Union of India & Anr. v. Indian Fisheries (P) Ltd.

57 ITR 331Supreme Court of India1965#7209 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 10(38)Section 129Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

Issues it is cited on

transferpersonsection 14section 143(3)indiatotal incomebusinessdocument

Judgments citing Union of India & Anr. v. Indian Fisheries (P) Ltd.

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6203/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…eld in Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 495 (Bom). The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in in CTO vs. Binani Cement Ltd. & Anr on 19 February, 2014- CIVIL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2003, after considering Union of India & Anr. vs. Indian Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 331,334 (SC); CIT vs. Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. (1989) 176 ITR 473 (Cal), ITO vs. Shrilekha Business Consultancy (P.) Ltd. approved the said law. 22. Thus, in view of the aforesaid position of law as above, we hold that the AO could have only pass reassessment order u/s 153A of the Act for the A.Y.2011-12 instead of the section 147 of the Act, beca…

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6202/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…eld in Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 495 (Bom). The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in in CTO vs. Binani Cement Ltd. & Anr on 19 February, 2014- CIVIL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2003, after considering Union of India & Anr. vs. Indian Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 331,334 (SC); CIT vs. Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. (1989) 176 ITR 473 (Cal), ITO vs. Shrilekha Business Consultancy (P.) Ltd. approved the said law. 22. Thus, in view of the aforesaid position of law as above, we hold that the AO could have only pass reassessment order u/s 153A of the Act for the A.Y.2011-12 instead of the section 147 of the Act, beca…

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6201/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…eld in Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 495 (Bom). The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in in CTO vs. Binani Cement Ltd. & Anr on 19 February, 2014- CIVIL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2003, after considering Union of India & Anr. vs. Indian Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 331,334 (SC); CIT vs. Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. (1989) 176 ITR 473 (Cal), ITO vs. Shrilekha Business Consultancy (P.) Ltd. approved the said law. 22. Thus, in view of the aforesaid position of law as above, we hold that the AO could have only pass reassessment order u/s 153A of the Act for the A.Y.2011-12 instead of the section 147 of the Act, beca…

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6200/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2015-16
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…eld in Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 495 (Bom). The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in in CTO vs. Binani Cement Ltd. & Anr on 19 February, 2014- CIVIL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2003, after considering Union of India & Anr. vs. Indian Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 331,334 (SC); CIT vs. Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. (1989) 176 ITR 473 (Cal), ITO vs. Shrilekha Business Consultancy (P.) Ltd. approved the said law. 22. Thus, in view of the aforesaid position of law as above, we hold that the AO could have only pass reassessment order u/s 153A of the Act for the A.Y.2011-12 instead of the section 147 of the Act, beca…

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6199/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2014-15
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…eld in Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 495 (Bom). The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in in CTO vs. Binani Cement Ltd. & Anr on 19 February, 2014- CIVIL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2003, after considering Union of India & Anr. vs. Indian Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 331,334 (SC); CIT vs. Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. (1989) 176 ITR 473 (Cal), ITO vs. Shrilekha Business Consultancy (P.) Ltd. approved the said law. 22. Thus, in view of the aforesaid position of law as above, we hold that the AO could have only pass reassessment order u/s 153A of the Act for the A.Y.2011-12 instead of the section 147 of the Act, beca…

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6198/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2012-13
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…eld in Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 495 (Bom). The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in in CTO vs. Binani Cement Ltd. & Anr on 19 February, 2014- CIVIL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2003, after considering Union of India & Anr. vs. Indian Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 331,334 (SC); CIT vs. Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. (1989) 176 ITR 473 (Cal), ITO vs. Shrilekha Business Consultancy (P.) Ltd. approved the said law. 22. Thus, in view of the aforesaid position of law as above, we hold that the AO could have only pass reassessment order u/s 153A of the Act for the A.Y.2011-12 instead of the section 147 of the Act, beca…

KASHYAP KANIYALAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-4(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6197/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…eld in Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 495 (Bom). The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in in CTO vs. Binani Cement Ltd. & Anr on 19 February, 2014- CIVIL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2003, after considering Union of India & Anr. vs. Indian Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 331,334 (SC); CIT vs. Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. (1989) 176 ITR 473 (Cal), ITO vs. Shrilekha Business Consultancy (P.) Ltd. approved the said law. 22. Thus, in view of the aforesaid position of law as above, we hold that the AO could have only pass reassessment order u/s 153A of the Act for the A.Y.2011-12 instead of the section 147 of the Act, beca…

ERNST AND YOUNG U.S. LLP,UNITED STATES vs. ACIT, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3253/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Sh. S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 192

…erce & finance. 32 Ernst and Young U.S. LLP 26. We have also examined the various orders of the Tribunal namely, MSEV Vs. DCIT (83 TTJ 325), EC Group India Pvt. Ltd. (84 taxmann 108) and the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. India Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. (57 ITR 331). The Hon’ble Apex Court held that if there is an apparent conflict between two independent provisions of law, the special provision must prevail. Respectfully, we hold that there are no two calms about the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, there has to be two independent provisions which are in conflict between each other. In the ins…

KASHYAP K. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 21 (1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 640/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, Ld
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…eld in Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 495 (Bom). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in in CTO vs. Binani Cement Ltd. & Anr on 19 February, 2014- CIVIL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2003, after considering Union of India & Anr. vs. Indian Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 331,334 (SC); CIT vs. Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. (1989) 176 ITR 473 (Cal), ITO vs. Shrilekha Business Consultancy (P.) Ltd. approved the said law. 22. Thus, in view of the aforesaid position of law as above, we hold that the AO could have only pass reassessment order u/s 153A of the Act for the A.Y.2011-12 instead of the section 147 of the Act, bec…

MR NILESH BHARANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 612/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 612/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar/SatishFor Respondent: Shri Murli Mohan
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69

…v. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 495 (Bom). The Hon‟ble Supreme Court after considering gamut of the judicial pronouncements in CTO vs Binani Cement Ltd. & Anr on 19 February, 2014- CIVIL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2003, Union of India & Anr. vs. Indian Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 331,334 (SC), CIT v. Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. (1989) 176 ITR 473 (Cal), ITO vs. Shrilekha Business Consultancy (P.) Ltd. [2020] 121 taxmann.com 150 (Hyderabad - Trib.), Ballarpur Industries Ltd 398 ITR 145 (Bombay), UAL Industries Ltd [2013] 31 taxmann.com 111 (Kolkata - Trib.) (TM) approved the said law. 19. We further opine that the same legal…

RUPAL KASHYAP MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 21 (3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1235/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1235/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito, Ward 21(3)(1), Rupal Kahyap Mehta Income Tax Office, 26/27, A Wing, Ahuja Towers, बनाम/ Piramal Chambers, Dr. Raja Bhau Desai Road, Vs. Ss Roa Marg, Parel, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400 025 Mumbai-400 012 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Agrpm5338E (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 04.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, LdFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 127Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

…eld in Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 495 (Bom). The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in in CTO vs. Binani Cement Ltd. & Anr on 19 February, 2014- CIVIL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2003, after considering Union of India & Anr. vs. Indian Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 331,334 (SC); CIT vs. Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. (1989) 176 ITR 473 (Cal), ITO vs. Shrilekha Business Consultancy (P.) Ltd. approved the said law. 22. Thus, in view of the aforesaid position of law as above, we hold that the AO could have only pass reassessment order u/s 153A of the Act for the A.Y.2011-12 instead of the section 147 of the Act, bec…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. FORD INDIA PVT. LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is thus allowed

ITA 840/CHNY/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2012-13
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…effect of Article 5 and Article 12 or Article 13, so far as such services are concerned. As to what should be done in such a situation, we find guidance from the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. India Fisheries (P) Ltd. [57 ITR 331 (1965)] "If there is an apparent I.T.A. Nos. 673, 840, 748 and 749 /Chny/2015 Assessment Years: 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 22 of 55 conflict between two independent provisions of law, the special provision must prevail." This principle is described in Sampat lyengar's Commentary on Law of Income-tax (9th Edn; Vol. 1, p. 48) as follows: "The general…

FORD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is thus allowed

ITA 749/CHNY/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2012-13
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…effect of Article 5 and Article 12 or Article 13, so far as such services are concerned. As to what should be done in such a situation, we find guidance from the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. India Fisheries (P) Ltd. [57 ITR 331 (1965)] "If there is an apparent I.T.A. Nos. 673, 840, 748 and 749 /Chny/2015 Assessment Years: 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 22 of 55 conflict between two independent provisions of law, the special provision must prevail." This principle is described in Sampat lyengar's Commentary on Law of Income-tax (9th Edn; Vol. 1, p. 48) as follows: "The general…

FORD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. ITO, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is thus allowed

ITA 748/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2011-12
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…effect of Article 5 and Article 12 or Article 13, so far as such services are concerned. As to what should be done in such a situation, we find guidance from the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. India Fisheries (P) Ltd. [57 ITR 331 (1965)] "If there is an apparent I.T.A. Nos. 673, 840, 748 and 749 /Chny/2015 Assessment Years: 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 22 of 55 conflict between two independent provisions of law, the special provision must prevail." This principle is described in Sampat lyengar's Commentary on Law of Income-tax (9th Edn; Vol. 1, p. 48) as follows: "The general…

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. FORD INDIA PVT. LTD., KANCHEEPURAM

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is thus allowed

ITA 673/CHNY/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2011-12
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…effect of Article 5 and Article 12 or Article 13, so far as such services are concerned. As to what should be done in such a situation, we find guidance from the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. India Fisheries (P) Ltd. [57 ITR 331 (1965)] "If there is an apparent I.T.A. Nos. 673, 840, 748 and 749 /Chny/2015 Assessment Years: 2011-12 and 2012-13 Page 22 of 55 conflict between two independent provisions of law, the special provision must prevail." This principle is described in Sampat lyengar's Commentary on Law of Income-tax (9th Edn; Vol. 1, p. 48) as follows: "The general…

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT)) TDS 3, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3901/MUM/2013[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 248Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(i)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

…ifically deal with speculation business, cannot be derogated by the provisions of Section 72 of the Act which deals with business losses in general. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. India Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 331 (SC). "If there is an apparent conflict between two independent provisions of law, the special provision must prevail". This principle is described in Sampat Iyengar's Commentary on Law of Income-tax (9th Edn., Vol. 1 p. 48) as follows: 'The general maxim is generalia specialibus non derogant, that is general things will not derogate from special…