99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad), CWT v. Prithvi Raj & Co.

199 ITR 424High Court1993#5449 most cited

What is 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad), CWT v. Prithvi Raj & Co. authority for?

A Commissioner cannot invoke revisionary powers under Section 263 merely because further enquiry is needed; the Commissioner must demonstrate how the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, and cannot form an opinion without proper analysis.

21

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

CIT vs. Prithvi Raj And Co. · 199 ITR 424 · Section 263 · erroneous and prejudicial · lack of enquiry · inadequate enquiry · assessment order · revisionary powers · Commissioner's opinion · prejudicial to revenue

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 11Section 12Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(2)(c)Section 13(3)Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

faceless assessment schemeinadequate enquiryrelated party transactionlack of enquirymalabar industrialfaceless assessmenterroneous and prejudicialsection 263section 144bsection 26section 143(1)previous year

Judgments citing 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad), CWT v. Prithvi Raj & Co.

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

…gards the controversial points.” ITA No.1165/2007 Page 11 of 17 10. At the same time it is also recognised that there is no universal power with the Commissioner to provoke an inquiry as held in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Prithvi Raj and Co., 199 ITR 424 as under:- “It is true that ordinarily the Commissioner has been given jurisdiction to examine, under section 25(2), whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, but in the instant case, however, the Commissioner has nowhere formed an opinion that the assessm…