How many judgments are there on Section 115WE?

BharatTax indexes 68 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 115WE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 115WE of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 115WE of the Income Tax Act?

46 Taxmann.com 169 (Delhi); Kanji Mai & Sons. v. CIT (189 ITR 326) is the decision most relied on for Section 115WE, cited in 25 judgments. An assessee must raise objections regarding territorial jurisdiction before the assessment is completed. The Central Board of Revenue has the power to assign assessments to an Income Tax Officer of its choice.

Q: Which cases are most cited on Section 115WE?

46 Taxmann.com 169 (Delhi); Kanji Mai & Sons. v. CIT (189 ITR 326) — 25 citing judgments; Commissioner of Income Tax v. BharatkumarModi (246 ITR 693) — 10 citing judgments; P.A. Ahammed v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (282 ITR 334) — 8 citing judgments; Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. & Anr. (7 SCC 791) — 7 citing judgments; MahalliramRamniranjan Das v. CIT (156 ITR 885) — 4 citing judgments.

The decision most relied on for Section 115WE is 46 Taxmann.com 169 (Delhi); Kanji Mai & Sons. v. CIT (189 ITR 326), cited in 25 of the 68 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 115WE

46 Taxmann.com 169 (Delhi); Kanji Mai & Sons. v. CIT

189 ITR 326 · 1991 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee must raise objections regarding territorial jurisdiction before the assessment is completed. The Central Board of Revenue has the power to assign assessments to an Income Tax Officer of its choice.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. BharatkumarModi

246 ITR 693 · 2000 · High Court

citing judgments

Proceedings are a nullity when the authority initiating them lacks the fundamental power to do so. Conversely, an order is not a nullity if it arises from an irregular exercise of existing jurisdiction, such as failing to confront the assessee with evidence.

P.A. Ahammed v. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

282 ITR 334 · 2006 · High Court

citing judgments

Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. & Anr.

7 SCC 791 · 2005 · Reported

citing judgments

MahalliramRamniranjan Das v. CIT

156 ITR 885 · 1985 · Reported

citing judgments

Its Own Motion v. CIT

31 Taxmann.com 31 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

Asstt. CIT v. Mrs. N. Meenakshi

125 TTJ 856 · 2009 · ITAT

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 115WE

Supreme Construction, Hooghly vs. ACIT, Cir-2, Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1428/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT, ld.DR

Section 115WSection 271Section 271F

Auro Food P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 847/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT

Section 115W

Auro Food P Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 846/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT

Section 115W

ITO, Ward-1(3)(3), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Kgms Broking & Research Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3300/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Section 115WSection 153

DCIT, Cir-7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Business Standard Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 749/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi]

Section 115WSection 250

DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Eih Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 356/KOL/2016[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.356& 338/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2001-02&2006-07) Vs. M/S Eih Ltd. Dcit, Cir-8(1), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan, 5Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee 4, Mangoe Lane, Kolkata – 1. Sq., Kolkata- 69. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaace 6898 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Respondent By : Shri Asim Chaudhury, Advocate. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Years2001-02 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16,Kolkata. 2.The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue (In Ita No.338/Kol/2016) Are As Under: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has The Power U/S 251 Of The Income Tax Act To Accept The Claim Of The Assessee For Amending The Return Except Otherwise Than By Filing A Revised Return. 2. That The Appellant Reserves The Right To Amend, Alter Or Add To Any Ground(S) Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” 3.The Brief Facts Qua The Issue Are That Theassessee Filed Its Return Of Fringe Benefits On 27.11.2006 Showing Value Of Fringe Benefit At Rs.8,28,82,508/- & The Same Was Processed U/S 115We Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Thereafter, Notice U/S 115We(2) R.W.S 142(1) Of The Act, Was Issued To The Assessee. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Claimed That Expenditure Of Rs.2,24,48,941/- Was Incurred On Uniform Of Employees On Office Duty Is Not Liable To Be Considered For M/S Eih Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Asim Chaudhury, Advocate

Section 115WSection 251