Naganatha Iyer v. CIT

60 ITR 647High Court1966#12929 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 237Section 249

Issues it is cited on

section 163section 147(a)section 34(1)section 31section 21section 16section 34section 22best judgment assessmentreason to believeescapement of incomesection 254

Judgments citing Naganatha Iyer v. CIT

ADONIS MARKETING (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1769/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…erved as under: “It is well settled that notice under section 148 cannot be issued when assessment proceedings are pending vide CIT v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas [1959] 36 ITR 569 (SC), CIT v. S.RamanChettiar [19 65] 55 ITR 630 (SC), N.NaganathaIyer v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 647 (Mad.), Ram Bilas Kedar Nath v. ITO [1963] 47 ITR 586 (All.), Dr. Onkar Dutta Sharma v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 359 (All.), Sool Chand RamSewak v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 466 (All.), S.P.Kochhar v. ITO [1 984] 145 ITR 2551 (All.) Trustees of H.E.H. Nizam’s Supplemental Family Trust v. CIT [2000] 242 ITR 3812 (SC) and CIT v. M.K.K.R. Muthu Karuppan Chettiar [1…

ITO, WD.9(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S MAHARAJ VINCOM PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

ITA 35/KOL/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant Vs. M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/O I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…....... Cross-Objector 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [Pan: Aafcm6496E] Vs Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata …………..….......................…...……………....Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Department. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal By The Revenue & Corresponding Cross-Objection By The Assessee Have Been Preferred Against The Order Dated 08.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘सी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य के सम" Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata……………….......................…...……………....Appellant vs. M/s Maharaj Vincom Pvt. Ltd……............…..........................…..…..... Respondent 69, Jamunalal Bajaj Street, Kolkata- 700007. [PAN: AAFCM6496E] C.O. No.6/Kol/2023 (A/o I.T.A. No.35/Kol/2021) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Maharaj Vincom Pvt.…

ITO -INTL TAX CIRCLE 3(3) (2), MUMBAI vs. RAHUL RAJNIKANT PARIKH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 426/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2004-05
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

…isdiction under section 31 of the 1922 Act to issue directions to the extent of conferring jurisdiction upon the Income-tax Officer which he is not lawfully seized of. This view was taken by the Madras High Court in the case of N. Naganatha Iyer v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 647. The said decision was followed by the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Nanalal Tribhovandas [1975] 100 ITR 734. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Madras and Gujarat High Courts in this regard. If it is found that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to make an order of reassessment, it is irrelevant that the jurisdiction…

RAHUL RAJNIKANT PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO INTL TAX CIRCLE 3(3) (2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2003-04
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

…isdiction under section 31 of the 1922 Act to issue directions to the extent of conferring jurisdiction upon the Income-tax Officer which he is not lawfully seized of. This view was taken by the Madras High Court in the case of N. Naganatha Iyer v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 647. The said decision was followed by the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Nanalal Tribhovandas [1975] 100 ITR 734. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Madras and Gujarat High Courts in this regard. If it is found that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to make an order of reassessment, it is irrelevant that the jurisdiction…

KALPESH RAMNIKLAL JHAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ITO INTL TAX CIR 3(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 424/MUM/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2004-05
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

…isdiction under section 31 of the 1922 Act to issue directions to the extent of conferring jurisdiction upon the Income-tax Officer which he is not lawfully seized of. This view was taken by the Madras High Court in the case of N. Naganatha Iyer v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 647. The said decision was followed by the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Nanalal Tribhovandas [1975] 100 ITR 734. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Madras and Gujarat High Courts in this regard. If it is found that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to make an order of reassessment, it is irrelevant that the jurisdiction…

KALPESH RASHMIKANT JHAVERI,MUMBAI vs. ITO IT ,CIRCLE- 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 423/MUM/2022[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2003-04
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 22Section 34Section 34(1)(a)

…isdiction under section 31 of the 1922 Act to issue directions to the extent of conferring jurisdiction upon the Income-tax Officer which he is not lawfully seized of. This view was taken by the Madras High Court in the case of N. Naganatha Iyer v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 647. The said decision was followed by the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Nanalal Tribhovandas [1975] 100 ITR 734. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Madras and Gujarat High Courts in this regard. If it is found that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to make an order of reassessment, it is irrelevant that the jurisdiction…

M/S. OMEGA BIOTECH LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2570/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri B.R.R.Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Vinit Kumar Bindal, CA & Ms. SweetyFor Respondent: Shri P.V.Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 147Section 148

…isdiction under section 31 of the 1922 Act to issue directions to the extent of conferring jurisdiction upon the Income-tax Officer which he is not lawfully seized of. This view was taken by the Madras High Court in the case of N. Naganatha Iyer v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 647. The said decisions was followed by the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Nanalal Tribhovandas [1975] 100 ITR 734. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Madras Gujarat High Court in this regard. If it is found that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to make an order of reassessment, it is irrelevant that the jurisdiction of…

JAZZY CREATIONS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 4560/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: A Coordinate Bench Of This Tribunal, And, Vide Order Dated 19Th August 2013, The Matter Was Remitted To The File Of The Cit(A) By Observing That, “...We Consider It Appropriate To Restore The Entire Issue Regarding The Tp Adjustment To The File Of The Cit(A) With A Direction To Re-Adjudicate The Same By Taking Into Account The Aforesaid Amendment As Well As Other Grievances On The Assessee On Tp Adjustment By Giving The Assessee A Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing.....” The Assessee Is Not Satisfied By The Stand Taken By The Cit(A) In The Remanded Proceedings As Well. That Is Why The Assessee Is Once Again In Appeal Before Us.

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…isdiction under section 31 of the 1922 Act to issue directions to the extent of conferring jurisdiction upon the Income-tax Officer which he is not lawfully seized of. This view was taken by the Madras High Court in the case of N. Naganatha Iyer v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 647 . The said decision was followed by the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Nanalal Tribhovandas [1975] 100 ITR 734 . We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Madras and Gujarat High Courts in this regard. If it is found that the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to make an order of reassessment, it is irrelevant that the jurisdicti…

Naganatha Iyer v. CIT (60 ITR 647) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax