2012) 342 ITR 0074 (ii) P.V. Sreenijin vs. CIT (Central) 2014) 106 DTR 087 (iii) CIT v. Parasmal Jain

370 ITR 140High Court2015#12745 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 119Section 133(6)Section 139Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A(d)

Judgments citing 2012) 342 ITR 0074 (ii) P.V. Sreenijin vs. CIT (Central) 2014) 106 DTR 087 (iii) CIT v. Parasmal Jain

HARISH NARANG,PANIPAT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3637/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Harish Narang, The Principal Commissioner Of H. No.238, Ward No.8, Income Tax, Rohtak, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Mansarover Park, Rohtak, Haryana-124001 Pan:Acvpn4090J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Amit Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2025

Section 144BSection 147Section 263Section 69C

…regards the words “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue”, if due to an erroneous order of the Assessing Officer the Revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Section 263, 68. [370 ITR 140, 231 Taxman 534]. 7.4 The ratio of the above judicial pronouncements is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, it is observed that the AO had passed the order dated 16.03.2023 in casual manner without due diligence and without applying correct provisions of…

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 360/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…dl. CIT -vs.- Mukur Corpn. [1978] 111 ITR 312 (Guj); (vi) Addl. CIT -vs.- Krishna Narayan Nail [1984] 150 ITR 513; (vii) CIT -vs.- Precision Finance (P) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465; (viii) Duggal & Co. -vs.- CIT [1996] 220 ITR 456; (ix) CIT -vs.- Anand Kumar Jain 370 ITR 140 (Allahabad); (x) Malabar Ind. Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 (SC); (xi) Tara Devi Agarwal -vs.- CIT 88 ITR 323 (SC); (xii) CIT -vs.- South India Shipping Corporation 233 ITR 546 (Mad.) Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited 11. Further reference was also made to various documents furnished in the paper book running…

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 359/PAT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…dl. CIT -vs.- Mukur Corpn. [1978] 111 ITR 312 (Guj); (vi) Addl. CIT -vs.- Krishna Narayan Nail [1984] 150 ITR 513; (vii) CIT -vs.- Precision Finance (P) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465; (viii) Duggal & Co. -vs.- CIT [1996] 220 ITR 456; (ix) CIT -vs.- Anand Kumar Jain 370 ITR 140 (Allahabad); (x) Malabar Ind. Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 (SC); (xi) Tara Devi Agarwal -vs.- CIT 88 ITR 323 (SC); (xii) CIT -vs.- South India Shipping Corporation 233 ITR 546 (Mad.) Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited 11. Further reference was also made to various documents furnished in the paper book running…

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 358/PAT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…dl. CIT -vs.- Mukur Corpn. [1978] 111 ITR 312 (Guj); (vi) Addl. CIT -vs.- Krishna Narayan Nail [1984] 150 ITR 513; (vii) CIT -vs.- Precision Finance (P) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465; (viii) Duggal & Co. -vs.- CIT [1996] 220 ITR 456; (ix) CIT -vs.- Anand Kumar Jain 370 ITR 140 (Allahabad); (x) Malabar Ind. Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 (SC); (xi) Tara Devi Agarwal -vs.- CIT 88 ITR 323 (SC); (xii) CIT -vs.- South India Shipping Corporation 233 ITR 546 (Mad.) Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited 11. Further reference was also made to various documents furnished in the paper book running…

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 357/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…dl. CIT -vs.- Mukur Corpn. [1978] 111 ITR 312 (Guj); (vi) Addl. CIT -vs.- Krishna Narayan Nail [1984] 150 ITR 513; (vii) CIT -vs.- Precision Finance (P) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465; (viii) Duggal & Co. -vs.- CIT [1996] 220 ITR 456; (ix) CIT -vs.- Anand Kumar Jain 370 ITR 140 (Allahabad); (x) Malabar Ind. Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 (SC); (xi) Tara Devi Agarwal -vs.- CIT 88 ITR 323 (SC); (xii) CIT -vs.- South India Shipping Corporation 233 ITR 546 (Mad.) Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited 11. Further reference was also made to various documents furnished in the paper book running…

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL , PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 356/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…dl. CIT -vs.- Mukur Corpn. [1978] 111 ITR 312 (Guj); (vi) Addl. CIT -vs.- Krishna Narayan Nail [1984] 150 ITR 513; (vii) CIT -vs.- Precision Finance (P) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465; (viii) Duggal & Co. -vs.- CIT [1996] 220 ITR 456; (ix) CIT -vs.- Anand Kumar Jain 370 ITR 140 (Allahabad); (x) Malabar Ind. Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 (SC); (xi) Tara Devi Agarwal -vs.- CIT 88 ITR 323 (SC); (xii) CIT -vs.- South India Shipping Corporation 233 ITR 546 (Mad.) Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited 11. Further reference was also made to various documents furnished in the paper book running…

BAJINATH MELARAM,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 18, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1795/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm / I.T.A. No.1795/M/16 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Baijnath Melaram Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income C/O.Mangaldas D. Shah & Co Tax – 18 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Earnest House, 33-A, New Marine Lines Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan/Gir No. : Aaafb2675E (/Appellant) .. Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dhirendra M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri N. P. Singh & B.S.Bist
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 43BSection 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,“बी” न्यायपीठ, म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM / I.T.A. No.1795/M/16 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s. Baijnath Melaram Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income C/o.Mangaldas D. Shah & Co Tax – 18 506, Lotus House, 5th Floor, 6th Floor, Earnest House, 33-A, New Marine Lines Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 PAN/GIR No. : AAAFB2675E (/Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Dhirendra M. Shah Department by: Shri N. P. Singh & B.S.Bist Date of Hearing: 08.06.2018 /Date of Pronouncement: 30.08.2018 आदेश / O R…

BHAGIRATH CHANDULAL ARYA,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 18, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 931/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263

…aterial transaction during the course of assessment proceedings: (i) CIT vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (2012) 342 ITR 0074 (ii) P.V. Sreenijin vs. CIT (Central) 2014) 106 DTR 087 (iii) CIT vs. Parasmal Jain (2012) 249 CTR 0534 (iv) CIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain (2015) 370 ITR 140 (v) CIT vs. Ashok Logani (2012) 347 ITR 22 (vi) Tata B.P. Solar India Ltd vs. Addl. CIT (2011) 139 TTJ 0289” 6. Eventually, CIT is of the opinion that these transactions constitute “an adventure in the nature of trade”. He relied on various decisions to substantiate that when there is no proper enquiries by the AO in the regular assessment, CIT c…

2012) 342 ITR 0074 (ii) P.V. Sreenijin vs. CIT (Central) 2014) 106 DTR 087 (iii) CIT v. Parasmal Jain (370 ITR 140) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax