(iv) CIT v. British India Corporation Ltd.

337 ITR 64High Court2011#6075 most cited

What is (iv) CIT v. British India Corporation Ltd. authority for?

A question of an Assessing Authority's jurisdiction cannot be disputed after assessment proceedings are completed. Such disputes can only be decided by the Commissioner or the Board, not by an appellate authority under Section 246.

19

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. British India Corporation Ltd. · 337 ITR 64 · Section 124 · Section 124(3) · jurisdiction of assessing officer · dispute jurisdiction after assessment · Commissioner jurisdiction · Board jurisdiction

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 120(4)(b)Section 124(2)Section 124(3)Section 124(3)(a)Section 124(3)(c)Section 127Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 120(4)(b)section 124(3)section 124section 120chief commissionersection 132asection 153csection 12section 115section 153section 153asection 132

Judgments citing (iv) CIT v. British India Corporation Ltd.

VEERPRABHU AUTO PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 2(4), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1218/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250

…lso in favour of revenue; Elite Pharmaceuticals in WP No.1172/2015 dt. 23.02.2016 (Cal). Subhash Chandra vs CIT in 218 CTR 191 (P & H). Pr. CIT vs Mega Corporation Itd ITA 128/2016 23.02.2017 (Delhi). CIT Vs Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi) 337 ITR 64. 6. In Pr. CIT vs Mega Corporation Itd ITA 128/2016 dt. 23.02.2017 (Delhi), the assessee challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer on the basis that the incumbent officer who passed the assessment order had no jurisdiction to do so, as he was not conferred with necessary powers to do so. The assessee pleaded that the AO, i.e. Addl CIT,…

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

…(Appeals) in terms of Section 124(3)(b). Thus, the ITAT cannot entertain this ground of appeal on jurisdiction and it is a matter which can only be decided u/s 124(3)(b). 10.3 The Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of British india Corporation Ltd. (337 ITR 64), has held that any question of jurisdiction of the Assessing authority cannot be disputed after the completion of the assessment proceedings and that it has been specifically provided in the Act that the question of jurisdiction of the assessing authority can be gone into either by the Commissioner or by the Board as the case may be. An appeal to…

M/S. REGIONAL OILSEEDS GROWERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES UNION LIMITED,CHITRADURGA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee on this issue stands dismissed

ITA 1354/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT DR
Section 120(4)(b)Section 124Section 2

…who has passed the assessment order within a period of one month, sub clause (3) of 124 of the act is very clear on this limitation expressed by the legislature. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT vs. British India Corporation Ltd. reported in (2011) 337 ITR 64 has held that the question of jurisdiction of the assessing authority cannot be disputed after the completion of the assessment proceedings. The facts in the case were that assessee filed its return of income Page 22 of 23 ITA Nos. 1354 & 1355/Bang/2016 for the assessment year 1974-75 which was processed by the Assessing Officer, namely, Income…

HAJARIMAL MISHRIMAL BAFANA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2004-05 is dismissed, and that of AY 2005-06 is partly allowed

ITA 176/JAB/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Nov 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(2)Section 43B

…nd which would also meet be the assessee’s reliance on the decision by the Tribunal in Bindal Apparels Ltd. v. ACIT [2006] 104 TTJ (Del) 950: CIT v. Shri Shyam Sunder Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. [2015] 92 CCH 33 (Del) CIT v. British India Corporation Ltd. [2011] 337 ITR 64 (All) Udaipur Distillery Co. vs. CIT [1973] 87 ITR 516 (Raj) Seth Kanhaiya Lal, In Re [1941] 9 ITR 25 (All) The assessee’s legal plea questioning the territorial jurisdiction of the Addl. CIT to act as it’s AO is, in view of the foregoing, without any legal force. We may before parting also clarify, inasmuch the assessee’s Ground makes reference t…

GAYA PRASAD BAJAJ,ALLAHABAD vs. ITO, ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 375/ALLD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad04 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2012-13 Gaya Prasad Bajaj, V. Income Tax Officer, 34-A, Chak Zero Road, Ward-1(2) Allahabad, U.P. Allahabad, U.P. Pan-Aampb9895N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. Abhinav Mehrotra, C.A. Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.08.2021

For Appellant: Mr. Abhinav Mehrotra, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…re, the case was transferred to the Income Tax Officer who was vested with the jurisdiction to complete the assessment. 6. The learned DR relied upon various decisions as under:- B.R. Industries vs CIT 255 ITR 593 CIT vs. British India Corporation ltd. (2011) 337 ITR 64 CIT vs. All India Children Care and Educational Development Society (2014) 357 ITR 134 (Alld.) Hindustan Transport Co. vs. IAC (1991) 289 ITR 326, 331 (Alld.) against which SLP was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (1991) 188 ITR (St) 84 (SC) Kanji Mal & Sons vs. CIT (1982) 138 IRT 391 (Del.) Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. vs. R.R. G…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE vs. SRI C T RAVI , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are dismissed as indicated above

ITA 286/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…412 (All). This case deals with the delay in issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act and is not applicable to the case on hand. ITA Nos. 272 to 274/Bang/2018 ITA Nos. 282 to 286/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 41 (iv) CIT Vs. British India Corporation Ltd., in 337 ITR 64 (All). (v) Vaishali Builders & Colonizers Vs. Addl. CIT (138 ITD 227) (ITAT – Jodhpur) The above cases deal with the issue of jurisdiction under section 124 of the Act and are not applicable to the case on hand. (vi) PCIT Vs. Sheetal International Ltd., (ITA Nos.375 to 379/2017) (Del. HC) The Hon’ble High Court held that when the AO for the ‘pe…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3) , BANGALORE vs. SRI C T RAVI , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are dismissed as indicated above

ITA 285/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…412 (All). This case deals with the delay in issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act and is not applicable to the case on hand. ITA Nos. 272 to 274/Bang/2018 ITA Nos. 282 to 286/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 41 (iv) CIT Vs. British India Corporation Ltd., in 337 ITR 64 (All). (v) Vaishali Builders & Colonizers Vs. Addl. CIT (138 ITD 227) (ITAT – Jodhpur) The above cases deal with the issue of jurisdiction under section 124 of the Act and are not applicable to the case on hand. (vi) PCIT Vs. Sheetal International Ltd., (ITA Nos.375 to 379/2017) (Del. HC) The Hon’ble High Court held that when the AO for the ‘pe…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI C T RAVI , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are dismissed as indicated above

ITA 284/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…412 (All). This case deals with the delay in issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act and is not applicable to the case on hand. ITA Nos. 272 to 274/Bang/2018 ITA Nos. 282 to 286/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 41 (iv) CIT Vs. British India Corporation Ltd., in 337 ITR 64 (All). (v) Vaishali Builders & Colonizers Vs. Addl. CIT (138 ITD 227) (ITAT – Jodhpur) The above cases deal with the issue of jurisdiction under section 124 of the Act and are not applicable to the case on hand. (vi) PCIT Vs. Sheetal International Ltd., (ITA Nos.375 to 379/2017) (Del. HC) The Hon’ble High Court held that when the AO for the ‘pe…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI C T RAVI , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are dismissed as indicated above

ITA 283/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…412 (All). This case deals with the delay in issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act and is not applicable to the case on hand. ITA Nos. 272 to 274/Bang/2018 ITA Nos. 282 to 286/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 41 (iv) CIT Vs. British India Corporation Ltd., in 337 ITR 64 (All). (v) Vaishali Builders & Colonizers Vs. Addl. CIT (138 ITD 227) (ITAT – Jodhpur) The above cases deal with the issue of jurisdiction under section 124 of the Act and are not applicable to the case on hand. (vi) PCIT Vs. Sheetal International Ltd., (ITA Nos.375 to 379/2017) (Del. HC) The Hon’ble High Court held that when the AO for the ‘pe…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI C T RAVI , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are dismissed as indicated above

ITA 282/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…412 (All). This case deals with the delay in issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act and is not applicable to the case on hand. ITA Nos. 272 to 274/Bang/2018 ITA Nos. 282 to 286/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 41 (iv) CIT Vs. British India Corporation Ltd., in 337 ITR 64 (All). (v) Vaishali Builders & Colonizers Vs. Addl. CIT (138 ITD 227) (ITAT – Jodhpur) The above cases deal with the issue of jurisdiction under section 124 of the Act and are not applicable to the case on hand. (vi) PCIT Vs. Sheetal International Ltd., (ITA Nos.375 to 379/2017) (Del. HC) The Hon’ble High Court held that when the AO for the ‘pe…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, BANGALORE vs. SMT.PALLAVI RAVI , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are dismissed as indicated above

ITA 274/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…412 (All). This case deals with the delay in issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act and is not applicable to the case on hand. ITA Nos. 272 to 274/Bang/2018 ITA Nos. 282 to 286/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 41 (iv) CIT Vs. British India Corporation Ltd., in 337 ITR 64 (All). (v) Vaishali Builders & Colonizers Vs. Addl. CIT (138 ITD 227) (ITAT – Jodhpur) The above cases deal with the issue of jurisdiction under section 124 of the Act and are not applicable to the case on hand. (vi) PCIT Vs. Sheetal International Ltd., (ITA Nos.375 to 379/2017) (Del. HC) The Hon’ble High Court held that when the AO for the ‘pe…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, BANGALORE vs. SMT.PALLAVI RAVI , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are dismissed as indicated above

ITA 273/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…412 (All). This case deals with the delay in issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act and is not applicable to the case on hand. ITA Nos. 272 to 274/Bang/2018 ITA Nos. 282 to 286/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 41 (iv) CIT Vs. British India Corporation Ltd., in 337 ITR 64 (All). (v) Vaishali Builders & Colonizers Vs. Addl. CIT (138 ITD 227) (ITAT – Jodhpur) The above cases deal with the issue of jurisdiction under section 124 of the Act and are not applicable to the case on hand. (vi) PCIT Vs. Sheetal International Ltd., (ITA Nos.375 to 379/2017) (Del. HC) The Hon’ble High Court held that when the AO for the ‘pe…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3),, BANGALORE vs. SMT.PALLAVI RAVI , CHIKKAMANGALUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 are dismissed as indicated above

ITA 272/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrashekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 2Section 292C

…412 (All). This case deals with the delay in issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act and is not applicable to the case on hand. ITA Nos. 272 to 274/Bang/2018 ITA Nos. 282 to 286/Bang/2018 Page 9 of 41 (iv) CIT Vs. British India Corporation Ltd., in 337 ITR 64 (All). (v) Vaishali Builders & Colonizers Vs. Addl. CIT (138 ITD 227) (ITAT – Jodhpur) The above cases deal with the issue of jurisdiction under section 124 of the Act and are not applicable to the case on hand. (vi) PCIT Vs. Sheetal International Ltd., (ITA Nos.375 to 379/2017) (Del. HC) The Hon’ble High Court held that when the AO for the ‘pe…

M/S. TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CIR2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3745/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 193 & 3745/Mum/2006 Assessment Year : 2002-03 Tata Sons Limited, ACIT Circle 2(3), Bombay House, Homi Mody Mumbai. Vs. Street, Mumbai 400 001 PAN AAACT4060A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2002-03 ACIT Circle 2(3), Tata Sons Limited, Mumbai. Mumbai 400 001 Vs. PAN AAACT4060A (Appellant) (Respondent) For the assessee : Shri Dinesh Vyas For the Revenue : Shri P C Chhotaray Date of Hearing : 12.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2017 O R D E R Per P…

THE ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA SONS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3658/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 193 & 3745/Mum/2006 Assessment Year : 2002-03 Tata Sons Limited, ACIT Circle 2(3), Bombay House, Homi Mody Mumbai. Vs. Street, Mumbai 400 001 PAN AAACT4060A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2002-03 ACIT Circle 2(3), Tata Sons Limited, Mumbai. Mumbai 400 001 Vs. PAN AAACT4060A (Appellant) (Respondent) For the assessee : Shri Dinesh Vyas For the Revenue : Shri P C Chhotaray Date of Hearing : 12.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2017 O R D E R Per P…

M/S. TATA SONS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT CIR. 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 193/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri P C Chhotaray
Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 193 & 3745/Mum/2006 Assessment Year : 2002-03 Tata Sons Limited, ACIT Circle 2(3), Bombay House, Homi Mody Mumbai. Vs. Street, Mumbai 400 001 PAN AAACT4060A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2002-03 ACIT Circle 2(3), Tata Sons Limited, Mumbai. Mumbai 400 001 Vs. PAN AAACT4060A (Appellant) (Respondent) For the assessee : Shri Dinesh Vyas For the Revenue : Shri P C Chhotaray Date of Hearing : 12.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2017 O R D E R Per P…

SH. RAGHUBIR PRASAD,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 878/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 878/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Sh. Raghubir Prasad, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ak-15, Shalimar Bagh, Ward-19(1), Delhi-110088 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapp1094K Assessee By : Sh. V. K. Tulsiyan, Ca Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.01.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 124(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 246Section 68

…was not maintainable before the ld. CIT(A) as the appeal to him lie only on the grounds enumerated in Section 246 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of British India Corporation Ltd. reported at 337 ITR 64. 7. Being aggrieved the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission made before the authorities below and further submitted that this issue is squarely covered vide order dated 16.05.2016 in ITA No.6487/Del/2012 for the assessment year 2009-10 in the case of ACIT, Circle, Saharanpur Vs M/s Abhay Pigments (P) L…

SH. AMIT KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 877/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 877/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Sh. Amit Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ak-15, Shalimar Bagh, Ward-19(1), Delhi-110088 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aavpk0217C Assessee By : Sh. V. K. Tulsiyan, Ca Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.01.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Tulsiyan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR
Section 124(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 246Section 68

…was not maintainable before the ld. CIT(A) as the appeal to him lie only on the grounds enumerated in Section 246 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of British India Corporation Ltd. reported at 337 ITR 64. 7. Being aggrieved the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission made before the authorities below and further submitted that this issue is squarely covered vide order dated 16.05.2016 in ITA No.6487/Del/2012 for the assessment year 2009-10 in the case of ACIT, Circle, Saharanpur Vs M/s Abhay Pigments (P) L…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. SHRI SHYAM SUNDER INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD

The appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA/236/2014HC Delhi04 Feb 2015
Section 120Section 124Section 124(3)Section 127Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 144Section 147Section 148

…. 4. The Revenue urges that the findings of the ITAT are unsupportable in law and relies upon Section 124(3) to this effect. It also relies upon the judgment of Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. British India Corporation Ltd. (2011) 337 ITR 64. Section 124 of the Act is extracted below: 124. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officers (1) Where by virtue of any direction or order issued under sub- section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 120, the Assessing Officer has been vested 2015:DHC:1118-DB ITA 236/2014 Page | 3 with jurisdiction over any area, within the…

(iv) CIT v. British India Corporation Ltd. (337 ITR 64) — Cited in 19 Judgments | BharatTax