Narayanappa v. CIT

63 ITR 219Supreme Court of India1967#503 most cited

What is Narayanappa v. CIT authority for?

The approval required from a higher authority under section 153D of the Income Tax Act is an administrative act, not a quasi-judicial one. Consequently, an opportunity of hearing is not required to be given to the assessee at the stage of obtaining such approval, provided the approving authority is competent.

187

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Narayanappa v. CIT · 63 ITR 219 · section 153D · administrative act · quasi-judicial act · approval from higher authority · opportunity of hearing · JCIT approval · judicial scrutiny · search assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 151Section 250Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153D
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 114(e)section 43(3)section 147(a)section 151(1)section 158bbkelvinatorsection 153bwithin four yearssection 158bcsection 151(2)live linksection 158bg

Judgments citing Narayanappa v. CIT

M/S Veena Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2517/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Jm Ita No. 2517/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 M/S Veena Enterprises Ltd., Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 81, Vigyan Vihar, Income Tax, Circle 17(1), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv3918K Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Sh. Rohit Garg, Fca Sh. Deepesh Jain, Ca & Sh. Udit Naresh, Adv. Revenue By: Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2015 Order Per N.K. Saini, A.M. This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.01.2013 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-19, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Sh. Rohit Garg, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. J. P. Chandrakar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

…1) 80 ITR 467 (SC) " H A Hanji & CO. Vs ITO (1979) 120 ITR 593 (Cal) " Sheo Nath Sing Vs AAC (1971) 82 ITR 147 (SC) " Shri Krishna (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (1996) 221 ITR 538 (SC) " Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. Vs ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34 (SC) " S. Narayanppa Vs CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 at page 222 (SC) " Ganga Saran & Sons (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) " Phool Chand Bajrang Lal Vs ITO (1993) 203 ITR 456 at 477 (SC) 7 Veena Enterprises Ltd. 6. The AO did not find merit in the objections of the assessee and observed that the assessee incurred the following expenses under the head administrative expenses: S. No. Expenses…

ITO, Bangalore vs. Sri. K.G. Vijayakumar, Bangalore

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 19/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Abraham P Georgeincome-Tax Officer, Ward- 6(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Shri K.G.Vijayakumar, No.11705, Tiara Block, Prestige Montecarlo, Yelahanka, Bangalore. … Respondent Pan:Amcpk6022A & Cross Objn.No.81/Bang/2014 (In Ita No.19/Bang/2014) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri K.G.Vijayakumar, Bangalore. … Cross-Objector Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward- 6(4), Bangalore. … Respondent Revenue By: Dr.Shankar Prasad, Jcit(Dr). Assessee By: Shri V.Srinivasan, Ca. Date Of Hearing : 30/12/2014. Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2015. O R D E R Per Smt. P.Madhavi Devi, Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue & The Cross- Objections Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)–

For Appellant: Shri V.Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Shankar Prasad, JCIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income-tax Officer, Ward- 6(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. Shri K.G.Vijayakumar, No.11705, Tiara Block, Prestige Montecarlo, Yelahanka, Bangalore. … Respondent PAN:AMCPK6022A AND Cross Objn.No.81/Bang/2014 (In ITA No.19/Bang/2014) (Assessment year: 2009-10) Shri K.G.Vijayakumar, Bangalore. … Cross-Objector Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 6(4), Bangalore. … Respondent Revenue by: Dr.Shankar Prasad, JCIT(DR). Assessee by: Shri V.Srinivasan, CA. Date of hearing : 30/12/…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. Orient Craft Ltd

ITA/555/2012HC Delhi12 Dec 2012
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 260ASection 28Section 80H

…t made in 1948. In that year the words “definite information” were replaced by the words “reason to believe”. While expatiating on the new words, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court speaking through V. Ramaswami, J., in CIT vs S. Narayanappa (1965) 63 ITR 219 opined as under:- 2012:DHC:7425-DB ITA No.555/2012 Page 9 of 14 “Again the expression "reason to believe" in section 34 of the Income-tax Act does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Income-tax…

Smt. Meera Kapoor vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax

ITA/1395/2008HC Delhi31 Aug 2012
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 147Section 148Section 201Section 260ASection 68

…ITA No.1395/2012 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI DECIDED ON: 31st August, 2012 + ITA No. 1395/2008 Smt. Meera Kapoor ..... Appellant Through: Mr. N.P. Sahni, Advocate. versus Commissioner Of Income Tax ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % Facts: 1. The present appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter called “the Act”) is directed against t…

Central Warehousing Corporaiton vs. ACIT

The appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid

ITA - 464 / 2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011
Section 10Section 11BSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 3

…* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA NO. 464 of 2010 ITA NO. 465 of 2010 ITA NO. 473 of 2010 Judgment Reserved on: December 2,2010 % Judgment Delivered on: January 14, 2011. (1) ITA NO. 464 of 2010 CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION . . . APPELLANT Through : Mr. M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mahua Kalra, Mr. Mayank Nagi, Ms. Husnal Syali and Mr. Sumit K. Singh, Advocates. VERSUS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . .RESPONDENT Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Standing Counsel. (2) ITA N…

Video Electronics P.Ltd vs. Income Tax Officerr

ITA - 1100 / 2009HC Delhi01 Dec 2010
Section 147Section 148

…where original assessment has been made under Section 141(3), there is no substantial change in law in respect of powers of the Assessing Officer for re-opening of completed assessments. The Supreme Court in the case of S.Narayanappa & Ors. Vs. C.CIT & Ors., 63 ITR 219 identified the conditions required to be fulfilled before exercising jurisdiction to reopen a completed assessment under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 corresponding to Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said conditions are as under:- ![](_page_19_Picture_1.jpeg) - (i) The Assessing Officer must have reasons to believe tha…

Video Electronics Ltd vs. Joint CIT

ITA/1415/2008HC Delhi01 Dec 2010
Section 147Section 148

…re original assessment has been made under Section 141(3), there is no substantial change in law in respect of powers of the Assessing Officer for re-opening of completed assessments. The Supreme Court in the case of S.Narayanappa & Ors. Vs. C.CIT & Ors., 63 ITR 219 identified the conditions required to be fulfilled before exercising jurisdiction to reopen a completed assessment under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 corresponding to Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said conditions are as under:- 2010:DHC:5831-DB ITA Nos.1415/08, 1425-6/08,1100/09,1103-4/09 &1200/09…