Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi

4 SCC 307Supreme Court of India2012#1021 most cited

What is Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi authority for?

Conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function that cannot be granted by consent or by a superior court. Any order or decree passed without jurisdiction is a nullity, rendering it void, and this issue can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, including in appeal or execution.

106

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi · jurisdiction · legislative function · order without jurisdiction · nullity · void ab initio · procedural defect · objection at any stage · Section 153A · Section 143(3) · Document Identification Number · DIN

Also reported as

2015 SCC OnLine BOM 1686

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 132Section 143(3)Section 143(2)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 144(b)section 115whsection 124(3)(a)section 115wfsection 115wdsection 115wesection 153cofsection 127(2)(a)section 124(3)section 11bsection 144(3)section 153aof

Judgments citing Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi

Tushar R. Jagtap, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 726/PUN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…CIT Vs. Lalitkumar Bardia (supra), wherein it has been held that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence would not confer jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307, wherein it was observed as under:- “18. It is settled position in law that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence will not confer jurisdiction. The Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini (supra) made observations, which are apposite to the issue at hand and which read as under:- “22. There can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposi…

Tushar R. Jagtap, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 725/PUN/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal &
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…CIT Vs. Lalitkumar Bardia (supra), wherein it has been held that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence would not confer jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini Vs. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307, wherein it was observed as under:- “18. It is settled position in law that mere participation in proceedings or acquiescence will not confer jurisdiction. The Apex Court in Kanwar Singh Saini (supra) made observations, which are apposite to the issue at hand and which read as under:- “22. There can be no dispute regarding the settled legal proposi…

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

…relevant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that challenge to the "inherent jurisdiction" can be raised at any belated stage of the proceedings including in appeal or execution in the following two cases: i) Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307. ii) Kiran Singh v/s. Chaman - AIR 1954 S.C. 340 In any event, it is clear that majority of the decisions have taken a view which is contrary to the view taken by the Delhi High Court and, therefore, if there are two views, the view which is in favour of the assessee should be followed by applying the following binding judgments in the case of CI…

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

…relevant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that challenge to the "inherent jurisdiction" can be raised at any belated stage of the proceedings including in appeal or execution in the following two cases: i) Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307. ii) Kiran Singh v/s. Chaman - AIR 1954 S.C. 340 In any event, it is clear that majority of the decisions have taken a view which is contrary to the view taken by the Delhi High Court and, therefore, if there are two views, the view which is in favour of the assessee should be followed by applying the following binding judgments in the case of CI…

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

…relevant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that challenge to the "inherent jurisdiction" can be raised at any belated stage of the proceedings including in appeal or execution in the following two cases: i) Kanwar Singh Saini vs. High Court of Delhi (2012) 4 SCC 307. ii) Kiran Singh v/s. Chaman - AIR 1954 S.C. 340 In any event, it is clear that majority of the decisions have taken a view which is contrary to the view taken by the Delhi High Court and, therefore, if there are two views, the view which is in favour of the assessee should be followed by applying the following binding judgments in the case of CI…

Steel Authority of India Ltd vs. DCIT, Circle 9(1)

Appeal is dismissed as devoid of any merit

ITA/1/2013HC Delhi12 Aug 2013

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

For Appellant: Mr Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate with
Section 19

…ative part of that order was only to discharge the show cause notice issued to the appellant and no further direction could be read in the said order. The learned senior counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh v. DHC: (2012) 4 SCC 307 in support of the contention that an interim order merges in the final order after it is passed. The learned senior counsel contended that the impugned order proceeds on the basis that the appellant is guilty of repeatedly disobeying the orders and wilfully defying the orders of the Court. It is contended that the conclusion is wholly erroneo…