Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

13 ITR 39Reported decision1945#10161 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 253Section 120(4)(b)Section 124(3)Section 127Section 13(4)Section 143(3)Section 2(7A)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

section 124(1)section 115whsection 115wfsection 115wsection 127(1)section 115wdsection 115wesection 124(3)section 124section 120section 153(a)section 158bc

Judgments citing Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd. v. CIT

ESSAR COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1 (2)(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 340/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG
Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

…xpress provisions of section 6(3)(ii) of the Act which require that the residential status is to be ascertained basis the events pertaining to the previous year. 34. In this regard, reference is made to the judgments of Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd v CIT (1945) 13 ITR 39 (FC), Sri Raja K.V. Narsimha Rao Bahadur v CIT (1950) 18 ITR 181 (Madras), GirdharlalGhelabhai v CIT (1964) (53 ITR 23) (Gujrat) wherein the courts have consistently section 6(3) of the Act is to be determined for the relevant previous year in which the income arises and it is the control and management during such year alone that is relevant to de…

ESSAR COM LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 339/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Venkatraman, ASG
Section 250Section 253Section 6(3)

…xpress provisions of section 6(3)(ii) of the Act which require that the residential status is to be ascertained basis the events pertaining to the previous year. 34. In this regard, reference is made to the judgments of Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd v CIT (1945) 13 ITR 39 (FC), Sri Raja K.V. Narsimha Rao Bahadur v CIT (1950) 18 ITR 181 (Madras), GirdharlalGhelabhai v CIT (1964) (53 ITR 23) (Gujrat) wherein the courts have consistently taken a view that the residential status under provisions analogous to section 6(3) of the Act is to be determined for the relevant previous year in which the income arises and it is t…

DNH SPINNERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal being infructuous is dismissed

ITA 2624/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2025AY 2008-09
For Appellant: \nShri Rushabh Mehta, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Annavaram Kosuri, (Sr. AR)
Section 124(3)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 170(2)Section 80I

…the administrative side by the\nCommissioner/Commissioners/ Board. Appeal can, however, be filed questioning the\naction of the Assessing Officer in not following the procedure mentioned/stipulated in\nSection 124. In Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1945] 13 ITR 39, Federal Court had\nheld that the objection to place of assessment could not be raised in an appeal\nagainst the assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1922. This view was affirmed by\nthe Supreme Court in Rai Bahadur Seth Teomalv. CIT [1959] 36 ITR 9 holding that the\nobjection as to the place of objection under the 1922 Act could not be made a subj…

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

…on the administrative side by the Commissioner/Commissioners/ Board. Appeal can, however, be filed questioning the action of the Assessing Officer in not following the procedure mentioned/stipulated in Section 124. In Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1945] 13 ITR 39, Federal Court had held that the objection to place of assessment could not be raised in an appeal against the assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1922. This view was affirmed by the Supreme Court in RaiBahadur Seth Teomalv. CIT [1959] 36 ITR 9 holding that the objection as to the place of objection under the 1922 Act could not be made a subject o…

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1179/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 124Section 127Section 144Section 147Section 234

…on the administrative side by the Commissioner/Commissioners/ Board. Appeal can, however, be filed questioning the action of the Assessing Officer in not following the procedure mentioned/stipulated in Section 124. In Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1945] 13 ITR 39, Federal Court had held that the objection to place of assessment could not be raised in an appeal against the assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1922. This view was affirmed by the Supreme Court in RaiBahadur Seth Teomal Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax,[1959] 36 ITR 9(SC) holding that the objection as to the place of objection under the 1922…

M/S. EKALAVYA CAREER ACADEMY TRUST,SUNDERGARH vs. ITO, WARD-2, ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 176/CTK/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiam/S Ekalavya Career Academy Trust, Unitech House, Udit Nagar, Rourkela-769012 Sundargarh, Odisha Pan No.Aaate 3283 F ………………Assessee Versus Ito, Ward-2, Rourkela ………………..Revenue Shri Sidharth Ray/Binod Agarwal, Ars For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 31/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Cuttack, In I.T.Appeal No.121/2012-13, Dated 29.02.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Assessee Has Raised A Legal Ground Which Reads As Under :- “A) For That The Transfer Of The Case For The Period 2010-11 By The Jcit To The File Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Rourkela Vide Memo No.Ito/W-2/Rkl/Scrutiny/A.Y 2010-11 Dt.11Th October 2012, Is Without Jurisdiction As The Jcit Has No Power U/S 127 Of The It Act, Who Transferred The Case, Therefore The Order Of Assessment As Well As The Order Of Cit(A) Are Void Ab Initio & The Demand Raised In The Assessment Order Is Liable To Be Annulled.” 3. As The Above Ground Is Legal In Nature, Which Goes To The Root Of The Matter, Therefore, The Said Ground Was Heard First.

Section 120Section 124(3)Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…n as the assessment has been completed. Even where the right is exercised before the assessment is completed, the question is to be decided by the Commissioner or by the Board. Courts do not come into the picture. In Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1945] 13 ITR 39, the Federal Court had held that the objection to place of assessment could not be raised in an appeal against the assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1922. This view was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rai Bahadur Seth Teomal vs. CIT (36 ITR 9)(SC) holding that the objection as to the place of objection under the 1922 Act cou…

INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(3)(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1484/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

…nd the proviso thereto said: " These provisions clearly indicate that the matter is more one of administrative convenience than of (1) (1927) I.L.R. 49 All. 616. (2) Seth Kanhaiyal Lal v. CIT [1937] 5 ITR 736 (All.) (3) Wallance Bros. & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1945] 13 ITR 39 (FC). Jurisdiction and in any event it is not one for adjudication by the Court…….. This confirms us in the view that the scheme of the Act does not contemplate an objection as to the place of assessment being raised on an appeal against the assessment after the assessment has been made. As we have already pointed out, the objection was not raised…

M/S.VIBGYOR TEXOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-8(3)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 487/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-8(3)(3), M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Aayakar 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400015. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Vibgyor Texotech Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of 309, Navyug, T.J. Road, Sewree, Income Tax-8(3)(2), Mumbai-400015. Vs. Mumbai. Pan No. Aaccv 0752 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Pavan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR/
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264ASection 40

…nd the proviso thereto said: " These provisions clearly indicate that the matter is more one of administrative convenience than of (1) (1927) I.L.R. 49 All. 616. (2) Seth Kanhaiyal Lal v. CIT [1937] 5 ITR 736 (All.) (3) Wallance Bros. & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1945] 13 ITR 39 (FC). Jurisdiction and in any event it is not one for adjudication by the Court…….. This confirms us in the view that the scheme of the Act does not contemplate an objection as to the place of assessment being raised on an appeal against the assessment after the assessment has been made. As we have already pointed out, the objection was not raised…

COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI-XVI vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

ITA - 255 / 2002HC Delhi14 Mar 2014
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…ministrative side by the Commissioner/Commissioners/ Board. Appeal can, however, be filed questioning the action of the Assessing Officer in not following the procedure mentioned/stipulated in Section 124. In Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1945] 13 ITR 39, Federal Court had held that the objection to place of assessment could not be raised in an appeal against the assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1922. This view was affirmed by the Supreme Court in RaiBahadur Seth Teomal Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax,[1959] 36 ITR 9(SC) holding that the objection as to the place of objection under the…

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.S. AHLUWALIA

ITA/255/2002HC Delhi14 Mar 2014
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…ministrative side by the Commissioner/Commissioners/ Board. Appeal can, however, be filed questioning the action of the Assessing Officer in not following the procedure mentioned/stipulated in Section 124. In Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1945] 13 ITR 39, Federal Court had held that the objection to place of assessment could not be raised in an appeal against the assessment under the Income Tax Act, 1922. This view was affirmed by the Supreme Court in RaiBahadur Seth Teomal Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax,[1959] 36 ITR 9(SC) holding that the objection as to the place of objection under the…

Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (13 ITR 39) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax