P.A. Ahammed v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

282 ITR 334High Court2006#12869 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 127Section 10(38)Section 11Section 115 TDSection 115WDSection 115WESection 12 AB (4)Section 120

Issues it is cited on

section 127(2)(a)section 120(1)stay of demandsection 127(2)section 120section 127chief commissionerreason to believeincome-tax officersection 12salarysection 10

Judgments citing P.A. Ahammed v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

INDEPENDENT AND PUBLIC SPIRITED MEDIA FOUNDATION ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL), BENGALURU

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 625/BANG/2023[Nill]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : Na

For Appellant: S/Shri. A. Sheshadri, CA and Bhardwaj Sheshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 133A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : NA M/s. Independent and Public Vs. The Principal Commissioner Spirited Media Foundation, of Income Tax (Central), No. 4/6, 1st Floor, Miller Road, Bengaluru. High Ground, Bengaluru –560052. PAN : AABTI413E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : S/Shri. A. Sheshadri, CA and Bhardwaj Sheshadri, Advocate Respondent by : Shri. Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 17.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 16.01.2026 O R D E R Per Prashan…

SUNIL GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-55(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 634/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraadvantage India Vs. The Pr. C.I.T 101-102, Oriental House Central - 2 Gulmohar Enclave New Delhi New Delhi

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehra, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT [DR]
Section 127Section 127(2)Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)

…in a more comprehensive sense of including (i) pending proceedings as well as (ii) proceedings to be initiated in future as held in CIT v. Bidhu Bhusan Sarkar, (1967) 63 ITR 278, 287 (SC)]. The Kerala High Court also held in P. A. Ahammed v. Chief CIT, (2006) 282 ITR 334 (Ker) that the Explanation to section 127 clarifies that the term 'case' means the entire proceedings under the Act. 27. The ‘case’ referred in the Explanation to section 127, therefore, has to be read conjointly with ‘all proceedings under this Act’ to arrive at a harmonious and workable interpretation of the statute. The ‘case’ and ‘all proc…

MAHAVIR SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-8(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 8602/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Singhla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anshul, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mahavir Singhal, Vs ITO, C/o DMRN & Associates, Ward-8(2), 106-107, Maharaja Agrasen New Delhi. Shopping Complex, Sector-9, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. PAN: AIXPS8088B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri R.R. Singhla, CA Revenue by : Shri Anshul, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 23.07.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 02.09.2019 of th…

GAURAV SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), NEW DELHI

ITA 576/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Anubhav Sharmagaurav Singhal Vs. Ito, 149, Tarun Enclave, Ward-17(4), Pitampura, C.R.Building, New Delhi-110034 New Delhi-110002 Pan : Aohps3787D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…(4) within the statutory period as the notice was issued u/s 148 on 08.08.2017 followed by notice u/s 143(2) on 04.09.2017 and both were time barred. Ld. AR relied judgment of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in P.A.Ahammed vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax(2006) 282 ITR 334 Kerala and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sunworld Infrastructure Pvt. Vs. ITO, Ward 24(3), New Delhi and Co-ordinate Bench judgment in Hari Das Singla vs. ITO, Ward-50(4), New Delhi and submitted that such re- assessment has to be considered to be without notice. 6.1 It was further submitted that the reasons recorded u/s 147/148 have no substance…

ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S QUALITRON COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1955/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153C

…Tax. Therefore, challenge against Ext. P14 is without any justification. The original petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed.” In view of the above discussion and considering the ratio of the cited case law in P.A. Anemmed v. Chief CIT & Ard (2006) 282 ITR 334 (Ker), which is found to be squarely applicable to the facts of the appellant's case, it is found that admittedly the appellant's case was being assessed continuously with the A. 0, Central Circle-5, New Delhi as, assessments in the appellant's case were completed U/s 153C/143(3) for Asst years 2005-06 to 2008-09 on 21.12.2010 and U/s 143(3) for…

ACIT, BHIWANI vs. M/S. VEGAN COLLOIDS LTD., BHIWANI

In the result we reverse the finding of the ld first appellate authority that the order passed by the ITO, Ward 2(2), Bikaner are illegal and without jurisdiction

ITA 6716/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vegan Colloids Ltd, Bhiwani Vpo Siwani, Bhiwani Vs. Pan: Aabcp1416R (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit, Vegan Colloids Ltd, Bhiwani Vpo Siwani, Bhiwani Vs. Pan: Aabcp1416R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, CA
Section 140A(3)Section 2(21)Section 221(1)Section 234B

…y the assessee to ld CIT, Bikaner for transfer of assessment records from Page 5 of 12 Bikaner to Bhiwani. He further submitted that the issue is fully covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon‟ble Kerala High Court in case of PA Ahmed Vs. CCIT 282 ITR 334 wherein it has been held that once the files are transferred the AO ceases to have jurisdiction and it is only the officer to whom the files are transferred can make an assessment. He vehemently relied upon the order of the ld CIT(A) who has held that the order passed u/s 127 dated 11.12.2012 by ld CIT, Bikaner did not change the status quo and t…

COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XVI vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

ITA - 255 / 2002HC Delhi14 Mar 2014
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…sence of subject matter jurisdiction. 44. We will now like to deal with and refer to the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the respondent before us. Decision of the Kerala High Court in P.A. Ahammed versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, (2006) 282 ITR 334 (Kerala) relates to challenge made to an order under Section 127 of the Act. It was observed that two Assessing Officers cannot retain concurrent jurisdiction over the same assessee and when an order of transfer under Section 127 was affected, old and pending cases were also transferred. The said decision has no application to the facts of…

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

ITA/255/2002HC Delhi14 Mar 2014
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…sence of subject matter jurisdiction. 44. We will now like to deal with and refer to the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the respondent before us. Decision of the Kerala High Court in P.A. Ahammed versus Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, (2006) 282 ITR 334 (Kerala) relates to challenge made to an order under Section 127 of the Act. It was observed that two Assessing Officers cannot retain concurrent jurisdiction over the same assessee and when an order of transfer under Section 127 was affected, old and pending cases were also transferred. The said decision has no application to the facts of…