Vijay Prakash D. Mehta v. Collector of Customs

175 ITR 540Supreme Court of India1989#19547 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 139 Section 142(1)Section 144 Section 147 Section 148 Section 154 Section 234A Section 249(3)

Judgments citing Vijay Prakash D. Mehta v. Collector of Customs

Ishan Arora, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 669/JPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT a

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 669/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2008-09 cuke Ishan Arora The ITO, Vs. 38M, Laxmi Narayan Mandir, Ward-5(2), Raja Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADCPA7893E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Sharma, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue…

Smt. Sulochana Ramesh, Bengaluru vs. The ACIT, Central Circle- 2(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1120/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 139(9)Section 144Section 153CSection 249(4)(b)Section 294(4)

…dmission of appeal the advance tax payable on this income of Rs 11,82,60,329/- was required to be paid by the appellant. However, admittedly the appellant has not done so. 4.3 The Apex Court in the case of Vijay Prakash D. Mehta v. Collector of Customs [19891 175 ITR 540 (SC) while dealing with the similar provisions under the Customs Act has held that the right of appeal is neither an absolute right nor an ingredient of natural justice, the principles of which must be followed in all judicial and quasi-judicial adjudications. The right of appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the conditions…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mr. Abdul Zahid

The appeal is dismissed

ITA/100138/2015HC Karnataka30 Jan 2017

Bench: SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 249(4)(a)Section 260ASection 5

…t clause.” 7. The Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-III Vs. K. Satish Kumar Singh (supra), after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Prakash D. Mehta and Another Vs. Collector of Customs (1989) 175 ITR 540 has held as under: “The Apex Court in the case of Vijay Prakash D. Mehta v. Collector of Customs MANU/SC/0570/1988: (1989) 175 ITR 540 dealing with the similar provisions under the 12/16 Date of Order 30-01-2017 ITA No.100138/2015 and connected appeals The Prl.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) & Another Vs. Mr. Abdul Zahid Customs Act h…

M/S Fiza Developers & Inter Trade Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1257/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Aug 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijaypal Raoi.T.A No.1257/Bang/2013 (Assessment Year : 2005-06) M/S. Fiza Developers & Inter Trade P. Ltd, No.25/1, Residency Road, Bangalore .. Appellant Pan : Aaacf5868N V. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle -11(3), Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jcit Heard On : 25.08.2015 Pronounced On : 27.08.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George: In This Appeal Filed By Assessee Directed Against An Order Dt.17.06.2013, Its Grievance Is That The Cit (A) Dismissed Its Appeal For Non-Payment Of Tax Due On Returned Income. 02. When The Matter Came Up Before Us, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Total Tax Due As Per The Return Filed Was Rs.87,14,679/- Out Of Which, Rs.16,90,412/- Stood Credited On Account Of Tds. As Per The Ld. Ar Though It Was True That Assessee Had Not Paid Full Amount Of Tax At The Time Of Filing The Return Or Before The Appeal Was Filed, It Was Later Paid In Full. Ld. Ar

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT

Section 249

…sion of the Act, there is no prohibition or legal impediment for the Appellate Authority to recall its earlier order and entertain the appeal and decide the same on merits. 5. The Apex Court in the case of Vijay Prakash D. Mehta v. Collector of Customs [1989] 175 ITR 540(SC) dealing with the similar provisions under the Customs Act has held that the right of appeal is neither an absolute right nor an ingredient of natural justice, the principles of which must be followed in all judicial and quasi-judicial adjudications. The right of appeal is a statutory right and it can be circumscribed by the conditions in the…