M/s Sahara India (Farms) v. CIT & Anr.

300 ITR 403Supreme Court of India2008#300 most cited

What is M/s Sahara India (Farms) v. CIT & Anr. authority for?

Administrative orders must be consistent with the rules of natural justice.

268

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

M/s Sahara India (Farms) v CIT · 300 ITR 403 SC · administrative order · natural justice · speaking order

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 132Section 148Section 142(2A)Section 147Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 274(2)section 144basection 243section 153a(1)(a)section 142(2a)section 158bgsection 37bsection 245hacasus omissussection 43(3)section 245csection 271aaa

Judgments citing M/s Sahara India (Farms) v. CIT & Anr.

M/S. Aztecsoft (Now Merged With Mindtree Ltd), Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1434/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Chytanya K. K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Preethi Garg, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 144CSection 92C

…. 10. No opportunity was given to the assessee before making the reference and before according the approval by the CIT. This is against the principles set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar vs. DCIT - 287 ITR 91 and Sahara India (Firm) v CIT - 300 ITR 403 (SC). 11. That the learned authorities below erred in not allowing the deduction u/s 10A for the adjustment made in respect of business carried on by the undertaking eligible for deduction u/s 10A. The appellant prays for allowing of the deduction as per law. 12. The TPO/AO erred in ignoring the method followed by the appellant. The TPO/AO ough…

Col Amarjit D Nagi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 20

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1050/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri. Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri. Vikram Batra
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…atural justice. 14. For this purpose learned AR placed reliance on the following decisions:- Kishinchand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries Civil Appeal No.4228 of 2006 – Supreme Court H.R. Mehta 72 taxmann.com 110 (Bom) Sahara India (Firm)300 ITR 403 (SC) 15. From the record, we also found that all the details in relation to the assets leased to Western Pacques India Limited are on the records of the AO. These Nutech Corporate Services Ltd., vs ITO 8(2)(1) details include purchase invoice of the asset, lease agreement, bank statement in support of payment made for purchase of asset, supportin…

The DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Nutech Coporate Services Ltd (Formerly Known As Iit Capital Services Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2204/MUM/2008[1993-1994]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 1993-1994
For Appellant: Shri. Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri. Vikram Batra
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…atural justice. 14. For this purpose learned AR placed reliance on the following decisions:- Kishinchand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries Civil Appeal No.4228 of 2006 – Supreme Court H.R. Mehta 72 taxmann.com 110 (Bom) Sahara India (Firm)300 ITR 403 (SC) 15. From the record, we also found that all the details in relation to the assets leased to Western Pacques India Limited are on the records of the AO. These Nutech Corporate Services Ltd., vs ITO 8(2)(1) details include purchase invoice of the asset, lease agreement, bank statement in support of payment made for purchase of asset, supportin…

Vishwanath Sugar and vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

WP/104162/2015HC Karnataka16 Mar 2017

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy Writ Petition No.104162 Of 2015 (T-It) Between Vishwanath Sugar & Steel Industries Limited, (Now Called As Vishwaraj Sugar Industries Ltd.,), Having Registered Office At Bellad Bagewadi, Hukkeri Taluk, Belagavi District. Represented By Its Executive Director, Mr. Mukesh Kumar. ... Petitioner (By Shri V. Sheshachala, Sr. Advocate For Shri Gangadhar J M & Praveen P. Tarikar, Advocates) & 1. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Range-1, Belagavi. Opposite To Civil Hospital, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Belagavi.

Section 142

…etitioner as provided under proviso to Section 142(2A) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SAHARA INDIA (FIRM) v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER reported in (2008) 300 ITR 403 and refers to paragraph 23 and 24 of the judgment. 4 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Revenue submits to dismiss the petition. He submits that though by notice dated 20th March 2015 the petitioner was directed to appear on 23rd March 2015, but on the request made by the petitioner, on the said date, the petitioner was prov…

Sukesh Chandran, Vellore vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 1478/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1478/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69B

…y point of dispute and pass a speaking order. Whereas, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not properly adjudicated and should be decided afresh. We rely on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India vs. CIT & Anr. (300 ITR 403) were it was held that "an administrative order has to be consistent with the rules of natural justice" and similar view was considered by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.GAP International Sourcing :- 7 -: India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (8 ITR 0177) and M/s. Adobe Systems India Private Ltd. v. Addl. CIT in ITA No.5043/Del/2010 dated…

Saksoft Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for 8

ITA 517/CHNY/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. T. Banusekar, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Aun C. Bharath, IRS, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 92C

…perly adjudicated. Therefore, we are not in a position to uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) being inconsistent with Transfer Pricing Provisions. We rely on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India vs. CIT & Anr. (300 ITR 403) were held that "an administrative order has to be consistent with the rules of natural justice" and similar view was considered by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of GAP International Sourcing India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (8 ITR 0177) and M/s. Adobe Systems India Private Ltd. v. Addl. CIT in ITA No.5043/Del/2010 dated 21.01.2011, th…

Avo Carbon India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Dc It, Chennai

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

ITA 537/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Anurag Sahay, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…operly adjudicated. Being of, we are not in a position to uphold the order of the DRP as it is not consistent with the provisions of sec.194 C of the Act. We find that the Supreme Court in the case of ITA No.537/Mds./16 :- 6 -: Sahara India vs. CIT & Anr. (300 ITR 403) has held that even “an administrative order has to be consistent with the rules of natural justice”. The same view has been taken by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of GAP International Sourcing India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (8 ITR 0177). Further, in the case of M/s. Adobe Systems India Private Ltd. v. AddI. CIT in ITA No.5043/Del/2010…

M/S Unitech Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeals is allowed and revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5180/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Unitech Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, 6-Community Centre, Range-18, Saket, New Delhi-1100 17 New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacu1482H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Additional Cit, Vs. M/S. Unitech Ltd., Range-18, 6-Community Centre, New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi (Pan: Aaacu1482H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv., Gautam And, Ca & Shjalesh Gupta, Ca Department By: S/Shri Dilip Shivpuri & Ruchir Bhatia, Government Standing Counsels Date Of Hearing : 12 .01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 :04.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:These Cross Appeals Preferred By Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-Xxi, New Delhi Dated 16.8.2013 & Relate To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Appellant-Assessee Is A Public Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Development Of Real Estate Projects. For The Assessment Year Under Consideration, It Filed A Return Declaring An Income Of Rs. 922,30,17,671/- On 29.9.2009, Which Came To Be Assessed At An Income Of Rs. 3361,18,87,560/- In An Order Dated 1.8.2012 Under Section 143(3) Of The Act. On Appeal, Learned Cit(A) Granted Part Relief To The Appellant & Hence The Appeals Before Us.

For Appellant: S/Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv., Gautam and, CA and Shjalesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: S/Shri Dilip Shivpuri & Ruchir Bhatia
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 45Section 48

…arpets v ACIT 224 Taxman 335 (All) Proposition 5: Validity of an order u/s 142(2A) can be challenged before the Hon’ble Tribunal and once such reference is found to be invalid than the order of assessment is barred by limitation i) Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT 300 ITR 403 (SC) Bajrang Textiles v DCIT 83 TTJ 566 approved by Hon’ble Rajasthan High ii) Court in the case of CIT v Bajrang Textiles 294 ITR 561 iii) CIT v Vijay Kumar Rajendra Kumar & Co. 271 ITR 337 (MP) iv) CIT v Subboji Rao Ch. 355 ITR 320 (Kar) Proposition 6: Approval granted by CIT is mechanical approval and is without application of mind and therefo…