1. CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co.

65 ITD 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1998#9854 most cited

What is 1. CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. authority for?

An assessment order cannot be considered erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests, thus not subject to revision under section 263, if the Assessing Officer has considered all facts and completed the assessment after due application of mind.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. · 65 ITD 1 · section 263 · erroneous and prejudicial · revision · Commissioner · assessment order · non-application of mind · complete scrutiny · final assessment order

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 263Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

malabar industrialsection 143(3a)amalgamationerroneous and prejudicialfaceless assessmentcomplete scrutinynon-application of mindsection 263section 26chief commissionerfinal assessment ordersection 144b

Judgments citing 1. CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co.

Bhandari Associates, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Pune

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

ITA 1227/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada S IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…llowing decisions: a. Amrik Singh V. ITO [2003] 127 Taxman 87 (Chd.)(Mag.) b. Baljees V. Asstt. CIT [2003] 127 Taxman 150 (Chd.)(Mag.) c. Hariyana State Co-operative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. v. DCIT 90 ITD 551(Chd.) d. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v. ACIT 65 ITD 1(Cal.) e. Micromatic Grinding Technologies Ltd. Formerly known as (Parishudh Saadhan Yantra) v. Addl. CIT 172 Taxation 35 (Del-Trib) f. CIT v. Giridharilal 258 ITR 331 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to pages 445 to 704 of the paper book-II submitted that the assessee has duly submitted the complete details in respect of unsecured loa…

Leader Electric Co., Rajkot vs. The PCIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 377/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.376 & 377/Rjt/ 2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15& 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Leader Electric Co. The Pcit – 1, Vs. Dindayal Industries Estates, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Aji Vasahat, Opp. Gamara Hostel, Road, Rajkot - 360003 Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfl6072C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ShriD. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: ShriSanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT (DR)
Section 147Section 2Section 263

…e considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, which was required to be taken in revision by the Commissioner u/s. 263 of the IT Act. 1. CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 2. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v. ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1(Cal) 3. CIT v. Mahrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 4. CIT v. Parmeshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj.) 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) 7. CIT v. Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v. Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) (e)Assessee submitted that…

Leader Electric Co., Rajkot vs. The PCIT-1, Rajkot

ITA 376/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: ShriD. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: ShriSanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT (DR)
Section 147Section 2Section 263

…be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, which was required to be taken in revision by the Commissioner u/s. 263 of the IT Act. 1. CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 2. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v. ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1(Cal) 3. CIT v. Mahrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 4. CIT v. Parmeshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj.) 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) 7. CIT v. Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v. Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) (e)Assessee submitted that…

Naresh Kumar Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 221/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan SoganiFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka, CIT
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…dering all the facts, the order cannot be termed as erroneous. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: - 25 Naresh Kumar Bhargava vs. PCIT 7.3.i CIT v Ratlam Coal Ash Co (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 7.3.ii Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) 7.3.iii CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 7.3.iv CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) 7.3.v Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 7.3.vi CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7.3.vii CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 7.3.viii CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 7.3.i…

Career Point Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…C has completed the assessment after considering all the facts, the order cannot be termed as erroneous. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. CIT v Ratlam Coal Ash Co (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 2. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) 3. CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 4. CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) . 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7. CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 1.17 From the facts on…

Nimita Soni Prop. Swaranlata Traders, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 41/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 263

…Prop. Swaranlata Traders under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions : 1. CIT v. Valliammal (D) 230 ITR 695 (Mad); 2. CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co., 171 ITR 141 (MP); 3. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v. ACIT, 65 ITD 1 (Cal); 4. CIT v. Mehrotra Brothers, 270 ITR 157 (MP); 5. CIT v. Parameshwar Bohra, 267 ITR 698 (Raj.); 6. Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT, 263 ITR 101 (Ker.); 7. CIT v. Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502 (Guj); 8. CIT v. Hastings Properties, 253 ITR 124 (Cal); 9. CIT v. Goal (J.P.) (HUF), 247 ITR 555 (Col); 10. CIT v. Amalgamations Ltd., 238 ITR 963 (Mad);…

Pratap Technocrats Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 225/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

…completed the assessment after considering all the facts, the order cannot be termed as erroneous. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 4.8.i CIT v Ratlam Coal Ash Co (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 4.8.ii Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) 4.8.iii CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 4.8.iv CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) 4.8.v Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 4.8.vi CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 4.8.vii CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 4.8.viii CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 4.8.i…

Kgk Homes, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

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

ITA 223/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

…he NFAC completed the assessment after considering all the facts, the order cannot be termed as erroneous. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. CIT v Ratlam Coal Ash Co (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 2. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) 3. CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 4. CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7. CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 9. CIT v Amalgamations Ltd. (199…

Mukesh Kumar Saraogi, Churu vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 186/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Smt. Shivangi Samdhani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. R. Meena (CIT)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…er has completed the assessment after considering all the facts, the order cannot be termed as erroneous. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. CIT v Ratlam Coal Ash Co (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 2. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) 3. CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 4. CIT v ParameshwarBohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7. CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 9. CIT v Amalgamations Ltd. (1999…

Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

ITA 126/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Prathviraj Meena (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 6(3)(ii)

…er has completed the assessment after considering all the facts, the order cannot be termed as erroneous. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i. CIT v Ratlam Coal Ash Co (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) ii. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) iii. CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) iv. CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) v. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) vi. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) vii. CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) viii. CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) ix. CIT v Amalgamations…

M/S Fazal Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2837/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36

…ssible view. Reliance in this regard is place on : CIT Vs Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Gujrat) Paul Mathews And Sons Vs CIT 263 ITR 101 (Ker) CIT Vs Parmeshwar Bohra 267 ITR 698 (Raj) CIT Vs Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP) Ashok Kumar Parasramka VS ACIT 65 ITD 1 ( Cal) The Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Hari Iron Trading Co Vs CIT 263 ITR 437 observed that an assessee has no control over the way an assessment order is drafted. It was observed that generally, the issues which are accepted by the Assessing Officer do not find mention in the assessment order and only such points are taken…

1. CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. (65 ITD 1) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax