What is Dr. Narendra Prasad & Others v. CIT & Another authority for?

A matter decided by the Settlement Commission is a settled state of affairs and cannot be disturbed unless there is a change in facts and circumstances.

How many judgments cite Dr. Narendra Prasad & Others v. CIT & Another?

13 judgments on BharatTax cite Dr. Narendra Prasad & Others v. CIT & Another (322 ITR 171), spanning 2011 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Dr. Narendra Prasad & Others v. CIT & Another come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 14A, Section 250, Section 260A, Section 32, Section 36(1)(vii).

Dr. Narendra Prasad & Others v. CIT & Another (322 ITR 171)

Dy..C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

ITA 683/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(1)Section 41(4)

…regard is placed on the following decisions: • Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT reported in [1992] 193 ITR 321. • Decision of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Alok Nursing Home v. CIT reported in [2010] 322 ITR 171 (Pat.) • Decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT v. Sood Harvester reported in [2008] 304 ITR 279 (P & H) 22. The Ld. DR stands in favour of the orders of revenue authorities. But unable to rebut by submitting any contrary judgment against the submission of the Ld. AR. 23. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material…

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

ITA 660/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(1)Section 41(4)

…regard is placed on the following decisions: • Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT reported in [1992] 193 ITR 321. • Decision of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Alok Nursing Home v. CIT reported in [2010] 322 ITR 171 (Pat.) • Decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CIT v. Sood Harvester reported in [2008] 304 ITR 279 (P & H) 22. The Ld. DR stands in favour of the orders of revenue authorities. But unable to rebut by submitting any contrary judgment against the submission of the Ld. AR. 23. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materi…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 219/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…remost case is that the Assessing Officer has exercised his rectification jurisdiction to correct the corresponding sum(s) involved herein (supra). He clarified that case law of hon'ble Patna high court in Narendra Prasad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2010) 322 ITR 171 (Pat) holds that the issue decided by the Settlement Commission is a settled state of affair which could not be disturbed unless there is change in facts and circumstances. Learned counsel then invites our attention to the assessee’s multi-folded arguments that the impugned disallowance was not at all warranted since it had not incurred any such…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 218/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…remost case is that the Assessing Officer has exercised his rectification jurisdiction to correct the corresponding sum(s) involved herein (supra). He clarified that case law of hon'ble Patna high court in Narendra Prasad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2010) 322 ITR 171 (Pat) holds that the issue decided by the Settlement Commission is a settled state of affair which could not be disturbed unless there is change in facts and circumstances. Learned counsel then invites our attention to the assessee’s multi-folded arguments that the impugned disallowance was not at all warranted since it had not incurred any such…

DCIT, Central Circle - 2(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 217/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 43B

…remost case is that the Assessing Officer has exercised his rectification jurisdiction to correct the corresponding sum(s) involved herein (supra). He clarified that case law of hon'ble Patna high court in Narendra Prasad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2010) 322 ITR 171 (Pat) holds that the issue decided by the Settlement Commission is a settled state of affair which could not be disturbed unless there is change in facts and circumstances. Learned counsel then invites our attention to the assessee’s multi-folded arguments that the impugned disallowance was not at all warranted since it had not incurred any such…