Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India

31 ITR 565Supreme Court of India1957#2539 most cited

What is Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India authority for?

An assessee has no fundamental right to be assessed by a particular Assessing Officer or at a specific place. Orders transferring a case are administrative, for better revenue administration, and are not justiciable unless mala fides or clear prejudice is proven, with inconvenience not being a valid ground.

46

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India · 31 ITR 565 · section 127 · section 124 · Assessing Officer jurisdiction · transfer of case · place of assessment · administrative order · fundamental right to choose AO · mala fides · prejudice · revenue exigencies

Sections most often in play

Section 127Section 124Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144CSection 115BBESection 120Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 124(1)section 6(3)(ii)section 124(3)(a)section 271(1)(a)section 127(1)section 6(3)section 127(2)section 124(3)section 124section 4asection 163section 2(7a)

Judgments citing Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India

JCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd. Amalgamated Company of Amalgamating Company M/S. Rim Zim Valley Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3167/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. A. T. Varkey, JM ITA Nos. 3158 to 3162/Del/2011 Asstt. Years : 2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Jt. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd., E-3, 1st Floor, Phase-II, Tax, Central Circle-25, New Delhi Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Delhi-110034 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CO Nos. 265 to 269/Del/2011 Asstt. Years : 2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/s Surya Vinayak Industries Vs Jt. Commissioner of Income Ltd., E-3, 1st Floor, Phase-II, Tax, Central Circle-25, Mangolpuri Industria…

JCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Surya Vinyak Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3162/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. A. T. Varkey, JM ITA Nos. 3158 to 3162/Del/2011 Asstt. Years : 2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Jt. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd., E-3, 1st Floor, Phase-II, Tax, Central Circle-25, New Delhi Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Delhi-110034 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CO Nos. 265 to 269/Del/2011 Asstt. Years : 2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/s Surya Vinayak Industries Vs Jt. Commissioner of Income Ltd., E-3, 1st Floor, Phase-II, Tax, Central Circle-25, Mangolpuri Industria…

JCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Surya Vinyak Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee’s are allowed as indicated above

ITA 3158/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2015AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. A. T. Varkey, Jm

Section 132Section 153A

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. A. T. Varkey, JM ITA Nos. 3158 to 3162/Del/2011 Asstt. Years : 2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Jt. Commissioner of Income Vs M/s Surya Vinayak Industries Ltd., E-3, 1st Floor, Phase-II, Tax, Central Circle-25, New Delhi Mangolpuri Industrial Area, Delhi-110034 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CO Nos. 265 to 269/Del/2011 Asstt. Years : 2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/s Surya Vinayak Industries Vs Jt. Commissioner of Income Ltd., E-3, 1st Floor, Phase-II, Tax, Central Circle-25, Mangolpuri Industria…

Income Tax Officer vs. M/S.Madeeha Enterprises

Appeals are allowed

WA/100006/2014HC Karnataka10 Aug 2015

Bench: ANAND BYRAREDDY,S.SUJATHA

Section 4

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10T H DAY OF AUGUST 2015 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT APPEAL NO.100006/2014 (T-IT) C/W. WRIT APPEAL NO.100002/2014 (T-IT) WRIT APPEAL NO.100007/2014 (T-IT) WRIT APPEAL NO.100008/2014 (T-IT) WRIT APPEAL NO.100009/2014 (T-IT) WRIT APPEAL NO.100010/2014 (T-IT) In Writ Appeal No.100006/2014 BETWEEN: 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bellary, Aayakar Bhavan, Staff Road, Fort, Bellary-583102. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bellary, Aayakar Bhavan, Staff Road, Fort, Bellary-5831…

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

…urt had held that the objection to place of assessment could not be raised in an appeal against the assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1922. This view was affirmed by the Supreme Court in RaiBahadur Seth Teomal Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax,[1959] 36 ITR 9(SC) holding that the objection as to the place of objection under the 1922 Act could not be made a subject or issue before the appellate forums including the Tribunal and reference to the High Court. Thus, the question of place or authority of the particular Assessing Officer was the matter of administrative convenience and not strictly a matt…

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

…urt had held that the objection to place of assessment could not be raised in an appeal against the assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1922. This view was affirmed by the Supreme Court in RaiBahadur Seth Teomal Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax,[1959] 36 ITR 9(SC) holding that the objection as to the place of objection under the 1922 Act could not be made a subject or issue before the appellate forums including the Tribunal and reference to the High Court. Thus, the question of place or authority of the particular Assessing Officer was the matter of administrative convenience and not strictly a matt…