How many judgments cite 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT v. Mahavar Traders?

11 judgments on BharatTax cite 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT v. Mahavar Traders (138 ITR 518), spanning 2018 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT v. Mahavar Traders come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133(6), Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 1961: Section 263, Section 40A(2)(b).

299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT v. Mahavar Traders

138 ITR 518High Court1982#9377 most cited

What is 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT v. Mahavar Traders authority for?

An assessment order made without proper inquiry is considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, making it liable for revision under Section 263.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mahavar Traders · Section 263 · Section 143(3) · erroneous and prejudicial · assessment without inquiry · revisionary power · interests of revenue

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 1961: Section 263 Section 40A(2)(b)Section 80G

Issues it is cited on

erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 26 section 143(3)business document interest

Judgments citing 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT v. Mahavar Traders

P P Corporation, Rajkot vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 245/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

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

…s prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If the order is erroneous but it is not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, the Commissioner cannot exercise the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. [H. H. Maharaja Raja Pawer Dewas v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 518].In any event, we note that the Assessing Officer has adopted one of the courses permissible in law and even if it has resulted in loss to the revenue, the said decision of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (243 IT…

Ambika Charan Dixit, Jabalpur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 37/JAB/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur24 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43C

…ons essential to pass order u/s 263 of the Act i.e. the order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Both the conditions are required to be satisfied. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of H.H. Maharaja Pawar, Dewas vs. CIT 138 ITR 518 (MP) has held as under: “11. In the present case the non-compliance with s. 144B of the Act did not cause any prejudice to the Revenue because the ITO made the assessment at a figure which was much higher than the income returned, thus benefiting the Revenue and not causing prejudice to its interest. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was not…

Smt. Rashmi Pahariya, Jabalpur vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 28/JAB/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri L.L. Sharma, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 50C

…sake of completeness of this order, make a reference to some decisions by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, viz. CIT vs. Deepak K. Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT v. Mahavar Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); H.H. Maharaja Raja Pawar Dewas v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 518 (MP). 4.2 Section 50C provides for deeming the stamp valuation as the deemed sale consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gains u/s. 48, also providing for a mechanism where the adoption thereof is disputed by the assessee. No inquiry in the matter was made by the AO in framing the assessment. In that view of the matter; the fact…

Smt. Anuradha Upadhyay, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(5)

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 22/JAB/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR

Section 263Section 263(2)

…sdictional High Court, explaining the law in different fact settings, as indeed is the case in all the decisions, viz. CIT vs. Deepak K. Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT v. Mahavar Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); H.H. Maharaja Raja Pawar Dewas v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 518 (MP). Rather, the law, as amended w.e.f. 01/6/2015, statutorily deems an order made without inquiry which should have been made as liable for revision on that account. That is treats the order per se erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for that reason, as explained decades ago in Gee Vee Enterprises v. CIT (Addl.) [1975] 99…

Suresh Upadhyay and Sons, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(5)

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 21/JAB/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR

Section 263Section 263(2)

Suresh Upadhyay and Sons, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(5)

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 20/JAB/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR

Section 263Section 263(2)

Suresh Upadhyay and Sons, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(5)

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 19/JAB/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR

Section 263Section 263(2)

M/S Basti Wine Co. (English), Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

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

ITA 409/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14 M/S Basti Wine Co. (English), Vs. Pr.C.I.T.-I, 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Kanpur. Pan:Aaaab4224A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…rejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It was submitted that even if one condition is missing, the learned CIT does not get power to exercise its power u/s 263 of the Act. It was submitted that in the case of H. H. Maharaja Raja Pawar Dewas vs. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 518 (MP), it was held that CIT cannot exercise the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act if the order is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Similarly if the order is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, the same can also be not subject of action u/s 263 of the Act as held by Hon'ble Supre…

Bhagwan Das Harwani, Ajmer vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jun 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri B. K. Gupta (Pr.CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 269S

…the order is erroneous but it is not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, the Commissioner cannot exercise the revisional jurisdiction under section 263(1) and reliance was placed on the decision in case of H.H. Maharaja Raja Power Dewas V. CIT(1982) 138 ITR 518 (M.P.). 3. It was further submitted that in response to PCIT’S show cause notice, the assessee submitted as under:- (a) Bharat Harwani: As per confirmation filed as per e-submission dated 17.09.2018, there was no opening balance shown for the F.Y. 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016. It is on 17.04.2015 that a SBBJ Cheque for Rs. 10,00,000.00 was received…

M/S Ruchi J Oil Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT(A)Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 92C

…prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If one of them is absent-if the order of the Income tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the Revenue, recourse cannot be had to section 263(1) of the Act”. ii) H.H. Maharaja Raja Pawer Dewas - [1982] 138 ITR 518 (MP) Held “Under section 263(1) two pre-requisites must be present before the Commissioner can exercise the revisional jurisdiction conferred on him. First is that the order passed by the ITO must be erroneous. Second is that the error must be such that it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If the order is erroneous but it is not pre…

Mr. Pranjal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1357/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.H. Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Murari, CIT-D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…nd therefore your honour is not justified in invoking the provision of Section 263. If any of the condition mentioned above is missing, the provision of Section 263 cannot be invoked. Reliance placed on decision of: a. HH Maharaja Raja Devdas vs C.I.T. (1982) 138 ITR 518 (M.P.) b. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs C.I.T. (2000) 109 Taxman 66 (SC) Wherein it was held that in first case that the order is erroneous but not prejudicial to interest of revenue, the C.I.T. cannot exercise the action u/s 263. In second case, if the order is not erroneous but it is prejudicial to the revenue the C.I.T. cannot take action u/s…