Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari

251 ITR 84Supreme Court of India2001#6617 most cited
17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 35ABB

Issues it is cited on

section 100profit split methodbright line testresale price methodsection 36(l)(va)amp expendituresection 92esection 92(1)cost plus methodfar analysiscorporate guaranteeright to receive

Judgments citing Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari

ACIT, CIRCLE- 26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE IDEA LTD. (EARLIER KNWON AS VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.), NEW DELHI

ITA 8079/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c)

…tion 260A of the Act lies to the High Court from an order of the Tribunal only where the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law and the full bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hazari vs. Purshottam, 251 ITR 84 (SC) held that to be a substantial, a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, i.e., it was not free from difficulty or that it called for a discussion for an alternate view. It further held that the word "substantial" qualifying "question of law" meant having substance, essential, real,…

ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), NEW DELHI vs. VODAFONE WEST LTD., (THEREAFTER MERGED WITH VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICES LTD.),, NEW DELHI

ITA 7658/DEL/2018[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 1999-2000 Vs. M/S. Vodafone West Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Thereafter Merged With New Delhi Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacf1190P (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2007-08 Vs. M/S. Vodafone Idea Ltd. Acit, Circle-26(2), (Earlier Known As Vodafone New Delhi Mobile Services Ltd.), C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, New Delhi Pan: Aaacb2100P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Sh. Anil Chachra, Adv. Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B. Basanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.03.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm These Revenue’S Appeals Ita No.7658/Del/2018 & 8079/Del/2018 For Assessment Years 1999-2000 & 2007-08

Section 271(1)(c)

…tion 260A of the Act lies to the High Court from an order of the Tribunal only where the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law and the full bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hazari vs. Purshottam, 251 ITR 84 (SC) held that to be a substantial, a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, i.e., it was not free from difficulty or that it called for a discussion for an alternate view. It further held that the word "substantial" qualifying "question of law" meant having substance, essential, real,…

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. HARISHA

ITA/37/2025HC Karnataka04 Mar 2025

Bench: KRISHNA S DIXIT,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

Section 100Section 260Section 260ASection 263

…‘Law and Practice of Income Tax’, Vol. II, Eleventh Edn., Lexis Nexus at pages 3316 – 17 states: “…A question is a substantial question of law if: (i) it directly or indirectly affects substantial 2 251 ITR 84 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9112-DB ITA No. 37 of 2025 rights of the parties; or (ii) it is of general importance; (iii) it is an open question in the sense that the issue has not been settled by a pronouncement of the Supreme Court; (iv) it is not free from difficulty; or (v) it calls for a discussion for alternative view… The findi…

DCIT, COCHIN vs. SHRI M GEORGE ( MUKKADAYIL JOSEPH GEORGE), COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 525/COCH/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdy. Cit, Circle 2(1), Range – 2 M.J. George C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Mukkadayil House Kochi 682018 Vs. Krishnaswamy Cross Road Ernakulam, Kochi - 682035 [Pan: Adgpg6991D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By: Sri R. Lokanathan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 Order Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Agitating The Allowance Of The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 31.12.2008 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07, By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kochi [Cit(A)] Vide His Order Dated 31.03.2011. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Who Had Returned His Income For The Year At Rs.63,420/- (From Business & Other Sources), Was Found To Have A Credit Of Rs.899.10 Lakhs In His Bank Account On 14.02.2006. The Same Was Explained In The Assessment Proceedings As Sale Proceeds Of 5.21 Acres Of Land At Kakkanad Village, Falling Under Thrikkakara Panchayat, Sold For Rs.977.10 Lakhs Vide Registered Sale Deed Dated 13.02.2006. The Sale Was In Pursuance Of An Agreement To Sell Dated 09.01.2006, Receiving Rs.78 Lakhs As Advance. The Said Land

For Appellant: Sri R. Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

…. Surinder Kumar [1992] 194 ITR 434 (SC)), with, rather, the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court under the Act being only qua a substantial question of law (Maharaja Amrinder Singh vs. CWT[2017] 397 ITR 752 (SC); Santosh Hazari vs. Parshottam Tiwari [2001] 251 ITR 84 (SC)). 7. Prior to its substitution by Finance Act, 1970, w.e.f. 01.04.1970, clause (iii) of section 2(14) read as under: 9 ITANo. 525/Coch/2011 (AY 2006-07) Dy. CIT v. M.J. George “(iii) agricultural land in India,” Reference thereto is relevant for two purposes: (i) it explains our reference to and reliance on the decisions by the Hon'ble Supr…

GOOD HOMES PVT LTD,KOCHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 884/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.A.Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

…irms the matter as essentially factual. In fact, it is only on admission of a substantial question of law that an adjudication u/s.260A of the Act could follow (Maharaja Amrinder Singh v. CWT [2017] 397 ITR 752 (SC); Santosh Hazari v. PurushottamTiwari [2001] 251 ITR 84 (SC)).In the instant case, on the other hand, we have, even at this stage, no clue as to when, and by whom the Approval was sought, or even if the same was later amended to co-opt others. Why, as against seven entities, with the land ceiling of 15 acres, the total area developed is a mere 9 acres. Here it also needs to be appreciated that while th…

AJIT ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED,ERNAKULAM vs. JCIT, CORPORATE RANGE - 1, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 870/COCH/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shriabyt.Varkey, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.A.Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jamuna Devi, Sr.AR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148

…irms the matter as essentially factual. In fact, it is only on admission of a substantial question of law that an adjudication u/s.260A of the Act could follow (Maharaja Amrinder Singh v. CWT [2017] 397 ITR 752 (SC); Santosh Hazari v. PurushottamTiwari [2001] 251 ITR 84 (SC)).In the instant case, on the other hand, we have, even at this stage, no clue as to when, and by whom the Approval was sought, or even if the same was later amended to co-opt others. Why, as against seven entities, with the land ceiling of 15 acres, the total area developed is a mere 9 acres. Here it also needs to be appreciated that while th…

COCHIN PORT AUTHORITY ( FORMERLY COCHIN PORT TRUST),KOCHI vs. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), KOCHI, KOCHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 655/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Jul 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Gopi K, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 260ASection 263Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…red, by it. It is only on admission of a substantial question of law, that the Hon’ble Court assumes jurisdiction to answer the same u/s. 260A of the Act (refer:MaharajaAmrinder Singh v. CWT [2017] 397 ITR 752 (SC); Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [2001] 251 ITR 84 (SC)), so that the principle of law laid down therein, and on the basis of which the said question stands answered, constitutes a binding judicial precedent (Sree Bhagavathi Textiles Ltd. v. CIT, 244 ITR 496 (Ker)).The Hon'ble Apex Court has since set at rest the controversy per its decision dated 12/10/2022 in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr.…

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

ITA/100091/2016HC Karnataka17 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 37

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ITA No.100091/2016 BETWEEN: 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Queen’s Road, Bengaluru. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(3) Bengaluru. … Appellants (By Shri Y.V. Raviraj, Advocate) AND: M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited, No.6/4, Rahavachari Road Ballari-583 101, PAN: AAACO5753D. … Respondent (By Shri Mayank Jain, Advocate) R 2 This I…

MESERS GANESH RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 287/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A. RFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)

…ause another view is possible, would not constitute a basis for us to reverse the findings after re-appreciating evidence. In that regard; we place reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam, Tiwari [2001] 251 ITR 84. Therefore, we are of the view that no opportunity is provided to set aside the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the amount of Rs. 13,56,000 has been deposited by the sons of the assessee, which was realized after selling the pilferage stocks outside the books of account. There is no merit in the appeal as no substantive question of law for…

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ENNOBLE CONSTRUCTION

ITA/383/2016HC Karnataka20 Jul 2022

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

Section 260Section 260A

…’, a question of law must be debatable and it must have a material bearing on the decision of the case in the sense that if answered either way insofar as the rights of the parties are concerned. 2 251 ITR 84 - 10 - ITA No. 383 of 2016 (iii) It is profitable to see what Kanga & Palkhivala’s ‘Law and Practice of Income Tax’, Vol. II, Eleventh Edn., Lexis Nexus at pages 3316 – 17 states: “…A question is a substantial question of law if: (i) it directly or indirectly affects substantial rights of the parties; or (ii) it is of general…

SHRI PRINCE RAI,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMOH

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 145/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2009-10 Prince Rai, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward - Damoh Damoh (M.P.) (M.P.) [Pan: Ahlpr 7469N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. H.S. Modh, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Swati Agarwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2021

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…Court. It is well-settled that existence of a substantial question of law is sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction by the higher courts of law (refer: Maharaja Amrinder Singh v. CWT [2017] 397 ITR 752 (SC); Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [2001] 251 ITR 84 (SC)). Further still, the judgment is sans any discussion of or on the law in the matter or reference to any precedents. The issue that therefore arises for being answered first is if, in view of the clear provisions of law and the scheme of the Act, and as further explained and expounded by the Apex Court per its several decisions, including by i…

M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6525/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…appeal give rise to any substantial question of law or not, in order the High Court to assume jurisdiction to entertain the appeal or not. 64. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari: [2001] 251 ITR 84 (SC), the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the following observations:- “The High Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without formulating the substantial question of law involved in the appeal and if it does so it acts illegally and in abnegation or abdication of the duty cast on Court. The existence of subs…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6256/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…appeal give rise to any substantial question of law or not, in order the High Court to assume jurisdiction to entertain the appeal or not. 64. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari: [2001] 251 ITR 84 (SC), the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the following observations:- “The High Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without formulating the substantial question of law involved in the appeal and if it does so it acts illegally and in abnegation or abdication of the duty cast on Court. The existence of subs…

M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3241/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…appeal give rise to any substantial question of law or not, in order the High Court to assume jurisdiction to entertain the appeal or not. 64. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari: [2001] 251 ITR 84 (SC), the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the following observations:- “The High Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without formulating the substantial question of law involved in the appeal and if it does so it acts illegally and in abnegation or abdication of the duty cast on Court. The existence of subs…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DABUR INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3114/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anupam Kant Garg, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 80ISection 92CSection 92E

…appeal give rise to any substantial question of law or not, in order the High Court to assume jurisdiction to entertain the appeal or not. 64. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari: [2001] 251 ITR 84 (SC), the ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the following observations:- “The High Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without formulating the substantial question of law involved in the appeal and if it does so it acts illegally and in abnegation or abdication of the duty cast on Court. The existence of subs…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

ITTA/383/2016HC Telangana17 Feb 2017

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Section 260Section 260A

…’, a question of law must be debatable and it must have a material bearing on the decision of the case in the sense that if answered either way insofar as the rights of the parties are concerned. 2 251 ITR 84 - 10 - ITA No. 383 of 2016 (iii) It is profitable to see what Kanga & Palkhivala’s ‘Law and Practice of Income Tax’, Vol. II, Eleventh Edn., Lexis Nexus at pages 3316 – 17 states: “…A question is a substantial question of law if: (i) it directly or indirectly affects substantial rights of the parties; or (ii) it is of general…

ACIT, FARIDABAD vs. M/S. PAWAN KUMAR MALHOTRA, PROP., FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 5556/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2005-06 Asstt.Commissioner Of Inome Tax, Vs Shri Pawan Kumar Malhotra, Circle –I, Block I-B, M/S Neumann Engineering New Cgo Complex, Work, 16/4, Mathura Road, Faridabad. Faridabad. H.No. 1506, Sector-15, Faridabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri N.J. Singh, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agrawal, Adv. Date Of Hearing: 08.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2016

For Appellant: Shri N.J. Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Agrawal, Adv
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274

…om an order of the Tribunal only where the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of I.T.A. No. 5556/Del/2011 Assessment Year 2005-06 law. A full bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Hazari vs. Purshottam, 251 ITR 84 (SC) held that to be a substantial, a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent ...that it was not free from difficulty or that it called for a discussion for an alternate view. It further held that the word "substantial" qualifying "question of law" meant having substance, essential, re…

Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (251 ITR 84) — Cited in 17 Judgments | BharatTax