Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain

259 ITR 449Supreme Court of India2003#684 most cited

What is Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain authority for?

Section 144C(4) uses a non-obstante clause to expedite the final assessment order, requiring the Assessing Officer to pass it immediately upon acceptance or lack of objection to the TPO's order, irrespective of broader time limits under Section 153.

147

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,518 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Sultana Begum v Prem Chand Jain · section 144C(4) · section 153 · Assessing Officer duty · expedite assessment · TPO order acceptance · no objection TPO order · final order immediate · limitation period

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain

Coca-Cola India Inc. - India Branch Office, Gurugram, Haryana vs. Assistant Or Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Gurugram, Haryana

In the result, all six appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5316/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5223/Del/2010 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2004-05 बनाम Coca Cola India Inc., Ddit Enkay Tower, Udyog Vihar, Vs. International Taxation, Phase-V, Gurgaon. Circle 3(2), New Delhi. Pan No.Aaacc2638K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5031/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम Coca Cola India Inc., Dcit India Branch Office, Vs. International Taxation, 17Th Floor, One Horizon Centre, Circle, Gurgaon. Dlf Golf Course Road, Dlf Phase-V, Sector-43, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aaacc2638K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.431/Del/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Coca Cola India Inc., Acit India Branch Office, Vs. International Taxation, 17Th Floor, One Horizon Centre, Circle, Gurgaon. Dlf Golf Course Road, Dlf Phase-V, Sector-43, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aaacc2638K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.503/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Coca Cola India Inc., Acit India Branch Office, Vs. International Taxation, 17Th Floor, One Horizon Centre, Circle, Gurgaon. Dlf Golf Course Road, Dlf Phase-V, Sector-43, Gurgaon, Haryana. Pan No.Aaacc2638K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 92C

…COCA COLA INDIA INC. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5223/Del/2010 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2004-05 बनाम COCA COLA INDIA INC., DDIT Enkay Tower, Udyog Vihar, Vs. International Taxation, Phase-V, Gurgaon. Circle 3(2), New Delhi. PAN No.AAACC2638K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5031/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 बनाम COCA COLA INDIA INC., DCIT India Branch Office, Vs. International Taxation, 17th Floor, One Horizon Centre, Circle, Gurgaon. DLF G…

M/S. Lufthansa Technik Services India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1727/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआअसं.1727/धिल्ली/2014(नि.व. 2009-10) Lufthansa Technik Services India P. Ltd., Ndg Centre, B-4, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi 110049 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aaaco-7766-N बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), R. No.316-A, C R Building, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent New Delhi आअसं.1965/धिल्ली/2015(नि.व. 2010-11) Lufthansa Technik Services India P. Ltd., Ndg Centre, B-4, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi 110049 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aaaco-7766-N बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(4), ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent New Delhi आअसं.1706/धिल्ली/2016(नि.व. 2011-12) आअसं.506/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2012-13) Lufthansa Technik Services India P. Ltd., Ndg Centre, B-4, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi 110049 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Aaaco-7766-N बिाम Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Circle 15(2), R.No. 316-A, Cr Building, New Delhi

For Appellant: S/Shri Vishal Kalra & Ankit Sahni, Advcoates with Ms. Sumish Murgai, Shri KashisFor Respondent: Shri Dharm Veer Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “आई”, धिल्ली श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य एिं श्री संजय अिस्थी, लेखाकार सिस्य के समक्ष IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.1727/धिल्ली/2014(नि.व. 2009-10) Lufthansa Technik Services India P. Ltd., NDG Centre, B-4, Gulmohar Park, New Delhi 110049 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant PAN: AAACO-7766-N बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), R. No.316-A, C R Building, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent New Delhi आअसं.1965/धिल्ली/2015(नि.व. 2010-11) Lufthansa Technik Serv…

Ericsson India Private Limited (Formerly Known As Ericsson India Global Services Private Limited), Delhi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT), New Delhi

In the result, all ITA Nos

ITA 6094/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5493/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Nec Corporation India Private Limited, Assessment Unit, A-31, 1St Floor, Lajpat Nagar, South Delhi, Delhi. Vs. Circle 16(1), C.R.Bldg, Pan No.Aaccn3496J I.P. Estate, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Arun Bhaduria, Advocate (Virtual) &Shri Nishank Vashistha, Adv Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5856/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Lintec India Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 14Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Vs. Income Tax, Nehru Place, South Delhi. Circle 13(1), C.R. Building,Delhi. Pan No.Aaccl3772F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…n of section 144C itself.” The Division Bench affirmed aforesaid findings of the Hon’ble Single Judge and further after considering various decisions viz.Sultana Begum vs. Prem Chand Jain [1997] 1 SCC 373; CIT vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers [2023] 126 Taxman 321/259 ITR 449; & Franklin Templeton Trustee Services (P.) Ltd. vs Amruta Garg 124 taxmann.com 326, held as under:- “23. Further, similar non-obstante clause is also used in section 144C(4) with a same limited purpose to imply, even though there might be a larger time limit under Section 153, once the order of TPO is accepted or not objected to, causing a deemi…

Nec Corporation India Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(1), Delhi

In the result, all ITA Nos

ITA 5493/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shrivikas Awasthy & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5493/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Nec Corporation India Private Limited, Assessment Unit, A-31, 1St Floor, Lajpat Nagar, South Delhi, Delhi. Vs. Circle 16(1), C.R.Bldg, Pan No.Aaccn3496J I.P. Estate, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By Shri Arun Bhaduria, Advocate (Virtual) &Shri Nishank Vashistha, Adv Revenue By Shri Dharm Veer Singh, Cit Dr आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5856/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Lintec India Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of 14Th Floor, Eros Corporate Tower, Vs. Income Tax, Nehru Place, South Delhi. Circle 13(1), C.R. Building,Delhi. Pan No.Aaccl3772F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144C(13)Section 92C

…n of section 144C itself.” The Division Bench affirmed aforesaid findings of the Hon’ble Single Judge and further after considering various decisions viz.Sultana Begum vs. Prem Chand Jain [1997] 1 SCC 373; CIT vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers [2023] 126 Taxman 321/259 ITR 449; & Franklin Templeton Trustee Services (P.) Ltd. vs Amruta Garg 124 taxmann.com 326, held as under:- “23. Further, similar non-obstante clause is also used in section 144C(4) with a same limited purpose to imply, even though there might be a larger time limit under Section 153, once the order of TPO is accepted or not objected to, causing a deemi…

Shakti Hormann Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 917/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.917/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year:2020-21) Shakti Hormann Private Limited, Hyderabad. Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad. Pan: Aadcs4024Q (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राजस्व द्वारा / Revenue By: Ms. U. Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “A.O.”) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”) Dated 25/07/2024 For The

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Ms. U. Mini Chandran
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 92C

…retation which reduces one of the provisions as a "dead letter" or "useless lumber" is not harmonious construction. (5) To harmonise is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it otiose." (ii). CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers, (2003) 126 Taxman 321/259 ITR 449. "16. The courts will have to reject that construction which will defeat the plain intention of the legislature even though there may be some inexactitude in the language used. (See Salmon v. Duncombe [(1886) 11 AC 627 : 55 LJPC 69 : 55 LT 446 (PC)] AC at p. 634, Curtis v. Stovin [(1889) 22 QBD 513: 58 LJQB 174 : 60 LT 772 (CA)] referred to in S.…

Sresta Natural Bioproducts Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 711/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.711/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Sresta Natural Bioproducts Private Limited, Hyderabad. The Dcit, Circle-3(1), Vs. Pin – 500 081. Hyderabad – 500 081. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Aahcs9571J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 153Section 92CSection 92C(3)

…1 ITA.No.711/Hyd./2024 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.711/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Sresta Natural Bioproducts Private Limited, Hyderabad. The DCIT, Circle-3(1), vs. PIN – 500 081. Hyderabad – 500 081. Telangana. Telangana. PAN AAHCS9571J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee by: CA P Murali Mohan Rao राज" व "ारा /Revenue by: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 11.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronou…

Tmeic Industrial Systems India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 898/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.898/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. Tmeic Industrial Vs. Dy.Cit Systems India Private Limited Circle 2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan: Aadct5493J (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.As, K. C. Devdas, Kranthi Palivela & Mrudulatha राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12/12/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: C.As, K. C. Devdas, KranthiFor Respondent: Smt. U. Mini Chandran, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254

…pretation which reduces one of the provisions as a "dead letter" or "useless lumber" is not harmonious construction. (5) To harmonise is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it otiose." (ii) CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers [2003] 126 Taxman 321/259 ITR 449: "16. The courts will have to reject that construction which will defeat the plain intention of the legislature even though there may be some inexactitude in the language used. (See Salmon v. Duncombe [(1886) 11 AC 627 : 55 LJPC 69 : 55 LT 446 (PC)] AC at p. 634, Curtis v. Stovin [(1889) 22 QBD 513 : 58 LJQB 174 : 60 LT 772 (CA)] referred to in S…