P. Satyanarayana Chetty v. Income Tax Officer

101 ITR 385High Court1975#4589 most cited

What is P. Satyanarayana Chetty v. Income Tax Officer authority for?

Sanction for reassessment proceedings under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act must be granted with due application of mind and cannot be a mechanical or routine exercise.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

P. Satyanarayana Chetty v. Income Tax Officer · section 151 · reopening of assessment · sanction · application of mind · mechanical approval · reassessment

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 149(1)(b)Section 132Section 148ASection 149

Issues it is cited on

section 148bsection 135aprincipal chief commissioner of income-taxsection 147(b)warrant of authorisationsection 147(a)section 149(1)(a)section 150(1)section 151(ii)sanctioning authoritysurrender of incomesection 149(1)(b)

Judgments citing P. Satyanarayana Chetty v. Income Tax Officer

Shri Tarlochan Singh, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Mansa

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 306/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Jun 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: K.S. Bains, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 45(3)

…w and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, we quash the impugned notice dated March 10, 1.971, under Section 148 of the Act. 14.2 A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of P. Munirathnam Chetty And P. Vs. ITO, C-Ward 101 ITR 385 (supra)wherein it has been held as under: The form like the one which is being used containing an endorsement merely saying "Yes" would justifiably cause apprehension that the act of the Commissioner is a mechanical act. In order to obviate this impression and to infuse more confidence in the assessee, it would be proper if the Commissioner also…

Shri Satnam Singh, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 1 (4), Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 579/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Jun 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarna, C.AFor Respondent: Shri G.S. Bali, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151

…ITA Nos. 129 & 238/Agra/2018 • United Electrical Company (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT & Ors. High Court of Delhi, (2002) 258 ITR 317 (Del) • Ladhuram Laxmi Narayan Vs. ITO, Additonal (1976) 102 ITR 595 (Gauhati) • P. Munirathnam Chetty And P.. Vs. ITO, C-Ward And (1975) 101 ITR 385 (AP) Copies of the aforesaid case laws were furnished which are placed on record. 13. In his rival submissions the Ld. DR strongly supported the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that the A.O. after obtaining the approval from the Ld. JCIT under section 151 of the Act issued notice under section 148 of the Act for reo…

Seawood Hospitality & Realty Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (CC) 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed on the legal aspect of quashing of reopening of assessment

ITA 92/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Justice P P Bhatt & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am M/S. Seawoods Hospitality & Vs. Dcit(Cc)-3(4), Mumbai Realty Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle – 3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor B/306-309, Business Dynasty Park Air India Building Jb Nagar, Opp. Sangam Cinema, Nariman Point Andheri (E) Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 059 Pan/Gir No.Aamcs1472M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & M/S. Sukaniya Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit (Cc)-3(4), B/306-309, Business Dynasty Mumbai Park, J B Nagar, Opp. Sangam Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor Cinema, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 059 Air India Building Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 Pan/Gir No. Aadcs9585J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) M/S. Seawood Hospitaly & Realty P. Ltd. & M/S. Sukaniya Properties P. Ltd.

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)Section 68

…email on 06/10/2020 on the merits of the addition and also on the arguments advanced by the ld. AR. The ld. DR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of P. Munirathnam Chetty and P.Satyanarayana Chetty reported in 101 ITR 385 where according to the ld. DR, the Hon’ble High Court had observed as under:- “Where the ITO has given elaborate reasons for reopening in his report to the CIT, mere “yes” endorsement to the CIT would amount to his satisfaction”. M/s. Seawood Hospitaly and Realty P. Ltd., & M/s. Sukaniya Properties P. Ltd., 5.2. The ld. DR also placed reliance…

Sh. Vikas Kapoor, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5936/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: SH. V.K.SABHARWAL, ADV. &For Respondent: MS. BEDOBINA CHAUDHURI, SR. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…58ITR 317 (DEL), wherein it was held: 29. CIT Vs. SFIL STOCK BROKING LTD. REPORTED AS (2011) 325 ITR 285 30. CIT vs. ATUL JAIN, REPORTED AS (2007) 163 TAXMANN 325 (DEL) 31. P. Munirathnam Chetty and P. Satyanarayana Chetty v. Income-tax Officer, (1975) 101 ITR 385 (AP), 32. Ganga Saran and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer and Others, (1981) 130ITR 1 (SC), 33. SARTHAK SECURITIES Co. (P) LTD. vs. ITO: REPORTED AS (2010) 329ITR 110 (DEL) 34.ITO, Ward-31(2) Vs. Amar Khosla, New Delhi in ITA No. 1891/Del/2010 for the A.Y 2001-02 35. Central India electric Supply Co. Ltd. Vs.ITO, 333ITR 237 (Del) 36. C…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Atul Jain

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/1384/2006HC Delhi23 May 2007

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN

Section 148

…y form and it is in that context that the Supreme Court expressed the view that by merely saying “Yes”, the Commissioner did not fulfill the duty cast upon him. 12. In P. Munirathnam Chetty and P. Satyanarayana Chetty v. Income-tax Officer, (1975) 101 ITR 385, the Andhra Pradesh High Court analyzed Chhugamal Rajpal and distinguished it on the ground that since the Income Tax Officer had given reasons for issuing a notice to the assessee, the mere fact that the Commissioner recorded “Yes” in respect of the question “Whether the Commissioner is satisfied that it is a fit case for issue of notice un…