K.V. Produce v. CIT

196 ITR 293High Court1992#9497 most cited

What is K.V. Produce v. CIT authority for?

Circulars issued under section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, while having the force of law, cannot override the provisions of the Act itself. Instructions limiting statutory periods, such as for restraint orders under section 132(3), are ultra vires if contrary to the Act.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Also referred to as

K.V. Produce v. CIT · section 119 · circulars · force of law · override Act · section 132(3) · restraint order · ultra vires · statutory period

Sections most often in play

Section 153BSection 115BBESection 132(3)Section 132(8A)Section 153ASection 68Section 69CSection 250

Issues it is cited on

section 132(5)section 132(2)section 132(3)section 158besection 153b(1)(a)section 153(2)warrant of authorisationsection 153(1)(a)section 153b(1)section 21section 153(1)panchnama

Judgments citing K.V. Produce v. CIT

Mr Ismail Muhammad Khan, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 4289/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…ndex Logistics Pvt Ltd & Ismail Muhammed Khan. was overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC); And in the case of K.V. Produce was overruled by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in K.V. Produce v. CIT (2001) 252 ITR 17 (Ker). Therefore the argument of the Ld. DR has no judicial basis. 33. Even, we noticed that on this issue, the decision of the co-ordinate bench in Polisetty Somasundaram v DCIT (2023) 153 taxmann.com 591 (Vishakapatnam) (Trib) [Pg 81-103] is being followed, wherein at Paras 22- 27, it is held that the release of a prohibitory order after a per…

Mr Ismail Muhammad Khan, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 4288/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…ndex Logistics Pvt Ltd & Ismail Muhammed Khan. was overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC); And in the case of K.V. Produce was overruled by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in K.V. Produce v. CIT (2001) 252 ITR 17 (Ker). Therefore the argument of the Ld. DR has no judicial basis. 33. Even, we noticed that on this issue, the decision of the co-ordinate bench in Polisetty Somasundaram v DCIT (2023) 153 taxmann.com 591 (Vishakapatnam) (Trib) [Pg 81-103] is being followed, wherein at Paras 22- 27, it is held that the release of a prohibitory order after a per…

Mr Ismail Muhammad Khan, Mumbai vs. Assisatnt Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 4286/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…o giving power to a delegated authority to even amend the provision of law enacted by Parliament. Such a contention cannot seriously be even raised (Para 14) The said ratio was reiterated by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of K.V. Produce v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 293 (Kerala) wherein it was held that although circulars issued under section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have force of law, they do not override the law itself. Therefore, it is pleaded that circular/instructions issued by CBDT cannot override the Parent legislation i.e. Income Tax Act, 1961 to the extent they are contrary to the Act. Section…

Ismail Muhammad Khan, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 4273/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…ndex Logistics Pvt Ltd & Ismail Muhammed Khan. was overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC); And in the case of K.V. Produce was overruled by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in K.V. Produce v. CIT (2001) 252 ITR 17 (Ker). Therefore the argument of the Ld. DR has no judicial basis. 33. Even, we noticed that on this issue, the decision of the co-ordinate bench in Polisetty Somasundaram v DCIT (2023) 153 taxmann.com 591 (Vishakapatnam) (Trib) [Pg 81-103] is being followed, wherein at Paras 22- 27, it is held that the release of a prohibitory order after a per…

Ismail Muhammad Khan, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income, Central Circle-1 (2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 4272/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…o giving power to a delegated authority to even amend the provision of law enacted by Parliament. Such a contention cannot seriously be even raised (Para 14) The said ratio was reiterated by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of K.V. Produce v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 293 (Kerala) wherein it was held that although circulars issued under section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have force of law, they do not override the law itself. Therefore, it is pleaded that circular/instructions issued by CBDT cannot override the Parent legislation i.e. Income Tax Act, 1961 to the extent they are contrary to the Act. Section…

Ismail Muhammad Khan, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by both the

ITA 4267/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…o giving power to a delegated authority to even amend the provision of law enacted by Parliament. Such a contention cannot seriously be even raised (Para 14) The said ratio was reiterated by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of K.V. Produce v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 293 (Kerala) wherein it was held that although circulars issued under section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have force of law, they do not override the law itself. Therefore, it is pleaded that circular/instructions issued by CBDT cannot override the Parent legislation i.e. Income Tax Act, 1961 to the extent they are contrary to the Act. Section 1…

M/S. Index Logistics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 3362/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…ndex Logistics Pvt Ltd & Ismail Muhammed Khan. was overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC); And in the case of K.V. Produce was overruled by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in K.V. Produce v. CIT (2001) 252 ITR 17 (Ker). Therefore the argument of the Ld. DR has no judicial basis. 33. Even, we noticed that on this issue, the decision of the co-ordinate bench in Polisetty Somasundaram v DCIT (2023) 153 taxmann.com 591 (Vishakapatnam) (Trib) [Pg 81-103] is being followed, wherein at Paras 22- 27, it is held that the release of a prohibitory order after a per…

M/S. Index Logistics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 3361/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…o giving power to a delegated authority to even amend the provision of law enacted by Parliament. Such a contention cannot seriously be even raised (Para 14) The said ratio was reiterated by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of K.V. Produce v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 293 (Kerala) wherein it was held that although circulars issued under section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have force of law, they do not override the law itself. Therefore, it is pleaded that circular/instructions issued by CBDT cannot override the Parent legislation i.e. Income Tax Act, 1961 to the extent they are contrary to the Act. Section…

M/S. Index Logistics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 3360/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…o giving power to a delegated authority to even amend the provision of law enacted by Parliament. Such a contention cannot seriously be even raised (Para 14) The said ratio was reiterated by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of K.V. Produce v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 293 (Kerala) wherein it was held that although circulars issued under section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have force of law, they do not override the law itself. Therefore, it is pleaded that circular/instructions issued by CBDT cannot override the Parent legislation i.e. Income Tax Act, 1961 to the extent they are contrary to the Act. Section…

M/S. Index Logistics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 3347/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…o giving power to a delegated authority to even amend the provision of law enacted by Parliament. Such a contention cannot seriously be even raised (Para 14) The said ratio was reiterated by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of K.V. Produce v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 293 (Kerala) wherein it was held that although circulars issued under section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have force of law, they do not override the law itself. Therefore, it is pleaded that circular/instructions issued by CBDT cannot override the Parent legislation i.e. Income Tax Act, 1961 to the extent they are contrary to the Act. Section…

M/S. Index Logistics Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 1 (2), Mumbai

In the result all the appeals filed by both the assessees are stands allowed

ITA 3346/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…o giving power to a delegated authority to even amend the provision of law enacted by Parliament. Such a contention cannot seriously be even raised (Para 14) The said ratio was reiterated by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of K.V. Produce v. CIT (1992) 196 ITR 293 (Kerala) wherein it was held that although circulars issued under section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have force of law, they do not override the law itself. Therefore, it is pleaded that circular/instructions issued by CBDT cannot override the Parent legislation i.e. Income Tax Act, 1961 to the extent they are contrary to the Act. Section…

K.V. Produce v. CIT (196 ITR 293) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax