Isha Beevi v. TRO

101 ITR 449Supreme Court of India1975#4590 most cited

What is Isha Beevi v. TRO authority for?

An error in mentioning the specific sub-section of a law, or referencing a wrong section, does not invalidate an action if the authority otherwise possesses the power to take that action.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Isha Beevi v. TRO · section 127 · wrong section · irregular order · curable defect · administrative order · substantive rights · jurisdiction · section 120 · section 124

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 115BBCSection 12Section 120Section 124Section 127Section 12ASection 12AA

Issues it is cited on

section 132(4a)(i)section 292c(1)(i)section 292c(1)section 143(1)(a)(v)section 143(1)(a)(ii)section 292bbsource of sourcesection 80acsection 292bsection 132(4a)section 127section 292c

Judgments citing Isha Beevi v. TRO

Sh. Manish Periwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 5158/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: PendingITAT Delhi08 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Ramesh. P. Tolani & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

…ort of his decision relied on following judgments: 7 ITA No. 5157-5162/Del/2014 (Manish Periwal ) (a) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. V. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 126 (SC) (b) Estate of Late Rangalal Jajodia V. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 505 (SC) (c) Isha Beevi V. TRO [1975] 101 ITR 449 (SC) 7. Ld. CIT(A) finally confirmed the penalty orders passed by ld. AO by following observations : “ In view of the above factual and legal position in the matter, the penalties imposed u/s 271(1)(b) for refusal, without reasonable cause, to furnish the information sought and to execute the consent letter vide the three notices issued by the re…

Sh. Manish Periwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 5157/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: PendingITAT Delhi08 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. Ramesh. P. Tolani & Sh. Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

…ort of his decision relied on following judgments: 7 ITA No. 5157-5162/Del/2014 (Manish Periwal ) (a) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. V. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 126 (SC) (b) Estate of Late Rangalal Jajodia V. CIT [1971] 79 ITR 505 (SC) (c) Isha Beevi V. TRO [1975] 101 ITR 449 (SC) 7. Ld. CIT(A) finally confirmed the penalty orders passed by ld. AO by following observations : “ In view of the above factual and legal position in the matter, the penalties imposed u/s 271(1)(b) for refusal, without reasonable cause, to furnish the information sought and to execute the consent letter vide the three notices issued by the re…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Moon Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 416/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms Nirupma Kotru, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153C

…to name or there is a misdescription of the name, the proceeding will be liable to be challenged and corrected by giving notice to the assessee subject to such just exceptions as an assessee can take under law.” It has further held in Isha Beevi v. TRO [1975] 101 ITR 449 that “Where the power to proceed is actually there, the mere reference to a wrong section for authority to act will not vitiate the action taken. It is not enough if a wrong section or provision of law is cited in a notice or order if the power to proceed is actually there under another provision.” In the present case a MOU dated 26.08.2009 3.5…

Moon Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 203/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms Nirupma Kotru, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153C

…to name or there is a misdescription of the name, the proceeding will be liable to be challenged and corrected by giving notice to the assessee subject to such just exceptions as an assessee can take under law.” It has further held in Isha Beevi v. TRO [1975] 101 ITR 449 that “Where the power to proceed is actually there, the mere reference to a wrong section for authority to act will not vitiate the action taken. It is not enough if a wrong section or provision of law is cited in a notice or order if the power to proceed is actually there under another provision.” In the present case a MOU dated 26.08.2009 3.5…

Moon Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, I.T.A. Nos

ITA 202/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms Nirupma Kotru, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139Section 153C

…to name or there is a misdescription of the name, the proceeding will be liable to be challenged and corrected by giving notice to the assessee subject to such just exceptions as an assessee can take under law.” It has further held in Isha Beevi v. TRO [1975] 101 ITR 449 that “Where the power to proceed is actually there, the mere reference to a wrong section for authority to act will not vitiate the action taken. It is not enough if a wrong section or provision of law is cited in a notice or order if the power to proceed is actually there under another provision.” In the present case a MOU dated 26.08.2009 3.5…