140 ITR 490 (P&H) Jagadhri Electric and Supply Co. v. CIT

192 ITR 547High Court1991#9991 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37Section 40(a)(ia)

Issues it is cited on

section 44afsection 262trade creditorsinadequate enquirysection 263(1)lack of enquiryrevision u/s 263non application of mindmalabar industrialsection 40a(3)section 194asection 44a

Judgments citing 140 ITR 490 (P&H) Jagadhri Electric and Supply Co. v. CIT

CISCO COMMERCE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PCIT, BENGALURU-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1235/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. N. Hemalatha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 194JSection 263Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2021-22 Cisco Commerce India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner No.10, 2nd Floor, Brigade South of Income Tax, Parade, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bengaluru-2, Bangalore – 560 001. Bengaluru. PAN: AAECC 2704Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Respondent by : Smt. N. Hemalatha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 28.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 05.03.2026 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President 1.…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…47 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 59 16.6 Courts have also on to hold that proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have to be confined to the findings recorded by the AO, as follows : i) 140 ITR 490 (P&H) Jagadhri Electric and Supply Co. vs. CIT ii) 192 ITR 547 (Kar) CIT vs. L.F.D. Silva iii) 192 ITR 50 (Mad) CIT vs. LateT.S. Srinivasa Iyer iv) 60 ITD 295 (Del) Jagjit Industries Ltd vs. ACIT v) 61 ITD 307 (Ahd) Satishbhai Jayantilal Shah vs. ACIT vi) 125 Taxation 188 (AP) CIT vs. G.K. Kabra Cooperative Ind. Estate vii) 61 ITD 317 (Mad) Sanco Trans Ltd. vs. ACIT 17. No decision contrary to the above has…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…47 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 59 16.6 Courts have also on to hold that proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have to be confined to the findings recorded by the AO, as follows : i) 140 ITR 490 (P&H) Jagadhri Electric and Supply Co. vs. CIT ii) 192 ITR 547 (Kar) CIT vs. L.F.D. Silva iii) 192 ITR 50 (Mad) CIT vs. LateT.S. Srinivasa Iyer iv) 60 ITD 295 (Del) Jagjit Industries Ltd vs. ACIT v) 61 ITD 307 (Ahd) Satishbhai Jayantilal Shah vs. ACIT vi) 125 Taxation 188 (AP) CIT vs. G.K. Kabra Cooperative Ind. Estate vii) 61 ITD 317 (Mad) Sanco Trans Ltd. vs. ACIT 17. No decision contrary to the above has…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…47 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 59 16.6 Courts have also on to hold that proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have to be confined to the findings recorded by the AO, as follows : i) 140 ITR 490 (P&H) Jagadhri Electric and Supply Co. vs. CIT ii) 192 ITR 547 (Kar) CIT vs. L.F.D. Silva iii) 192 ITR 50 (Mad) CIT vs. LateT.S. Srinivasa Iyer iv) 60 ITD 295 (Del) Jagjit Industries Ltd vs. ACIT v) 61 ITD 307 (Ahd) Satishbhai Jayantilal Shah vs. ACIT vi) 125 Taxation 188 (AP) CIT vs. G.K. Kabra Cooperative Ind. Estate vii) 61 ITD 317 (Mad) Sanco Trans Ltd. vs. ACIT 17. No decision contrary to the above has…

SIS PROSEGUR HOLDINGS PVT LTD,PATNA vs. PR.CIT-1, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 47/PAT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.47/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sis Prosegur Holdings Pvt. Ltd...…………....….........…..........….…… Appellant Annapoorna Bhawan, Patliputra Telephone Exchange, Kurji, Patna, Bihar-800010 [Pan: Aaucs7524A] Vs. Pcit-1, Patna..................................…………........….....…...…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Nageswar Rao, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Rinku Singh, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 18, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 18, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 25.03.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Ld. Pcit While Examining Assessment Records Found That The Assessee During The Year Had Issued 900000 Equity Shares Of Rs.10/- At A Premium Of Rs.90/- Per Share Totalling Rs.100/- Per Share. The Ld. Pcit Further Observed As Under: It Is To Be Noted That, During The Year Under Consideration, The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Viib) Were Applicable As Per Which If Aggregate Consideration For Issuance Of Shares Is More Than Fair Market

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…to go into the question of the correctness of the report of the expert. The ld. counsel in this respect has relied upon the following case laws: i) CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC) dated 17.09.1992 ii) CIT vs. L F D Silva [1991] 192 ITR 547 (Kar) dated 27.09.1991 iii) PCIT vs. Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. [2021] 433 ITR 82 (Delhi) dated 01.03.2021 7. Apart from that, the ld. counsel has submitted that the accountant has given valuation following the ICAI guidelines and following one of the recognised method i.e. discounted cash flow method. He has also submitted that the valuer…

KAUR KOOKIES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR,CIT, DELHI-4, NEW DELHI

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1119/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263Section 36

…i) Rajiv Arora vs. CIT iv) 137 TTJ 67 (Pat) Ramakant Singh vs. CIT PROPOSITION VII: THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 HAVE TO BE CONFINED TO FINDINGS RECORDED BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND NOT BEYOND i) 140 ITR 490 (P&H) Jagadhri Electric and Supply Co. vs. CIT ii) 192 ITR 547 (Kar) CIT vs. L.F.D. Silva iii) 192 ITR 50 (Mad) CIT vs. Late T.S. Srinivasalyer iv) 60 ITD 295 (Del) Jagjit Industries Ltd vs. ACIT v) 61 ITD 307 (Ahd) SatishbhaiJayantilal Shah vs. ACIT vi) 125 Taxation 188 (AP) CIT vs. G.K. Kabra Cooperative Ind. Estate vii) 61 ITD 317 (Mad) Sanco Trans Ltd. vs. ACIT 13. It is thus submitted that the condition…

COMNR.OF INCOME TAX vs. NEELACHAL ISPAT NIGA

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/119/2013HC Orissa21 Feb 2022

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

Section 260

…when the question is decided by the Tribunal, one way or the other. 12. Mr. Nageshwar Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT –vs- L.F. D’SILVA 7 reported in 192 ITR 547. Submission is that reasoning given by the Commissioner alone will be the criteria for invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and other authorities cannot supplement or give their own reasons and therefore, the Tribunal could not have given any further reasons to uphold the order of the Commissioner on the question of j…

SHUMA KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 12, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee failed on all five grounds raised before us

ITA 4128/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishuma Kalra, Vs. Pr. Cit-12, A-28, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaipk8142R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaoudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…ply and Industrial co and precisely at page 502 stating that revenue cannot rely on any other ground while defending order u/s 263 of the Act then what is mentioned in 263 order. He further relied upon CIT V L F Desilva [1992] 62 Taxman 161 (Karnataka)/[1991] 192 ITR 547 (Karnataka)/[1992] 101 CTR 152 (Karnataka) and Jagtjit Industries LTD v ACIT [ 60 ITD 295] to support his contentions. He submitted that the order of the learned principal Commissioner of income tax is not on the issue whether the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 54 of the act or u/s 54F of the act. He further submitted that the claim raised…

MANOJ SHIVYAG SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result the ground No

ITA 5375/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rifaur Rahmanmanoj Shivyag Singh Dcit Central Circle- 5(1) Babubhai Gaikwad Compound, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Trikam Das Road, Kandivali Vs. (West), Mumbai-40067. Pan: Asjps4147D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri V.G. Ginde With Kumar Kala (Ar) Respondent By : Miss Sumantha Mullamudi (Sr.Dr)

For Appellant: Shri V.G. Ginde with Kumar KalaFor Respondent: Miss Sumantha Mullamudi (Sr.DR)
Section 250Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…igh Court in Bansidhar (P)Ltd versus CIT (1981 5 Taxman 158 Gujarat),  DCIT Vs Patidars Ginning and Pressing Company (2000) 108 Taxman 476(Guj),  Madras High Court in CIT versus Ranji Investment. Ltd 319 ITR 433 (Madras),  CIT versus late TS Srinivasa Iyer 192 ITR 50 (Madras) and  CIT versus Western Bengal Coal Fields Ltd 233 ITR 139 (Calcutta). 5. The learned AR for the assessee submits keeping in view the aforesaid decisions of various High Courts the assessee is entitled for all expenses including bad debts written off in the books of Raunak agency while computing business income. 6. On the other hand the…

M/S. VIGNETTE INDIA PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 980/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2019AY 2001-02
For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 388/Del/2009 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 ITA No. 980/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2001-02 M/s Vignette India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner of C/o Perfect Accounting and Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Shared Services Pvt. Ltd., E-20, New Delhi-110002 First Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCV0946J Assessee by : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 13.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 05.09.2…

FIBRES AND FABRICS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are dismissed

ITA/119/2013HC Karnataka21 Jun 2013

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

Section 260

…when the question is decided by the Tribunal, one way or the other. 12. Mr. Nageshwar Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of CIT –vs- L.F. D’SILVA 7 reported in 192 ITR 547. Submission is that reasoning given by the Commissioner alone will be the criteria for invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and other authorities cannot supplement or give their own reasons and therefore, the Tribunal could not have given any further reasons to uphold the order of the Commissioner on the question of j…

140 ITR 490 (P&H) Jagadhri Electric and Supply Co. v. CIT (192 ITR 547) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax