Judges in P K Palanisamy v. N Arumugham

9 SCC 173Supreme Court of India2009#16208 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(1)Section 145(3)Section 2(12A)

Issues it is cited on

section 132(4a)(i)section 292c(1)(i)section 292c(1)section 292bbsource of sourcesection 292bsection 132(4a)section 292csection 127section 292non-application of mindsection 29

Judgments citing Judges in P K Palanisamy v. N Arumugham

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Ms Communique Marketing Solutions Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of Assessee is allowed

ITA 4762/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Ms Commmunique Marketing Tax, Circle 4(2), Solutions (P) Ltd., 5407, Arya Samaj New Delhi. Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 Pan :Aaccc3432F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37Section 68

…following the judgments, this principle has been provided. a. Jayeshkumar Chhakaddas Shah v/s GordhanjiMafaji Thakor, Civil Appeal No. 10521 of 2013 (SC). b. J. Kumaradasan Nair Vs. IRIC Sohan 2009 AIR SCW 1921 (SC); c. P.K. Palanisamy v. N. Arumugham, (2009) 9 SCC 173 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court; d. Mandlal Jaiswal & Co. v. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 540; e. Shri Cherian Abraham Vs. DCIT, LT.A. No. 575/Bang/2016; f. ITR 36 - Madras HC - CIT vs Madurai Knitting Co-doj: 13.02.1975; g. Namdev Arora [2016] 72 taxmann.com 124 [Punjab & Haryana]; & ITA No. 4762/Del.2024 & CO No.27/Del/2025 h. Manoj Aggarwal [2008] 113 ITD…

DCIT, CC-I, Ludhiana vs. Oswal Polycot (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1108/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

…f law, when the authority concerned is otherwise empowered to carry out an act, could not vitiate the act on such ground alone. Likewise, and on taking note of N Mani (supra) and Ram Sunder Ram (supra), 2 learned Judges in P K Palanisamy v N Arumugham, (2009) 9 SCC 173 opined as under: ‘27. … Only because a wrong provision was mentioned by the appellant, the same, in our opinion, by itself would not be a ground to hold that the application was not maintainable or that the order passed thereon would be a nullity. It is a well-settled principle of law that mentioning of a wrong provision or non- mentioning of a pro…

DCIT, CC-I, Ludhiana vs. Oswal Polycot (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1107/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

…f law, when the authority concerned is otherwise empowered to carry out an act, could not vitiate the act on such ground alone. Likewise, and on taking note of N Mani (supra) and Ram Sunder Ram (supra), 2 learned Judges in P K Palanisamy v N Arumugham, (2009) 9 SCC 173 opined as under: ‘27. … Only because a wrong provision was mentioned by the appellant, the same, in our opinion, by itself would not be a ground to hold that the application was not maintainable or that the order passed thereon would be a nullity. It is a well-settled principle of law that mentioning of a wrong provision or non- mentioning of a pro…

Oswal Polycot (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-I, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1105/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

…f law, when the authority concerned is otherwise empowered to carry out an act, could not vitiate the act on such ground alone. Likewise, and on taking note of N Mani (supra) and Ram Sunder Ram (supra), 2 learned Judges in P K Palanisamy v N Arumugham, (2009) 9 SCC 173 opined as under: ‘27. … Only because a wrong provision was mentioned by the appellant, the same, in our opinion, by itself would not be a ground to hold that the application was not maintainable or that the order passed thereon would be a nullity. It is a well-settled principle of law that mentioning of a wrong provision or non- mentioning of a pro…

Oswal Polycot (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-I, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1104/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

…f law, when the authority concerned is otherwise empowered to carry out an act, could not vitiate the act on such ground alone. Likewise, and on taking note of N Mani (supra) and Ram Sunder Ram (supra), 2 learned Judges in P K Palanisamy v N Arumugham, (2009) 9 SCC 173 opined as under: ‘27. … Only because a wrong provision was mentioned by the appellant, the same, in our opinion, by itself would not be a ground to hold that the application was not maintainable or that the order passed thereon would be a nullity. It is a well-settled principle of law that mentioning of a wrong provision or non- mentioning of a pro…

Oswal Polycot (India) Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-I, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1103/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

…f law, when the authority concerned is otherwise empowered to carry out an act, could not vitiate the act on such ground alone. Likewise, and on taking note of N Mani (supra) and Ram Sunder Ram (supra), 2 learned Judges in P K Palanisamy v N Arumugham, (2009) 9 SCC 173 opined as under: ‘27. … Only because a wrong provision was mentioned by the appellant, the same, in our opinion, by itself would not be a ground to hold that the application was not maintainable or that the order passed thereon would be a nullity. It is a well-settled principle of law that mentioning of a wrong provision or non- mentioning of a pro…

Judges in P K Palanisamy v. N Arumugham (9 SCC 173) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax