Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen

56 ITR 198Supreme Court of India1965#384 most cited

What is Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen authority for?

The Supreme Court holds that circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) are binding on all officers and persons employed in the execution of the Income-tax Act. These circulars are binding even if they deviate from the provisions of the Act, particularly when issued to relieve hardships.

230

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 1999 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen · CBDT circulars binding · instructions binding on tax authorities · Section 119 Income Tax Act · circulars deviate from Act · relief hardship instructions · income-tax officers bound by circulars · assessment procedure · 56 ITR 198 · Central Board of Direct Taxes · binding nature of circulars · power to issue instructions

Also reported as

1 SCR 909

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 131(1A)Section 153ASection 132ASection 269SSSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

Issues it is cited on

section 5(8)closely held companyprincipal director general of income-taxaccumulated profitssection 292bsection 292bbsection 260section 260asection 282section 292section 119section 29

Judgments citing Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen

M/S Cae Flight Training (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, Both the C

ITA 84/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

…of Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to survey the judicial precedents on the question of binding nature of the CBDT circulars. After elaborately dealing with Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgments in the cases of Navnit Lal C. Jhaveri vs. K.K. Sen, AAC (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC) and K.P. Varghese vs. ITO & Anr. (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358 : (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC), their Lordships concluded that the CBDT circulars inter alia can tone down the rigour of the law and such benevolent circulars are binding on the field authorities. It cannot therefore be open to a Revenue authority to disregard the CBDT circular even if it dev…

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Cae Flight Training Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, Both the C

ITA 63/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

…of Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to survey the judicial precedents on the question of binding nature of the CBDT circulars. After elaborately dealing with Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgments in the cases of Navnit Lal C. Jhaveri vs. K.K. Sen, AAC (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC) and K.P. Varghese vs. ITO & Anr. (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358 : (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC), their Lordships concluded that the CBDT circulars inter alia can tone down the rigour of the law and such benevolent circulars are binding on the field authorities. It cannot therefore be open to a Revenue authority to disregard the CBDT circular even if it dev…

ACIT Circle-1, Agra vs. Foot Style, Agra

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 440/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra10 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Lalit Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 268ASection 268A(1)

…case, as in our opinion, the Circular issued by the CBDT is binding on the departmental officers in view of the provisions of Section 268A(1) of the Income Tax Act. The said view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Navneet Lal Zaveri’, 56 ITR 198 (SC). We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 10/07/2019. (Dr. M.L. Meena) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKV*…

M/S G G Oils & Fats Pvt.Ltd, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 508/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi. T. A. No. 508/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora &For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 2(18)Section 2(22)(e)Section 56

…CIT v. P.K. Badiani [1970] 76 ITR 369 (Bom); and Walchand & Co. Ltd. (supra) were, besides K.M.S. Lakshmana Aiyer (supra), also noted with approval in Tarulata Shyam (supra). The Hon’ble Court also drew on its’ decision in Navnit Lal C. Jhaveri v. AAC [1965] 56 ITR 198 (SC), also relied upon before it. The first question afore-stated (refer para 4.3) is, accordingly, answered in the negative. The second question, i.e., as regards the relevance of the retention period, does not consequently arise. 4.5 Continuing further, clearly, there is two-way traffic, i.e., receipt of loan or advance, as well as its’ repayme…

Futuristic Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Prcit (Central), Gurugram

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1043/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2009-10] M/S Futuristic Sales [P] Ltd Vs. The Pr. C.I.T Flat No. 97, Sfs, First Floor Central Ashok Vihar, Phase – Iv Gurgaon New Delhi Pan No: Aaacf 6597 N [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 148Section 263

…. Act, 1961 and/or recording a disclosure of undisclosed income under undue pressure/coercion shall be viewed by the Board of adversely.” 8.4.1 It is submitted, that instructions of CBDT are binding as has been held in the following judicial pronouncements: 56 ITR 198 (SC) Navnit Lai C. Javeri vs. K. K. Sen i) 82 ITR 913 (SC) Ellerman Linces Ltd. vs. C1T ii) 237 ITR 889 (SC) CIT vs. UCO Bank Ltd. iii) 247 ITR 128 (SC)Taper Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner of iv) Central Excise 131 ITR 597 (SC) K. P. Varghese vs. ITO v) 183 ITR 1 (SC) Keshavji Ravji and Co. vs. CIT vi) 252 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Anjum M. H. Ghaswal…

ACIT, Circle, Azamgarh vs. Smt. Sharmila Devi, Deoria

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 214/ALLD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad09 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit V. Smt. Sharmila Devi Circle Deoria Azamgarh Tan/Pan:Aclpd4993H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri C. S. Bharti, D.R. Respondent By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 08 05 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 09 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Revenue’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Gorakhpur, Dated 15/5/2017, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. A.R. Of The Assessee Submitted That In The Appeal Filed By The Revenue, The Tax Effect On The Income In Dispute Is Less Than Rs.20 Lakhs. 3. The Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Vide Circular No. 3/2018 Dated 11Th July, 2018 File No.279 Of Misc.142/2007-Itj (Pt), Has Issued The Direction In Supersession Of The Instruction No.21/2015 Dated 10Th December, 2015 In Consonance With The Power Entrusted Under Section 268A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 That No Appeal Should Be Filed Before The Tribunal In Case The Tax Effect Does Not Exceed Rs.20 Lakhs. The "Tax Effect" In This Regard Means The Difference Between The Tax On The Total Income Assessed & The Tax That Would Have Been Chargeable, Had Ita No.214/Alld/2017 Page 2 Of 3

For Appellant: Shri C. S. Bharti, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate
Section 268ASection 268A(1)

…s in our opinion, the Circular issued by the CBDT is binding on the Department in view of the provisions of Section 268A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Navnit Lal Jhaveri vs. K. K. Sen, 56 ITR 198 (SC). We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 09/05/2019. [T. S. KAPOOR] [A. D. JAIN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED:09/05/2019 JJ:0805 ITA No.214/ALLD/2017 Page 3 of 3…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1), Jabalpur vs. Shri Kriti Kumar Tiwari, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 132/JAB/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur03 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2015-16 Asstt. C.I.T. V. Shri Kirti Kumar Tiwari Circle 2(1) 267, Garha Pahatak Jabalpur Jabalpur Tan/Pan:Acwpt4759P (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.14/Jab/2018 [In Ita No.132/Jab/2018] Assessment Year:2015-16 Shri Kirti Kumar Tiwari V. Asstt. C.I.T. 267, Garha Pahatak Circle 2(1) Jabalpur Jabalpur Tan/Pan:Acwpt4759P (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Department By: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Assessee By: Shri L. L. Sharma, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 02 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 04 2019

For Appellant: Shri L. L. Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R
Section 268ASection 268A(1)

…s in our opinion, the Circular issued by the CBDT is binding on the Department in view of the provisions of Section 268A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Navnit Lal Jhaveri vs. K. K. Sen, 56 ITR 198 (SC). We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. ITA No.132/JAB/2018 & C.O. No.14/JAB/2018 Page 3 of 3 5. At the time of hearing, the ld. A.R. of the assessee has also made a request to withdraw the cross objection filed on behalf of the assessee. Considering the request of the ld. A.R. of the assessee, the cross objection of the…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-Narshingpur, Narshingpur vs. Hiralal Chunnilal & Sons, Narshingpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 49/JAB/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur02 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2011-12 Income Tax Officer V. M/S Hiralal Chunnilal & Sons Ward, Narsinghpur Ram Niwas Mahajani Ward, Narsinghpur Tan/Pan:Aacfh5629N (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Assessee By: Shri Rahul Bardia, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 01 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 02 04 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jabalpur, Dated 29/8/2017, For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. A.R. Of The Assessee Submitted That In The Appeal Filed By The Revenue, The Tax Effect On The Income In Dispute Is Less Than Rs.20 Lakhs. 3. The Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Vide Circular No. 3/2018 Dated 11Th July, 2018 File No.279 Of Misc.142/2007-Itj (Pt), Has Issued The Direction In Supersession Of The Instruction No.21/2015 Dated 10Th December, 2015 In Consonance With The Power Entrusted Under Section 268A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 That No Appeal Should Be Filed Before The Tribunal In Case The Tax Effect Does Not Exceed Rs.20 Lakhs. The "Tax Effect" In This Regard Means The Difference Between The Tax On The Total Income Assessed & The Tax That Would Have Been Chargeable, Had

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R
Section 268ASection 268A(1)

…s in our opinion, the Circular issued by the CBDT is binding on the Department in view of the provisions of Section 268A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Navnit Lal Jhaveri vs. K. K. Sen, 56 ITR 198 (SC). We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02/04/2019. [T. S. KAPOOR] [A. D. JAIN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED:02/04/2019 JJ: ITA No.49/JAB/2017 Page 3 of 3…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1), Jabalpur vs. M/S. Advin Exports Private Limited

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 258/JAB/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur02 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2005-06 Asstt. C.I.T. 2(1) V. M/S Advin Exports Pvt. Ltd. Jabalpur Goenka Bhawan Station Road, Katni, Jabalpur Tan/Pan:Aafca3555N (Appellant) (Respondent) C. O. No.04/Jab/2017 [In Ita No.258/Jab/2016] Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/S Advin Exports Pvt. Ltd. V. Asstt. C.I.T. 2(1) Goenka Bhawan Jabalpur Station Road, Katni, Jabalpur Tan/Pan:Aafca3555N (Cross-Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R
Section 268ASection 268A(1)

…BDT is binding on the Department in view of the provisions of Section 268A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ITA No.258/JAB/2016 & CO 4/J/2017 Page 3 of 3 The said view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Navnit Lal Jhaveri vs. K. K. Sen, 56 ITR 198 (SC). We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. Since we have dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, the cross objection filed by the assessee, which is in support of the order of the ld. CIT(A), has become infructuous and hence the same is dismissed as infructuous. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross obje…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Jabalpur vs. Shri Neeraj Sharma, Jabalpur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 76/JAB/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorit(Ss)A No.15/Jab/2018 Assessment Year:2013-14 Dy. C.I.T. (Central) V. Shri Neeraj Sharma Jabalpur 765, Anand Cinema Road Napier Town, Jabalpur Tan/Pan:Askps5959G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2015-16 Dy. C.I.T. (Central) V. Shri Neeraj Sharma Jabalpur 765, Anand Cinema Road Napier Town, Jabalpur Tan/Pan:Askps5959G (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Assessee By: Shri Rahul Bardia, C.A. Date Of Hearing: 01 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 02 04 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jabalpur, Both Dated 10/1/2018 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. A.R. Of The Assessee Submitted That In These Appeals Filed By The Revenue, The Tax Effect On The Income In Dispute Is Less Than Rs.20 Lakhs.

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R
Section 268ASection 268A(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A No.15/JAB/2018 Assessment Year:2013-14 Dy. C.I.T. (Central) v. Shri Neeraj Sharma Jabalpur 765, Anand Cinema Road Napier Town, Jabalpur TAN/PAN:ASKPS5959G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year:2015-16 Dy. C.I.T. (Central) v. Shri Neeraj Sharma Jabalpur 765, Anand Cinema Road Napier Town, Jabalpur TAN/PAN:ASKPS5959G (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Assessee by: Shri Rahul Bardia, C.A. Date of hearing: 01 04 2019 Date of pronounceme…

The DCIT, 1(1), Bhopal vs. Smt. Sarita Chawla, Bhopal

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 402/IND/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri Manish Borad

Section 268ASection 268A(1)

…merits of the case as in our opinion the circulars issued by CBDT are binding on the departmental officers in view of the provision of Section 268A(1) of the Act. The said view has been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Navneet Lal Zaveri Vs. AAC 56 ITR 198 (SC). Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue in the case of Director of Income Tax vs. S.R.M.B. Dairy Farming (P) Ltd. in Civil Appeal No. 19650 of 2017 has followed the case of three Judges Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Central-III vs. Surya Herbal Ltd. and has held that the circular would ap…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Kanpur vs. M/S. Axis Educational Society, Kanpur

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 345/LKW/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Feb 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri C. K. Singh, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate
Section 268ASection 268A(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.343 to 345/LKW/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Dy. CIT (TDS) v. M/s Axis Educational Society Kanpur 117/N/88, Kakadeo Kanpur TAN/PAN:KNPA02405E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. Respondent by: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate Date of hearing: 12 02 2019 Date of pronouncement: 22 02 2019 O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: These appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)-II, Kanpur dated 1/2/2…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Kanpur vs. M/S. Axis Educational Society, Kanpur

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 344/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri C. K. Singh, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate
Section 268ASection 268A(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.343 to 345/LKW/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Dy. CIT (TDS) v. M/s Axis Educational Society Kanpur 117/N/88, Kakadeo Kanpur TAN/PAN:KNPA02405E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. Respondent by: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate Date of hearing: 12 02 2019 Date of pronouncement: 22 02 2019 O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: These appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)-II, Kanpur dated 1/2/2…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Kanpur vs. M/S. Axis Educational Society, Kanpur

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 343/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: Shri C. K. Singh, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate
Section 268ASection 268A(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.343 to 345/LKW/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Dy. CIT (TDS) v. M/s Axis Educational Society Kanpur 117/N/88, Kakadeo Kanpur TAN/PAN:KNPA02405E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri C. K. Singh, D.R. Respondent by: Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, Advocate Date of hearing: 12 02 2019 Date of pronouncement: 22 02 2019 O R D E R PER A. D. JAIN, V.P.: These appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)-II, Kanpur dated 1/2/2…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Gonda vs. Sri Rajendra Prasad Chaudhary, Basti

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 29/LKW/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2009-10

Section 268ASection 268A(1)

…on, the Circular issued by the CBDT is binding on the Departmental Authorities in view of the provisions of Section 268A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Navnit Lal Jhaveri vs. K. K. Sen, 56 ITR 198 (SC). We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 08/02/2019) (T.S. Kapoor) Vice President Aks – Dtd. 08 /02/2019 3 Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental…

Income Tax Officer-1, Bahraich vs. Shri Gauri Shankar, HUF, Bahraich

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 10/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2014-15

Section 268ASection 268A(1)

…on, the Circular issued by the CBDT is binding on the Departmental Authorities in view of the provisions of Section 268A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Navnit Lal Jhaveri vs. K. K. Sen, 56 ITR 198 (SC). We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 31/01/2019) (T.S. Kapoor) Vice President Aks – Dtd. 31 /01/2019 3 Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental…

DCIT, Circle - 10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Dream Bake Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 242/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40S(2)(b)

…ssessee Case referred to CIT vs. Ambassador Travels (P) Ltd (2008) 220 CTR (Del) 475 (2008) 8 DTR (Del) 108 (2008) 173 Taxman 407 (Del) CIT vs. Nagiindas M Kapadia (1989) 75 CTR (Bom) 161 : (1989) 177 ITR 393 (Bom) Navinit Lal C. Javeri vs. K.K.Sen AAC (1965) 56 ITR 198 (SC) Counsel appeared: ITA No.242 & CO 43/Kol/2018 A.Y.2013-14 DCIT Cir-10(1), Kol vs. M/s Dream Bake Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 Mr. Suruchi Aggarwal for the Appellant. M.P. Rastogi with K.N. Ahuja for the Respondent JUDGMENT VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J: This appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is preferred by the Revenue…

Pyramid Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2057/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…3).” 14.3.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the provision of Section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which is parimateria to the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act, in the case of Navneet Lal C. Javeri vs. K.K. Sen, AAC in 56 ITR 198 at pages 207-208 of the Report had judicially noticed the purpose and the object of the insertion of such provision under the IT Act in the following words: “In dealing with Mr. Pathak’s argument in the present case, let us recall the relevant facts. The companies to which the impugned section applies are companies in which at least 75 per cent o…

Saga Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2056/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…3).” 14.3.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the provision of Section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which is parimateria to the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act, in the case of Navneet Lal C. Javeri vs. K.K. Sen, AAC in 56 ITR 198 at pages 207-208 of the Report had judicially noticed the purpose and the object of the insertion of such provision under the IT Act in the following words: “In dealing with Mr. Pathak’s argument in the present case, let us recall the relevant facts. The companies to which the impugned section applies are companies in which at least 75 per cent o…

Saamag Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2054/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Singh Gautam
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

…3).” 14.3.2 The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering the provision of Section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which is parimateria to the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act, in the case of Navneet Lal C. Javeri vs. K.K. Sen, AAC in 56 ITR 198 at pages 207-208 of the Report had judicially noticed the purpose and the object of the insertion of such provision under the IT Act in the following words: “In dealing with Mr. Pathak’s argument in the present case, let us recall the relevant facts. The companies to which the impugned section applies are companies in which at least 75 per cent o…