Shirish Madhukar Dalvi v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

287 ITR 242High Court2006#6323 most cited

What is Shirish Madhukar Dalvi v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax authority for?

Section 148 is a substantive provision, while Section 158BC (and by analogy, Section 153C) is a procedural one. Section 153C's non-obstante clause grants broad powers to reopen assessments without the 'reason to believe' safeguard of Section 147.

18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Shirish Madhukar Dalvi · Section 148 · Section 158BC · Section 153C · reassessment · search proceedings · substantive provision · procedural provision · reason to believe

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

documents seizedsection 153creassessment proceedingsundisclosed incomesection 153section 153asection 15section 148section 147personsection 14section 143(3)

Judgments citing Shirish Madhukar Dalvi v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Addl.CIT, Special Range-18, New Delhi vs. Jagananth Hemchand Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7755/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69C

…available under S. 153C does not render provision of S. 147 repugnant per se. The remedy available under S. 153C and S. 147 are also not inconsistent. Relevant here to note the observation of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shirish Madhukar Dalvi 287 ITR 242 (Bom.); Section 148 is a substantive provision whereas section 158BC is a procedural section. Both sections definitely stand on different footings. Section 158BC and S. 153C are analogous. The key variances are firstly, non obstante clause in S. 153C grants nearly sweeping powers to revenue with a liberty to summarily reopen the assessment of 6 y…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-18, New Delhi vs. Jagananth Hemchand Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7754/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69C

…available under S. 153C does not render provision of S. 147 repugnant per se. The remedy available under S. 153C and S. 147 are also not inconsistent. Relevant here to note the observation of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shirish Madhukar Dalvi 287 ITR 242 (Bom.); Section 148 is a substantive provision whereas section 158BC is a procedural section. Both sections definitely stand on different footings. Section 158BC and S. 153C are analogous. The key variances are firstly, non obstante clause in S. 153C grants nearly sweeping powers to revenue with a liberty to summarily reopen the assessment of 6 y…

DCIT CC-8(4), Mumbai vs. Kalyanji Velji HUF, Mumbai

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

ITA 2337/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit Cent. Circle-8(4), M/S Kalyanji Velji Huf Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, Plot No. 368, Vishrani Niwas, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Bhandarkar Road, Matunga C.R. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400019. Pan No. Aaahk 1097 D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Jasdeep Singh, Cit-Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 153ASection 153CSection 48

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT Cent. Circle-8(4), M/s Kalyanji Velji HUF Room No. 659, 6th floor, Plot No. 368, Vishrani Niwas, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Bhandarkar Road, Matunga C.R. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400019. PAN No. AAAHK 1097 D Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Mr. Jasdeep Singh, CIT-DR Assessee by : None Date of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date of pronouncement : 26/08/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order…

Shri Anand Nadig, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 578/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69

…remedy available under S. 153C and S. 147 are also not inconsistent. Relevant here to note the observation of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shirish Madhukar ITA Nos. 575 to 578/Bang/2018 Page 10 of 21 Dalvi v. Asstt. CIT [2006] 156 Taxman 79/287 ITR 242; Section 148 is a substantive provision whereas section 158BC is a procedural section. Both sections definitely stand on different footings. Section 158BC and S. 153C are analogous. The key variances are firstly, non-obstante clause in S. 153C grants nearly sweeping powers to revenue with a liberty to summarily reopen the assessment of 6 years wi…

Shri Anand Nadig, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 577/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Nov 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69

…remedy available under S. 153C and S. 147 are also not inconsistent. Relevant here to note the observation of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shirish Madhukar ITA Nos. 575 to 578/Bang/2018 Page 10 of 21 Dalvi v. Asstt. CIT [2006] 156 Taxman 79/287 ITR 242; Section 148 is a substantive provision whereas section 158BC is a procedural section. Both sections definitely stand on different footings. Section 158BC and S. 153C are analogous. The key variances are firstly, non-obstante clause in S. 153C grants nearly sweeping powers to revenue with a liberty to summarily reopen the assessment of 6 years wi…

Shri Anand Nadig, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 576/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Nov 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69

…remedy available under S. 153C and S. 147 are also not inconsistent. Relevant here to note the observation of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shirish Madhukar ITA Nos. 575 to 578/Bang/2018 Page 10 of 21 Dalvi v. Asstt. CIT [2006] 156 Taxman 79/287 ITR 242; Section 148 is a substantive provision whereas section 158BC is a procedural section. Both sections definitely stand on different footings. Section 158BC and S. 153C are analogous. The key variances are firstly, non-obstante clause in S. 153C grants nearly sweeping powers to revenue with a liberty to summarily reopen the assessment of 6 years wi…

Shri Anand Nadig, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 575/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Nov 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri R. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69

…remedy available under S. 153C and S. 147 are also not inconsistent. Relevant here to note the observation of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shirish Madhukar ITA Nos. 575 to 578/Bang/2018 Page 10 of 21 Dalvi v. Asstt. CIT [2006] 156 Taxman 79/287 ITR 242; Section 148 is a substantive provision whereas section 158BC is a procedural section. Both sections definitely stand on different footings. Section 158BC and S. 153C are analogous. The key variances are firstly, non-obstante clause in S. 153C grants nearly sweeping powers to revenue with a liberty to summarily reopen the assessment of 6 years wi…

Narendra Kumar Gill, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on the grounds of

ITA 1532/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 1532/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Narendra Kumar Gill, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Shri N.K. Arora, Adv., Ward-2(1), 219, Civil Line South, Muzaffarnagar Muzaffarnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acvpg8013G Assessee By : Sh. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.12.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 292BSection 50CSection 55(2)(b)Section 55A

…s to prove the intent and the purpose is a subject matter of Section 292B in the instant case. If the significance of word “substance” and “effect” is kept in mind then there is no justification to treat the notice as in valid. In the case of Shrish M. Dalvi 287 ITR 242 (Mum), the Hon’ble Court observed that as long as the defect or mistake has not caused prejudice to the assessee, the mistake was 30 Narendra Kumar Gill protected under the umbrella of Section 292B of the Act. The procedural provision has to be examined from the stand point of substantial complaints. Where such violation has occasioned prejudi…

Shri Shailesh S. Patel, Palanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Palanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3063/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3063/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Shah, A.R
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…available under S. 153C does not render provision of S. 147 repugnant per se. The remedy available under S. 153C and S. 147 are also not inconsistent. Relevant here to note the observation of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shirish Madhukar Dalvi 287 ITR 242 (Bom.); Section 148 is a substantive provision whereas section 158BC is a procedural section. Both sections definitely stand on different footings. Section 158BC and S. 153C are analogous. The key variances are firstly, non obstante clause in S. 153C grants nearly sweeping powers to revenue with a liberty to summarily reopen the assessment of 6 y…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jmsw Infracon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1079/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

…elief on technicalities. iv. Consider the law laid down by the apex Court with various other High Courts on the issue of prejudice caused to the affected parties. As delineated by the hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shirish Madhukar Dalvi reported in 287 ITR 242(Bom): a) In the case of State of Kemla v. Muniyalla ,1985 SC 470,it is held that merely because an order is purported to be made under a wrong provision of law, it does not become invalid so long as there is some other provision of law. b) In the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh ,1964 SC 1329the apex Court has ruled that…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jmsw Infracon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1074/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

…elief on technicalities. iv. Consider the law laid down by the apex Court with various other High Courts on the issue of prejudice caused to the affected parties. As delineated by the hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shirish Madhukar Dalvi reported in 287 ITR 242(Bom): a) In the case of State of Kemla v. Muniyalla ,1985 SC 470,it is held that merely because an order is purported to be made under a wrong provision of law, it does not become invalid so long as there is some other provision of law. b) In the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh ,1964 SC 1329the apex Court has ruled that…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Victory Accommodations Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 6240/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am

For Appellant: Sh. Rano Jain, Adv., & Sh. Ashish Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…ef on technicalities. 12. Consider the law laid down by the apex Court with various other High Courts on the issue of prejudice caused to the affected parties. As delineated by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shirish Madhukar Dalvi reported in 287 ITR 242(Bom): In the case of State of Kemla v. Muniyalla , 1985 se 470, it is held that merely because an order is purported to be made under a wrong provision of law, it does not become invalid so long as there is some other provision of law. In the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1964 SC 1329 the apex Court has ruled that…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Victory Accommodations Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 6239/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am

For Appellant: Sh. Rano Jain, Adv., & Sh. Ashish Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…ef on technicalities. 12. Consider the law laid down by the apex Court with various other High Courts on the issue of prejudice caused to the affected parties. As delineated by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shirish Madhukar Dalvi reported in 287 ITR 242(Bom): In the case of State of Kemla v. Muniyalla , 1985 se 470, it is held that merely because an order is purported to be made under a wrong provision of law, it does not become invalid so long as there is some other provision of law. In the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1964 SC 1329 the apex Court has ruled that…

Victory Accomodations Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 6217/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am

For Appellant: Sh. Rano Jain, Adv., & Sh. Ashish Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…ef on technicalities. 12. Consider the law laid down by the apex Court with various other High Courts on the issue of prejudice caused to the affected parties. As delineated by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shirish Madhukar Dalvi reported in 287 ITR 242(Bom): In the case of State of Kemla v. Muniyalla , 1985 se 470, it is held that merely because an order is purported to be made under a wrong provision of law, it does not become invalid so long as there is some other provision of law. In the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1964 SC 1329 the apex Court has ruled that…

Victory Accomodations Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and that of the department are dismissed

ITA 6216/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am

For Appellant: Sh. Rano Jain, Adv., & Sh. Ashish Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…ef on technicalities. 12. Consider the law laid down by the apex Court with various other High Courts on the issue of prejudice caused to the affected parties. As delineated by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shirish Madhukar Dalvi reported in 287 ITR 242(Bom): In the case of State of Kemla v. Muniyalla , 1985 se 470, it is held that merely because an order is purported to be made under a wrong provision of law, it does not become invalid so long as there is some other provision of law. In the case of Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1964 SC 1329 the apex Court has ruled that…

Shah Jain Associates, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 24 & 26, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 878/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Amit Shukla, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S. Shah Jain Associates, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Bahadur Manjil, 2-C, 2Nd Income Tax, Central Circle 24 Floor, S. A. Brevli Road, Store & 26, Mumbai Lane, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aasfs 7448G Appellant .. Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(32)Section 153Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…B. It therefore follows that merely because of the said defect, the order of penalty does not become invalid. In this view of the matter, support is drawn from the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Shiriish Madhukar Dalvi vs ACIT (2006) 287 ITR 242 (Bom).” 4. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the relevant findings given in the impugned order as well as the materials placed on record. Before going into the merits of the matter, whether penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) is leviable on the addition of Rs.19,99,776/- or not, we would like to dwell upon the very substratum of initiation of pen…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Mysore vs. Sri.D.S.Srinivasa Rao & Brothers

Appeal is dismissed

ITA/173/2007HC Karnataka26 Nov 2013

Bench: N.KUMAR,RATHNAKALA

Section 132Section 132ASection 158BSection 260ASection 292B

…olding that the Block Assessment Order is one without jurisdiction. 6. The learned counsel relying upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Shirish Madhukar Dalvi Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & others reported in (2006) 287 ITR 242 (Bom) submitted that the said provision of law is purely procedural in nature. In the aforesaid judgment, there is no reference to this provision at all and therefore, it cannot be said that this provision is procedural and it need not be complied. Moreover, these provisions are specially inserted into the Act with a specific purpose. T…

Venad Properties Private Limited

ITA/1525/2010HC Delhi11 Nov 2011
Section 127Section 132Section 144Section 158Section 158BSection 260A

…lant, it amounts to a mere procedural irregularity which can be rectified and is not an illegality. The tribunal has erred in relying upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Shirish Madhukar Dalvi versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, [2006] 287 ITR 242, whereas there is a contrary binding judgment of the jurisdictional Delhi High Court in ITA No. 411/2004 dated 16th August, 2004 titled Commissioner of Income Tax versus N.K. Parwanda. (4) The direction of remit to the Assessing Officer is a futile exercise as no material or evidence was found in the alleged search. 2. On the first…

Shirish Madhukar Dalvi v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (287 ITR 242) — Cited in 18 Judgments | BharatTax