Puri v. CIT

151 ITR 584High Court1985#3446 most cited

What is Puri v. CIT authority for?

A third judge's opinion in a reference is decisive, effectively forming a majority opinion equivalent to a full bench, even if not sitting together with the original two judges.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

P. C. Puri v. CIT · 151 ITR 584 · third judge · reference · difference of opinion · majority opinion · full bench · Tribunal · section 153D

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 139

Issues it is cited on

section 274(2)section 243section 245hacasus omissussection 245csection 271(1)(a)settlement applicationsection 245d(4)section 153(4)section 135asection 144basection 245d

Judgments citing Puri v. CIT

Vandana Bansal L/H of Late Dr. Ashwani Kumar Bansal, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 36/ALLD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…case, order has been passed by Tribunal in the case of Dheeraj Chaudhary vs. ACIT [2025] 178 taxmann.com 360 (Delhi-Trib._ (TM), on the issue of validity of approval u/s 153D of the Act. Also, we are conscious of order in the case of P. C. Puri vs. CIT [1985] 151 ITR 584 (Delhi), in which Hon'ble Delhi High Court held: There is no difference, really speaking, between a full bench of three judges sitting together and this method of referring to the third judge in the case of a difference of opinion between the A two judges. Whether the first method is adopted or the second, ""opinion of the majority"" will be deci…

Vandana Bansal L/H of Late Dr. Ashwani Kumar Bansal, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 35/ALLD/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…case, order has been passed by Tribunal in the case of Dheeraj Chaudhary vs. ACIT [2025] 178 taxmann.com 360 (Delhi-Trib._ (TM), on the issue of validity of approval u/s 153D of the Act. Also, we are conscious of order in the case of P. C. Puri vs. CIT [1985] 151 ITR 584 (Delhi), in which Hon'ble Delhi High Court held: There is no difference, really speaking, between a full bench of three judges sitting together and this method of referring to the third judge in the case of a difference of opinion between the A two judges. Whether the first method is adopted or the second, ""opinion of the majority"" will be deci…

Vandana Bansal L/H of Late Dr. Ashwani Kumar Bansal, Allahabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 34/ALLD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…case, order has been passed by Tribunal in the case of Dheeraj Chaudhary vs. ACIT [2025] 178 taxmann.com 360 (Delhi-Trib._ (TM), on the issue of validity of approval u/s 153D of the Act. Also, we are conscious of order in the case of P. C. Puri vs. CIT [1985] 151 ITR 584 (Delhi), in which Hon'ble Delhi High Court held: There is no difference, really speaking, between a full bench of three judges sitting together and this method of referring to the third judge in the case of a difference of opinion between the A two judges. Whether the first method is adopted or the second, ""opinion of the majority"" will be deci…

Minto Developers Pvt. Ltd., Allahabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Allahabad

In the result, the appeals and Cross Objections filed by the assessees are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 337/ALLD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

…case, order has been passed by Tribunal in the case of Dheeraj Chaudhary vs. ACIT [2025] 178 taxmann.com 360 (Delhi-Trib._ (TM), on the issue of validity of approval u/s 153D of the Act. Also, we are conscious of order in the case of P. C. Puri vs. CIT [1985] 151 ITR 584 (Delhi), in which Hon'ble Delhi High Court held: There is no difference, really speaking, between a full bench of three judges sitting together and this method of referring to the third judge in the case of a difference of opinion between the A two judges. Whether the first method is adopted or the second, ""opinion of the majority"" will be deci…

Vikas Vijay Gupta, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby

ITA 404/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No. 404/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nVikas Vijay Gupta\nPrincipal Commissioner\n604 Sarap,\nof Income Tax,\nOpp. Navjivan Press Vs Ahmedabad-1,\nP.O. Navjivan,\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad-380014,\nGujarat\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AEOPG6723L\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR\nDate of hearing : 27-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 27-05-2025\nआदे

Section 115BSection 147Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 69A

…because of the failure of the ITO to record his opinion about the leviability of penalty in the case..." (p. 11) 9. The aforesaid decision has been consistently followed by the Delhi High Court in the cases of Achal Kumar Jain (supra), P.C. Puri v. CIT (1985) 151 ITR 584 (Delhi), Addl. CIT v. Precision Metal Works (1985) 156 MIR 6934, CWT v. A.N. Sarvaria (1986) 161 ITR 694, Addl. CIT v. Sudershan Talkies (1993).200 ITR 153, CIT v. Sudershan Talkies [19931.201 ITTR 289 and Nihal Chand Rekyan (supra). 10. Similar view has been taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Keshrimal Parasmal (1986)157 ITR…

Suriender Jain, New Delhi vs. Prcit-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3038/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

…at the Commissioner, while revising an assessment order, could not pass orders relating to penalties;” 5 I.T.A.Nos.3036 to 3038/Del/2018 5. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the following cases: - 1. P C Puri Vs. CIT (151 ITR 584); 2. Addl. CIT Vs. Sudarshan Talkies (200 ITR 153); 3. Addl. CIT Vs. Achal Kumar Jain (142 ITR 606); 4. CIT Vs. Nehal Chand Rekhyan (242 ITR 45). 6. Thus, respectfully following the above decisions, we quash the order of the Ld. PCIT dated 05.03.2018 for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 in holding that the assessment orders passed u/s 14…

Suriender Jain, New Delhi vs. Prcit-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3037/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

…at the Commissioner, while revising an assessment order, could not pass orders relating to penalties;” 5 I.T.A.Nos.3036 to 3038/Del/2018 5. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the following cases: - 1. P C Puri Vs. CIT (151 ITR 584); 2. Addl. CIT Vs. Sudarshan Talkies (200 ITR 153); 3. Addl. CIT Vs. Achal Kumar Jain (142 ITR 606); 4. CIT Vs. Nehal Chand Rekhyan (242 ITR 45). 6. Thus, respectfully following the above decisions, we quash the order of the Ld. PCIT dated 05.03.2018 for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 in holding that the assessment orders passed u/s 14…

Suriender Jain, New Delhi vs. Prcit-13, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3036/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3036 To 3038/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 बनाम Suriender Jain, Pr. Cit-13, 133-2-F, Pocket-12, Sector-24, Vs. Room No.901, 9Th Floor, E-2 Block, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan No.Acypj9387K Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Minto Road, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 44A

…at the Commissioner, while revising an assessment order, could not pass orders relating to penalties;” 5 I.T.A.Nos.3036 to 3038/Del/2018 5. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the following cases: - 1. P C Puri Vs. CIT (151 ITR 584); 2. Addl. CIT Vs. Sudarshan Talkies (200 ITR 153); 3. Addl. CIT Vs. Achal Kumar Jain (142 ITR 606); 4. CIT Vs. Nehal Chand Rekhyan (242 ITR 45). 6. Thus, respectfully following the above decisions, we quash the order of the Ld. PCIT dated 05.03.2018 for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12 in holding that the assessment orders passed u/s 14…

Anjis Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT-5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 959/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anjis Developers Private Limited, Pcit-5, 2Nd Floor, Soham Apartments, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, 208, Walkeshwar Road, Teen Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk. Batti, Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 6022 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By S. Sriram/Dinesh Kukreja/Ssnyaknavedie Revenue By : Shri Chetan Kacha, Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

For Respondent: Assessee by S. Sriram/Dinesh
Section 270A

…d decision has been consistently followed by the Delhi High Court in the cases of Achal Kumar Jain (supra), P.C. Delhi High Court in the cases of Achal Kumar Jain (supra), P.C. Delhi High Court in the cases of Achal Kumar Jain (supra), P.C. Puri v. CIT [1985) 151 ITR 584 (Delhi), Addl. CIT v. Precision Puri v. CIT [1985) 151 ITR 584 (Delhi), Addl. CIT v. Precision Puri v. CIT [1985) 151 ITR 584 (Delhi), Addl. CIT v. Precision Metal Works [1985)_156 MIR 6934, CWT v. A. Metal Works [1985)_156 MIR 6934, CWT v. A. Metal Works [1985)_156 MIR 6934, CWT v. A.N. Sarvaria [1986) 161 ITR 694, Addl. CIT v. Sudershan Talkies…

Anushakti Chemicals & Drugs Ltd. (Formerly Known As Aarti Healthcare Ltd. Now Merged Into Aarti Industries Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - Range-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 639/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Mum/2021 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11) Anushakti Chemicals & Pr. Cit, Range-2 Drugs Ltd. Room No.1920, 19Th Floor, Air (Formerly Known As Aarti India Building, Nariman बनाम/ Health Care Ltd. Now Point, Mumbai-400 021, Vs. Merged Into Aarti Industries Maharashtra Ltd.) Mumbai (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aabca2787L अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Ms. Shailja Rai, Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15.11.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2021

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 254Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…(Guj), wherein on identical facts Hon’ble High Court held as under: “34. As there was a dichotomy between the views expressed by the High Court of Delhi on the one hand and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on the other, in the case of P.C. Puri v. CIT [1985] 151 ITR 584 (Delhi), the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench expressed a difference of opinion and the matter was referred to a third Judge in terms of section 251 of the Act. The majority view has approved and confirmed the earlier view expressed by the High Court of Delhi in the case of Addl. CIT v. J.K. D' Costa [1982] 133 ITR 71. The learned t…

DCIT 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Commtel Networks P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4872/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

…early shows that as per AS-9, the receipt was at revenue was to the risk of losing be recognized. the amount if This view is there was any contrary to the defect. TM decision in Associated Cables (supra). As per Delhi High Court, judgment in P.C. Puri vs. CIT 151 ITR 584, a decision M/s. Commtel Networks Pvt. Ltd., rendered by TM has force of decision of SB 15. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. We had also deliberated on the various judicial pronouncements referred by lower authorities in their respective orders as well as cited by learned AR and…

Ram Bharose Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 1066/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR
Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234B

…ision of Special Bench constituted by the Hon'ble President u/s 255(3) of the Act. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Special Bench, ITAT, Delhi, as extracted from the Head Note, is as under:- " The Delhi High Court in the case of P.C. Puri Vs. CIT(1985) 151 ITR 584 had clearly laid down that where decision is given by the Third Judge on account of difference between the two Judges hearing a matter, his opinion is decisive and, therefore, for that reason, decision by three Judges should be taken as decision by the Full Bench. Therefore, the majority decision in the Third Member case is entitled to as much we…

Sri Dilip Kumar Das, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-50(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 640/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 473 & 640/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Shri Dilip Kumar Das -Vs- Ito, Ward-50(1), Kolkata [Pan: Adspd 7417 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

…54 (ALL). (ii) Smt. Renu Agarwal vs. ITO (2012) 136 ITD 343 (Agra) (TM) The Third Member decision in the case of Smt. Renu Agarwal is at par with the any Special Bench decision of the ITAT as held by the Delhi High Court in the case of P.C.Puri vs. CIT(1985) 151 ITR 584 (Delhi) and also by the ITAT Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs. Oman International Bank (2006) 100 ITD 285(Mum) (SB) in para 40-44. In view of the above, the addition is confirmed as above and to this extent the decision of the AO is modified.” Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in second appeal before us. 8. The Ld. AR befor…

Sri Dilip Kumar Das, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-50(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 473/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A Nos. 473 & 640/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Shri Dilip Kumar Das -Vs- Ito, Ward-50(1), Kolkata [Pan: Adspd 7417 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144

…54 (ALL). (ii) Smt. Renu Agarwal vs. ITO (2012) 136 ITD 343 (Agra) (TM) The Third Member decision in the case of Smt. Renu Agarwal is at par with the any Special Bench decision of the ITAT as held by the Delhi High Court in the case of P.C.Puri vs. CIT(1985) 151 ITR 584 (Delhi) and also by the ITAT Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs. Oman International Bank (2006) 100 ITD 285(Mum) (SB) in para 40-44. In view of the above, the addition is confirmed as above and to this extent the decision of the AO is modified.” Being aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in second appeal before us. 8. The Ld. AR befor…