Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. DCIT

236 ITR 671High Court1999#2558 most cited

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.

45

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. DCIT · 236 ITR 671 · Section 153D · Section 142(2A) · prior approval · application of mind · natural justice · audi alteram partem · valid assessment · reasonable opportunity · Section 132 · Section 148

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 142(2A)Section 153ASection 153DSection 143(3)Section 148Section 264Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 144basection 288section 153a(1)(a)section 136section 158bgsection 142(2a)section 193section 196assistant directorsection 264section 153(3)block period

Judgments citing Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. v. DCIT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Agartala, Agartala vs. Shri Subhajit Paul, Agartala

In the result, cross-objection nos

ITA 116/GTY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati31 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.116/Gau/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rockein Saikia, JCIT, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Modi, FCA
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153D

…hus, 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. 11.6 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 advance…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Unitech Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on preliminary ground, appeal of Revenue and its CO are dismissed

ITA 6648/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri O.P. Kantआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 6181/Del/2015 With Co No.376/Del/2015 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Unitech Limited Dcit, Cir.27(1) 6, Community Centre Vs New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi 17. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 144C(4)

…in this behalf has been formed by the Assessing Officer. The approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case. A bare endorsement of the proposal Would not be sufficient. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 671 (Cal.) and Muthoottu Mini Kuries v. Dy. CIT[2001 ] 250 ITR 455 (Ker.) hold so." [Emphasis Supplied] 2.5 It is trite that in order to invoke provisions of Section 142 (2A), two conditions have to be fulfilled i.e. • Nature and Complexity of the Accounts; and • Interest of the revenue In absence of both these ingredients, provisions of Section 142(…

M/S. Unitech Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on preliminary ground, appeal of Revenue and its CO are dismissed

ITA 6181/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri O.P. Kantआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 6181/Del/2015 With Co No.376/Del/2015 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S.Unitech Limited Dcit, Cir.27(1) 6, Community Centre Vs New Delhi. Saket, New Delhi 17. अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27/06/2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 144C(4)

…in this behalf has been formed by the Assessing Officer. The approval must reflect the application of mind to the facts of the case. A bare endorsement of the proposal Would not be sufficient. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 671 (Cal.) and Muthoottu Mini Kuries v. Dy. CIT[2001 ] 250 ITR 455 (Ker.) hold so." [Emphasis Supplied] 2.5 It is trite that in order to invoke provisions of Section 142 (2A), two conditions have to be fulfilled i.e. • Nature and Complexity of the Accounts; and • Interest of the revenue In absence of both these ingredients, provisions of Section 142(…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Shri Prateek Kothari, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 552/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court.”

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Prithviraj Meena (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132(4)Section 68

…ioner of Income-tax, Jaipur Vs Shri Prateek Kothari, Jaipur given reasonable notice of the nature of the case to be met, there are other rules of common law to the same effect. Reliance is placed on Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd Vs DCIT (1999) 236 ITR 671, 682. (Cal) In view of the above submission, we submit that the ld AO assessed the income of the assessee without providing the reasonable opportunity. The Assessing Officer is not absolved of the obligation to comply with the fundamental rules of justice, which have come to be known in administrative law as the principles of jurisprudence. Comp…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ashok Logani

ITA/553/2010HC Delhi11 May 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 142

…* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) Nos. 19746/2005, 605/2008, 846/2009, 1386/2007, 426/2012 and 553/2010 Reserved on: 24^*^ May, 2012 % Date ofDecision: lO^*" September, 2012 Delhi Development Authority & Anr. ....Petitioners Through : Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sindhu Sinha, Advocate. Versus UOI AND ANR Respondent Through : Mr. Mukesh Anand, Advocate for UOI. Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel for Revenue. Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing Counsel. COI^AM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V. EASWAR SANJIV KHANNA, J. For de…