Which sections of the Income Tax Act does (1993) 199 ITR 424 (Del) and J.P. Srivastava& Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 263, Section 10(37), Section 145A(b), Section 147, Section 148.

(1993) 199 ITR 424 (Del) and J.P. Srivastava& Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. v. CIT

Q: How many judgments cite (1993) 199 ITR 424 (Del) and J.P. Srivastava& Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. v. CIT?

44 judgments on BharatTax cite (1993) 199 ITR 424 (Del) and J.P. Srivastava& Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. v. CIT (111 ITR 326), spanning 2010 to 2026.

111 ITR 326High Court1978#2609 most cited

What is (1993) 199 ITR 424 (Del) and J.P. Srivastava& Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

When exercising revisional powers under Section 263, the Commissioner must examine the merits of the assessee's objections and establish on record how the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Commissioner cannot merely direct a re-examination or delegate this fundamental duty.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

J.P. Srivastava & Sons v. CIT · 111 ITR 326 · Section 263 · revisional powers · order prejudicial to revenue · erroneous assessment order · Commissioner's duty · delegation of revision power · examine assessee objections · no mere re-examination

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263 Section 10(37)Section 145A(b)Section 147 Section 148 Section 151 Section 56(2)(viii)

Issues it is cited on

section 141 section 282a(1)section 194la section 145a(b)section 145b section 44af section 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 262 revision u/s 263 section 10(37)

Judgments citing (1993) 199 ITR 424 (Del) and J.P. Srivastava& Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. v. CIT

Satish Kumar Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 260/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ses vs. Addl. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad), CWT vs. Prithvi Raj & Co. (1991) 98 CTR (Del) 216 : (1993) 199 ITR 424 (Del) and J.P. Srivastava& Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 326 (All) relied on. (Paras 6 & 7) In the entire order emphasis laid by the CIT is that in respect of four issues mentioned by him, no queries were raised by the AO. On this premise, though it is observed that there was no application of mind on the part of the AO and 27 I.T.A No. 260/Kol/2019 Satish Kumar Lakhmani, AY 2014-15 the AO has not recorde…

Smt. Usha Devi Modi, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-10(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 874/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S. S.Godara)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…ses vs. Addl. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad), CWT vs. Prithvi Raj & Co. (1991) 98 CTR (Del) 216 : (1993) 199 ITR 424 (Del) and J.P. Srivastava& Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 326 (All) relied on. (Paras 6 & 7) In the entire order emphasis laid by the CIT is that in respect of four issues mentioned by him, no queries were raised by the AO. On this premise, though it is observed that there was no application of mind on the part of the AO and the AO has not recorded any reasons to justify the omission to consider the said f…

Nitson & Amitsu Private Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 160/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…ses vs. Addl. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad), CWT vs. Prithvi Raj & Co. (1991) 98 CTR (Del) 216 : (1993) 199 ITR 424 (Del) and J.P. Srivastava& Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 326 (All) relied on. (Paras 6 & 7) In the entire order emphasis laid by the CIT is that in respect of four issues mentioned by him, no queries were raised by the AO. On this premise, though it is observed that there was no application of mind on the part of the AO and the AO has not recorded any reasons to justify the omission to consider the said fa…