(19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 0008 (Delhi) (20) CIT v. Jain Construction Co.

257 CTR 336High Court2013#6313 most cited

What is (19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 0008 (Delhi) (20) CIT v. Jain Construction Co. authority for?

The Commissioner can only revise an assessment order under Section 263 if it is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, requiring proof of both conditions with material on record.

18

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v/s Jain Construction · Section 263 · erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue · assessment order · revision u/s 263 · twin conditions · revisional authority · material on record

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 263Section 48Section 54

Issues it is cited on

section 44aepublic servantkelvinatorsection 44asection 254(1)section 263(1)malabar industrialerroneous and prejudicialloose paperssearch assessmentsection 153dfinal assessment order

Judgments citing (19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 0008 (Delhi) (20) CIT v. Jain Construction Co.

Anil Kumar Batar, Sikar vs. PCIT-Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 263

…or very minor reflecting from a short assessment order), which is not at all a case here. Also refer Gyan Chand Gupta V/s PR. CIT 135 TTJ 01(Jp), M/s. Om RudraPriya Holiday Resort Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT(2018) 54 CCH 0597 JaipurTrib In CIT v/s Jain Construction 257 CTR 336(Raj.) It has been held that Revision u/s 263-Order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue—CIT issued a notice u/s 263 to assessee on ground that assessment order of AO passed u/s 143 (3) was an order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue— Tribunal allowed appeal of assessee-Held, safeguard provided to assessee in section 263…

Sajjad Ali, Chittorgarh vs. DCIT(Intl)- Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 459/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha (CIT-DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54

…very minor reflecting from a short assessment order), which is not at all a case here. Also refer Gyan Chand Gupta V/s PR. CIT 135 TTJ 01(Jp), M/s. Om Rudra Priya Holiday Resort Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 54 CCH 0597 JaipurTrib In CIT v/s Jain Construction 257 CTR 336(Raj.) It has been held that Revision u/s 263—Order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue—CIT issued a notice u/s 263 to assessee on ground that assessment order of AO passed u/s 143 (3) was an order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue—Tribunal allowed appeal of assessee—Held, safeguard provided to assessee in section 263 i…

M/S Sumilon Industries Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 87/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.87/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S Sumilon Industries Pvt. Principal Commissioner Of Ltd. 6-121-A, Vairagini Wadi, Income-Tax-1, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Delhi Gate, Surat-395003 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcs3567 L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Mukund Bakshi, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.87/SRT/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) M/s Sumilon Industries Pvt. Principal Commissioner of Ltd. 6-121-A, Vairagini Wadi, Income-tax-1, Aaykar Bhavan, Vs. Delhi Gate, Surat-395003 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCS3567 L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Mukund Bakshi, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent by: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of Hearing : 20/01/2023 घोषणा की तार…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 70/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…335 ITR 83 (Delhi) (17) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (18) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) (19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 0008 (Delhi) (20) CIT Vs Jain Construction Co. 257 CTR 336 (Raj) (21) CIT Vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj) (22) CIT Vs JL Morrisons India Ltd. 366 ITR 593 (Cal.) (23) R. Srinivasan Vs ACIT (2014) 360 ITR 471 (Madras) (24) Abha Bansal Vs PCIT (2021) 132 taxmann.com 231 (Delhi –Trib) (25) Shanti Krupa Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA 1252/Ahd/2015 (Ahd Trib) (26) JRD Tata Trust Vs DCIT 122 taxmann.com 2…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 69/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…335 ITR 83 (Delhi) (17) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (18) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) (19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 0008 (Delhi) (20) CIT Vs Jain Construction Co. 257 CTR 336 (Raj) (21) CIT Vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj) (22) CIT Vs JL Morrisons India Ltd. 366 ITR 593 (Cal.) (23) R. Srinivasan Vs ACIT (2014) 360 ITR 471 (Madras) (24) Abha Bansal Vs PCIT (2021) 132 taxmann.com 231 (Delhi –Trib) (25) Shanti Krupa Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA 1252/Ahd/2015 (Ahd Trib) (26) JRD Tata Trust Vs DCIT 122 taxmann.com 2…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 68/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…335 ITR 83 (Delhi) (17) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (18) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) (19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 0008 (Delhi) (20) CIT Vs Jain Construction Co. 257 CTR 336 (Raj) (21) CIT Vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj) (22) CIT Vs JL Morrisons India Ltd. 366 ITR 593 (Cal.) (23) R. Srinivasan Vs ACIT (2014) 360 ITR 471 (Madras) (24) Abha Bansal Vs PCIT (2021) 132 taxmann.com 231 (Delhi –Trib) (25) Shanti Krupa Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA 1252/Ahd/2015 (Ahd Trib) (26) JRD Tata Trust Vs DCIT 122 taxmann.com 2…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 67/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…335 ITR 83 (Delhi) (17) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (18) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) (19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 0008 (Delhi) (20) CIT Vs Jain Construction Co. 257 CTR 336 (Raj) (21) CIT Vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj) (22) CIT Vs JL Morrisons India Ltd. 366 ITR 593 (Cal.) (23) R. Srinivasan Vs ACIT (2014) 360 ITR 471 (Madras) (24) Abha Bansal Vs PCIT (2021) 132 taxmann.com 231 (Delhi –Trib) (25) Shanti Krupa Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA 1252/Ahd/2015 (Ahd Trib) (26) JRD Tata Trust Vs DCIT 122 taxmann.com 2…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 66/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…335 ITR 83 (Delhi) (17) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (18) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) (19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 0008 (Delhi) (20) CIT Vs Jain Construction Co. 257 CTR 336 (Raj) (21) CIT Vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj) (22) CIT Vs JL Morrisons India Ltd. 366 ITR 593 (Cal.) (23) R. Srinivasan Vs ACIT (2014) 360 ITR 471 (Madras) (24) Abha Bansal Vs PCIT (2021) 132 taxmann.com 231 (Delhi –Trib) (25) Shanti Krupa Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA 1252/Ahd/2015 (Ahd Trib) (26) JRD Tata Trust Vs DCIT 122 taxmann.com 2…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 65/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…335 ITR 83 (Delhi) (17) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (18) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) (19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 0008 (Delhi) (20) CIT Vs Jain Construction Co. 257 CTR 336 (Raj) (21) CIT Vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj) (22) CIT Vs JL Morrisons India Ltd. 366 ITR 593 (Cal.) (23) R. Srinivasan Vs ACIT (2014) 360 ITR 471 (Madras) (24) Abha Bansal Vs PCIT (2021) 132 taxmann.com 231 (Delhi –Trib) (25) Shanti Krupa Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA 1252/Ahd/2015 (Ahd Trib) (26) JRD Tata Trust Vs DCIT 122 taxmann.com 2…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 64/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…335 ITR 83 (Delhi) (17) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (18) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) (19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 0008 (Delhi) (20) CIT Vs Jain Construction Co. 257 CTR 336 (Raj) (21) CIT Vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj) (22) CIT Vs JL Morrisons India Ltd. 366 ITR 593 (Cal.) (23) R. Srinivasan Vs ACIT (2014) 360 ITR 471 (Madras) (24) Abha Bansal Vs PCIT (2021) 132 taxmann.com 231 (Delhi –Trib) (25) Shanti Krupa Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA 1252/Ahd/2015 (Ahd Trib) (26) JRD Tata Trust Vs DCIT 122 taxmann.com 2…

M/S. Pyrotech Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur vs. Pr. CIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/JODH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

…19) 56 CCH 0151 BangTrib 5. Kamal Kumar Gupta v/s Pr. CIT 142 TTJ 9(Jp) 6. Ritesh Suhalka V/s Pr. CIT Udaipur in ITA No. 383/Jodh/2019 dt. 21.12.2020 7. Nalco Company vs CIT 200 DTR 275 (Pune-C) ITA No.1217/Kol/2017 dt. 05.02.2021 8. CIT v/s Jain Construction 257 CTR 336(Raj.) 9. CIT V/s Girdhari Lal 258 ITR 331(Raj.) 10. CIT vs. Deepak Real Estate Developers (I)(P) Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 0377 (Raj) 11. Baberwad Shiksha Samiti v/s PR. CIT 134 DTR 65(Jp) 12. CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal 320 ITR 0674 (Del) 13. Lodha Offset Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT ITA No. 155/Jodh/2018 19th March, 2020 14. Prateek Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT ITA No…

Ashutosh Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271BSection 44ASection 54E

…, 16 ITA 20/JP/2021_ Sh. Ashutosh Bhargava Vs Pr.CIT which is not at all a case here. Also refer Gyan Chand Gupta V/s PR. CIT 135 TTJ 01(Jp), M/s. Om Rudra Priya Holiday Resort Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 54 CCH 0597 JaipurTrib In CIT v/s Jain Construction 257 CTR 336(Raj.) It has been held that Revision u/s 263—Order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue—CIT issued a notice u/s 263 to assessee on ground that assessment order of AO passed u/s 143 (3) was an order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue—Tribunal allowed appeal of assessee— Held, safeguard provided to assessee in section 263…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 37/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…very minor reflecting from a short assessment order), which is not at all a case here. Also refer Gyan Chand Gupta V/s PR. CIT 135 TTJ 01(Jp), M/s. Om Rudra Priya Holiday Resort Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 54 CCH 0597 JaipurTrib In CIT v/s Jain Construction 257 CTR 336(Raj.) It has been held that Revision u/s 263—Order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue—CIT issued a notice u/s 263 to assessee on ground that assessment order of AO passed u/s 143 (3) was an order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue—Tribunal allowed appeal of assessee—Held, safeguard provided to assessee in section 263 i…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palasana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 36/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…very minor reflecting from a short assessment order), which is not at all a case here. Also refer Gyan Chand Gupta V/s PR. CIT 135 TTJ 01(Jp), M/s. Om Rudra Priya Holiday Resort Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 54 CCH 0597 JaipurTrib In CIT v/s Jain Construction 257 CTR 336(Raj.) It has been held that Revision u/s 263—Order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue—CIT issued a notice u/s 263 to assessee on ground that assessment order of AO passed u/s 143 (3) was an order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue—Tribunal allowed appeal of assessee—Held, safeguard provided to assessee in section 263 i…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palsana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 35/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…very minor reflecting from a short assessment order), which is not at all a case here. Also refer Gyan Chand Gupta V/s PR. CIT 135 TTJ 01(Jp), M/s. Om Rudra Priya Holiday Resort Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT (2018) 54 CCH 0597 JaipurTrib In CIT v/s Jain Construction 257 CTR 336(Raj.) It has been held that Revision u/s 263—Order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue—CIT issued a notice u/s 263 to assessee on ground that assessment order of AO passed u/s 143 (3) was an order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue—Tribunal allowed appeal of assessee—Held, safeguard provided to assessee in section 263 i…

Rajhans Metals, Na

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

ITA 933/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Oct 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(C)

…nt Year.2012-13 Rajhans Metal by itself would give no occasion to the CIT to pass orders u/s 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. 16. We note that Hon`ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Jain Construciton Co. – 257 CTR 336 (Raj.) Held, that: “safeguard provided to assessee in section 263 is that mere erroneous orders are not revisable but revisional authority has to further establish with material on record that such erroneous order is also prejudicial to the interest of revenue-twin conditions of assessment order being erroneous and it also being prejudicial to th…

M/S. Shree Govindam Prime Foods (P) Ltd., Sri Ganganagar vs. ACIT, Circle, Sri Ganganagar

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 391/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.391/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shree Govindam Prime Foods (P) Ltd. Acit Circle C/O. Rajendra Jain Advocate Sri Ganganagar बनाम 106, Akshay Deep Complex Rajasthan / Vs. 5Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Rajasthan-342 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aalcs-9788-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Badhok- Ld. CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 145(3)Section 263

…of business income. Therefore, the doctrine of merger was applicable to the facts of the case. 6 Shree Govindam Prime Foods (P) Ltd. Assessment Year: 2015-16 The ratio laid down by Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT V/s Jain Construction Co. (257 CTR 336) is clearly applicable to the fact of the case. 7. Therefore, for both the above stated reasons, the revisional jurisdiction is unsustainable in the eyes of law. By quashing the order dated 24/10/2019, we allow the appeal. 8. Resultantly, the appeal stands allowed. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. (Sandee…

Khoday Eshwarsa & Sons, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1117/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sukumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT -III
Section 263

…given a finding that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Reliance was also placed on Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in ITA No.1117/Bang/2010 & ITA.614/Bang/2010 Page - 12 the case of CIT v. Jain Construction Co. [257 CTR 336] and also that of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sterling Construction and Investments v. ACIT (Inv) [374 ITR 474]. 09. We have perused the materials and heard the rival contentions. We have also gone through the written submissions carefully. Assessee along with the return of income filed for the impugned assessment year had filed bal…

(19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 0008 (Delhi) (20) CIT v. Jain Construction Co. (257 CTR 336) — Cited in 18 Judgments | BharatTax