What is Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

A higher authority's approval for an income tax proposal must reflect an application of mind to the facts and cannot be deemed from a mere nomination. An assessment made without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee violates principles of natural justice and is therefore invalid.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 132, Section 142(2A), Section 153A, Section 153D, Section 143(3), Section 148.

Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (236 ITR 671)

Q: How many judgments cite Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. DCIT?

45 judgments on BharatTax cite Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (236 ITR 671), spanning 2011 to 2025.

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ndemned unheard, corollary of which is\nthat he should be given reasonable notice of the nature of the case to be met, there are other rules\nof common law to the same effect. Reliance is placed on Peerless General Finance &\nInvestment Co. Ltd Vs DCIT (1999) 236 ITR 671, 682. (Cal)\nIn view of the above submission, we submit that the ld. AO assessed the income of the assessee\nwithout providing the reasonable opportunity. The Assessing Officer is not absolved of the\nobligation to comply with the fundamental rules of justice, which have come to be known in\nadministrative law as the principles of jurisprudence.…

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. GRIHUM HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1883/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Mutha and Abhilash HiranFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(1)Section 2(91)Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2019-20 DCIT, Circle 1(1), Pune Grihum Housing Finance Limited 602, 6th Floor, Zero One IT Park, Vs. Mundhva Road, Ghorpadi, Pune – 411036 PAN: AACCG2265N (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No.39/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Grihum Housing Finance Limited ITO, Ward 1, Ahmednagar 602, 6th Floor, Zero One IT Park, Vs. Mundhva Road, Ghorpadi, Pune – 411036 PAN: AACCG2265N (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessee by : S/Shri Nikhil Mutha and Abhilash Hiran Depart…

SHARDA STEEL TRADERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 116/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…Thus, even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case. 27. Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT 236 ITR 671 has made the following observations which are pertinent to the facts of the case in hand before us: "The factual matrix of the matter clearly shows that a proposal was made on March 10, 1998, and no prior approval therefore was granted by the Chief Commissioner of Income tax but merely one G. P. Agarwal was nominated. An argument has been advanc…

SHARDA STEEL TRADERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 115/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…Thus, even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case. 27. Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT 236 ITR 671 has made the following observations which are pertinent to the facts of the case in hand before us: "The factual matrix of the matter clearly shows that a proposal was made on March 10, 1998, and no prior approval therefore was granted by the Chief Commissioner of Income tax but merely one G. P. Agarwal was nominated. An argument has been advanc…

SHARDA STEEL TRADERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 114/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…Thus, even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case. 27. Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT 236 ITR 671 has made the following observations which are pertinent to the facts of the case in hand before us: "The factual matrix of the matter clearly shows that a proposal was made on March 10, 1998, and no prior approval therefore was granted by the Chief Commissioner of Income tax but merely one G. P. Agarwal was nominated. An argument has been advanc…

SHARDA STEEL TRADERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 113/RPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…Thus, even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case. 27. Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT 236 ITR 671 has made the following observations which are pertinent to the facts of the case in hand before us: "The factual matrix of the matter clearly shows that a proposal was made on March 10, 1998, and no prior approval therefore was granted by the Chief Commissioner of Income tax but merely one G. P. Agarwal was nominated. An argument has been advanc…

SHARDA STEEL TRADERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 112/RPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…Thus, even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case. 27. Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT 236 ITR 671 has made the following observations which are pertinent to the facts of the case in hand before us: "The factual matrix of the matter clearly shows that a proposal was made on March 10, 1998, and no prior approval therefore was granted by the Chief Commissioner of Income tax but merely one G. P. Agarwal was nominated. An argument has been advanc…

SHARDA STEEL TRADERS, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 111/RPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 & 116/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11,2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 )

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

…Thus, even the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case. 27. Similarly, the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT 236 ITR 671 has made the following observations which are pertinent to the facts of the case in hand before us: "The factual matrix of the matter clearly shows that a proposal was made on March 10, 1998, and no prior approval therefore was granted by the Chief Commissioner of Income tax but merely one G. P. Agarwal was nominated. An argument has been advanc…