iv). DIT(Inv.) vs. Pooran Mall & Sons, 96 ITR 390 (SC) (v). PV Doshi vs. CIT, 113 ITR 22 (Guj) (vi). CIT vs. Continental Commercial Corp. , 110 ITR 170 (Mad) (vii). Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, 91 ITR 18 (SC) (viii). CIT vs. Mahalaxmi Textile Mills, 66 ITR 710 (SC) (ix). NTPC vs. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC) (x). Stream International Services (P) Ltd. vs. ADIT, ITA 8997/Mum/201…

Saic India Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 6464/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri N.K. Saini

For Appellant: S/Shri S.D. Kapila, R.R. MauryaFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Jain, CIT DR
Section 40Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘I-1’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6464/Del./2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) M/s. SAIC India Private Limited, vs. DCIT, (formerly known as Scicom Technologies Circle 7 (1), Private Limited), New Delhi. (Now known as Wipro Energy IT Services India Private Limited), C/o Wipro Energy IT Services India Private Limited, A – 67, Sector 57, NOIDA. (PAN : AAACI6192A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/Shri S.D. Kapila, R.R. Maurya, Sanjay Kumar, Advocates and Shri Pankaj, CA REVENUE BY : Sh…