ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah

218 ITR 239Supreme Court of India1996#669 most cited

What is ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah authority for?

Under the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Assessing Officer must tax any taxable income in the hands of the correct assessee to whom it truly belongs, having no option to assess it in any other person's hands.

149

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah · 218 ITR 239 · 84 Taxmann 630 · correct assessee · right person taxation · Assessing Officer's duty · unexplained money · unexplained investment · section 69A · section 132(4) · assessment of income · identification of real owner

Also reported as

84 Taxmann 630

Sections most often in play

Section 69ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 142(1)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144BSection 148
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 271fsection 139(4)section 292csection 292section 271asection 29loose papersunexplained investmentunexplained moneysection 132(4)double taxationsection 23

Judgments citing ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Icici Emerging Sectors Fund, Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 347/BANG/2011[200809]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2015

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeassessment Year : 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri Farahat Hussain Qureshi, CIT-II(DR)
Section 61Section 63

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. India Advantage Fund-I, 10th Floor, Prestige Obelisk, Circle 9(1), Bangalore. No.3, Kasturba Road, Bangalore – 560 001. PAN : AAATI 3344R APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No.348/Bang/2011 Assessment year : 2008-09, 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/s. ICICI Emerging of Income Tax, Sectors Fund, 10th Floor, Prestige Obelisk, Circle 9(1), Bangalore. No.3, Kasturba Road, Bangalore – 560 001. PAN : AAATI…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Virendara Kumar Gupta

ITA-563/2013HC Delhi22 Dec 2013
Section 132(4)Section 264

…order reads as under:- “6. I have given a careful consideration to the case law cited by the assessee and am of the view that the relief may be allowed to the assessee. This reminds me the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs Ch. Atchaiah (218 ITR 239) wherein it is held that the income has to be assessed in the hands of "right person" alone. By "right person" is meant the person who is liable to be taxed, according to law, with respect to a particular income. There are no words in the Income Tax Act, which empower the Income Tax Officer or give him an option to tax either the AOP or it…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sudhir Jain

ITA/575/2013HC Delhi26 Nov 2013
Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 263Section 264

…order reads as under:- “6. I have given a careful consideration to the case law cited by the assessee and am of the view that the relief may be allowed to the assessee. This reminds me the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs Ch. Atchaiah (218 ITR 239) wherein it is held that the income has to be assessed in the hands of "right person" alone. By "right person" is meant the person who is liable to be taxed, according to law, with respect to a particular 2013:DHC:6087-DB ITA Nos. 575/2013…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sudhir Jain

ITA - 575 / 2013HC Delhi26 Nov 2013
Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 263Section 264

…order reads as under:- “6. I have given a careful consideration to the case law cited by the assessee and am of the view that the relief may be allowed to the assessee. This reminds me the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs Ch. Atchaiah (218 ITR 239) wherein it is held that the income has to be assessed in the hands of "right person" alone. By "right person" is meant the person who is liable to be taxed, according to law, with respect to a particular 2013:DHC:6087-DB ITA Nos. 575/2013…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sharad Jain

ITA/564/2013HC Delhi22 Nov 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 132(4)Section 264

…order reads as under:- “6. I have given a careful consideration to the case law cited by the assessee and am of the view that the relief may be allowed to the assessee. This reminds me the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs Ch. Atchaiah (218 ITR 239) wherein it is held that the income has to be assessed in the hands of "right person" alone. By "right person" is meant the person who is liable to be taxed, according to law, with respect to a particular income. There are no words in the Income Tax Act, which empower the Income Tax Officer or give him an option to tax either the AOP or it…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Virendara Kumar Gupta

ITA - 563 / 2013HC Delhi22 Nov 2013
Section 132(4)Section 264

…order reads as under:- “6. I have given a careful consideration to the case law cited by the assessee and am of the view that the relief may be allowed to the assessee. This reminds me the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of ITO vs Ch. Atchaiah (218 ITR 239) wherein it is held that the income has to be assessed in the hands of "right person" alone. By "right person" is meant the person who is liable to be taxed, according to law, with respect to a particular income. There are no words in the Income Tax Act, which empower the Income Tax Officer or give him an option to tax either the AOP or it…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Hyderabad Race Club

ITTA/312/2013HC Telangana30 Jul 2013

CIT vs. Pradeep Agencies Joint Venture

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/221/2011HC Delhi11 Jan 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

For Appellant: Ms Rashmi ChopraFor Respondent: Mr Rakesh Gupta, Ms Rani Kiyala & Mr Kunal Nagpal
Section 167Section 271(1)(c)Section 4Section 67

…he suggested question for being referred to the Special Bench is: “Whether the assessment made on the AOP is invalid, in the light of the Board’s circular dated 24th August 1966 or is valid in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Achtaiah’s case (218 ITR 239)?” The Special Bench ultimately decided the appeal on 31.08.2007 in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The Assessee had filed an appeal before this court under section 260A of the said Act, however, that was also dismissed by this court by an order dated 06.10.2009. Insofar as the quantum proceedings are concerned, the matter rests t…

CIT vs. Pradeep Agencies Joint Venture

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 221 / 2011HC Delhi11 Jan 2012
For Appellant: Ms Rashmi ChopraFor Respondent: Mr Rakesh Gupta, Ms Rani Kiyala & Mr Kunal Nagpal
Section 167Section 271(1)(c)Section 67

…he suggested question for being referred to the Special Bench is: “Whether the assessment made on the AOP is invalid, in the light of the Board’s circular dated 24th August 1966 or is valid in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Achtaiah’s case (218 ITR 239)?” The Special Bench ultimately decided the appeal on 31.08.2007 in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The Assessee had filed an appeal before this court under section 260A of the said Act, however, that was also dismissed by this court by an order dated 06.10.2009. Insofar as the quantum proceedings are concerned, the matter rests t…