Law to be applied is that in force in the Assessment Year unless otherwise provided expressly or by necessary implications.
Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd Vs CIT (SC) 120 ITR 921
For wealth-tax cases, law as it stood on first day of assessment year is applicable
CWT Vs S.A.P. Annamalai (Mad) 141 ITR 578
Penalty to be levied based on law as on date of committing default.
CIT Vs Onkar Saran and Sons (SC) 195 ITR 1
CIT Vs Gopi Ram Mulakh Raj (P & H) 178 ITR 680
CWT Vs Bhagwan Prasad Kanoi (Cal) 184 ITR 95
CIT Vs A. Mohd. Abdul Khader (Mad) 260 ITR 650
Proceedings for imposition of penalty can be initiated only after an assessment order has been made – who has the authority to impose penalty at that point of time, should remain the authority finally to impose penalty also.
Varkey Chacko Vs CIT (SC) 203 ITR 885.
CIT Vs Kausalya & others (Bom) 216 ITR 660
Circulars dated 4.10.69 and 18.9.72 on the same subject – A.Y. 1971-72 - Circular dated 04.10.69 is law applicable on the 1st day of AY – irrespective of accounting year followed.
CIT Vs Prasad Production P. Ltd. (Mad) 179 ITR 147
CIT Vs Jyoti Pictures (AP) 169 ITR 412
CBDT is not competent to give directions regarding the exercise of any judicial power by its subordinate authorities
J.K. Synthetics Ltd and Ors. Vs CBDT & Ors. (SC) 83 ITR 335
As per the address given on the return filed by assessee himself, jurisdiction over the case vests with an Assessing Officer – Notice u/s 143(2) issued by him but no objection raised against jurisdiction u/s 124(3) – Assessment valid
Ram Bhaj & Sons (P.) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT, Asr) 102 ITD 93
Assessment proceedings are quasi judicial in nature. While making assessments, ITO is solely to be guided by provisions of law and not instructions of CBDT.
Raja V.V.R.K. Yachendra Kumar Rajah of Venkatagiri Vs ITO & Anr. (AP) 70 ITR 772
Circulars cannot over-ride provisions of act – Circular giving concession can be withdrawn prospectively
State Bank of Travancore Vs CIT (SC) 158 ITR 102
Kerala Financial Corporation Vs CIT (SC) 210 ITR 129
Circular which is contrary to provisions of law is not binding on IT Offices.
Ambika Constructions Vs ITO & Ors. (Patna) 234 ITR 716
Delhi Flour Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (Del) 95 ITR 151
Circulars issued by Company Law Board – Not binding on IT authorities
Stumpp, Schule and Somappa Ltd Vs CIT (Kar) 190 ITR 152
Circular issued by CBDT not binding on Court
CIT Vs Abhishek Industries Ltd. (P&H) 286 ITR 1
For AY 73-74, IAC was vested with jurisdiction to exercise his powers conferred upon him u/s 271(1)( c) irrespective of the fact that the order in question was passed after coming into force of the amendment taking away this right from IAC.
CIT Vs Kashi Prasad & Sons ( All ) 222 ITR 626
Tribunal setting aside assessment and remitting matter to ITO – ITO has jurisdiction to consider entire matters afresh.
CIT Vs D. Veerappan (Mad) 215 ITR 533
Nenmal Champalal Sha & Ors Vs CIT (Bom) 238 ITR 266
CIT Vs Highway Constructions Co.(P) Ltd (Gau) 223 ITR 498
Saheli Synthetics (P) Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT, Ahd) 57 ITD 65
There is no inherent right of appeal – It is to be specifically conferred by the statute providing for an appeal.
Caltex Ore Refining (India) Ltd. Vs CIT (Bom) 202 ITR 375.
High Court having jurisdiction over ITO who made the assessment can hear a reference arising out of the ITO's orders
CIT Vs Madanlal and Co. (Kar) 202 ITR 360
CIT Vs Parke Davis Ltd. (AP) 239 ITR 820
Suresh Desai & Associates Vs CIT (Del) 230 ITR 912
Letters addressed by CBDT to State Government –cannot be treated as Circular
CIT Vs Kerala Financial Corpn. Ltd,. (Ker) 155 ITR 246
Order transferring a file cancelled by High Court – Before High Court order, new Assessing Officer passed assessment orders – Not invalid – To be set-aside and remand to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction.
ACIT Vs Shravan Mahipat Hedau (HUF) (ITAT, Amritsar) 62 ITD 70
Transfer of case from one Assessing Officer to another – Order u/s 127 necessary.
All India Children Care & Educational Dev. Society Vs JCIT (ITAT, All) 87 ITD 209
A wrong reference to the power under which an order is made does not per se vitiate the order if there is some other power under which the order could lawfully be made. The validity of the impugned order has to be tested by reference to the question whether the ITO had any power at all to make an order of this nature. If the power is otherwise established, the fact that the source of power has been incorrectly described would not make the order invalid.
VR.C.RM. Adaikkappa Chettiar Vs CIT (Mad) 78 ITR 285
R.P. Kandaswami & others Vs CIT (Mad) 49 ITR 344
If subsequent amendment enlarges time limit while period of limitation prescribed under old law has not expired, subsequent law will govern the proceedings.
Gujarat Forging (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT, Ahd) 56 ITD 208
Lack of jurisdiction will vitiate the proceedings rendering them and the orders passed therein as nullity.
Budlina Swain & others v. Gopinath Deb & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 2089
Existence of alternate remedy – Not a bar for writ
CIT Vs Foramer France (SC) 264 ITR 566
Carried on business at Delhi – Head Office at Delhi – Territorial jurisdiction vests with Assessing Officer at Delhi - Assessee challenged jurisdiction at Ghaziabad and requested CCIT, Kanpur to transfer file –specific order by CCIT, Kanpur is not necessary – Transfer order issued by CCIT, Delhi is valid. Since Assessing Officer at Delhi has territorial jurisdiction, 148 notice issued prior to file transfer order is valid.
Amulya General Trading & Agencies Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT, Del) 65 ITD 329.
Tribunal passing order u/s 260(1) to give effect to opinion of High Court – Subsequent decision of Full Bench of the same High Court in case of another assessee taking a different view – Tribunal has no power to implement decision of Full Bench.
Sasidhara Shenoy & Bros. Vs DCIT (Ker) 241 ITR 333.
Notification will come into operation as soon as it is published in official gazette.
Union of India Vs. Ganesh Das Bhojraj (SC) 244 ITR 691.
CIT Vs Haripal Singh (P&H) 224 ITR 147