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

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.

44

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

Issues it is cited on

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

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

Puja Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur

ITA 440/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 263

…re elaborate according to the ld. Pr. CIT. In support, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Nabha Investments (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India [2000] 112 taxman 465 (Delhi), J.P. Srivastava & Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. vs. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 326 (All.) and CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 71 Taxman 585 (Bom.). It was further submitted that ld. Pr. CIT has not appreciated the distinction between lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry. It was submitted that in the present case, the AO collected necessary details, examined the same and then finalized and assessment. It was accordingly subm…

Saregama India Limited, Kolkata vs. CIT-I, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1254/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Sept 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 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 the AO has not recorded any reasons to justify the omission to consider the said fa…

M/S. P.K. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

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

ITA 2055/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. P.K. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., 202, New Mohan Puri, Meerut. Meerut Pan : Aadcp4270D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vinod Kr. Goel, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Ankur Garg, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 18.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 18/03/2013 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Meerut Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961(In Short “The Act”) Revising The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2008-09. The Assessee Revised Its Grounds Of Appeal Vide Letter Dated 07/07/2015, Which Are Reproduced As Under: “1. That Notice U/S 263 Issued By Cit, Meerut Was Vague & Is Based Upon Incorrect Facts & Law & No Reasonable & Proper Opportunity Being Heard Was Allowed. Hence, Entire Proceeding Is Against The Principle Of Natural Justice. 2. That Ld. Cit, Meerut Has Not Justified In Making Addition Of Rs. 49,46,196/- Claimed By The Assessee As Loss On Account Of Machinery, Which Is After Due Consideration Accepted By The Ld. A.O.. This Addition Is Against Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 43B

…as to be freshly made by the ITO, the only proper course for the CIT was not to express any final opinion as regards the controversial points. 18. Shri Patel heavily relied upon the Allahabad High Court decision in J. P. Srivastava & Sons Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 326 (All) : TC57R.331 for the proposition that it was obligatory on the CIT to examine the merits of the objections raised by the assessee and, therefore, it was not proper to "delegate" that power to the ITO by setting aside the assessment order and directing him to make fresh assessment. The facts of that case were that the only ground upon which a…

C.I.T vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd

ITA/1165/2007HC Delhi14 Sept 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 260Section 263Section 288Section 80Section 80H

…es of purchase and sale, it is obvious that certain amount of guess work is involved in determining the price of the land.” 11. To the same effect is the judgment in the case of J.P. Srivastava and Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, UP, 111 ITR 326, which can be found in the following observations of the Court:- “Section 33B contemplates a notice to the assessee. In response to the notice the assessee may show to ITA No.1165/2007 Page 12 of 17 the Commissioner that the order sought to be revised is not prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In that event, the Commissione…