How many judgments cite ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain?

48 judgments on BharatTax cite ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain (242 ITR 45), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 271(1)(a), Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 273(b).

ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain

242 ITR 45High Court2000#2411 most cited

What is ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain authority for?

An assessment order is not considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue under Section 263 solely because the Assessing Officer failed to initiate penalty proceedings. The Commissioner cannot direct the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 263, as they are distinct from assessment proceedings.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain · CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan · 242 ITR 45 · Section 263 · Section 271(1)(c) · revision by CIT · penalty initiation · assessment order erroneous · prejudicial to revenue · failure to initiate penalty · penalty distinct from assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 271(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 273(b)Section 148 Section 139

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(a)satisfaction for initiation of penalty section 271aab(1a)assessment order erroneous revision under section 263 penalty u/s 270a penalty under section 270a under-reporting of income section 273 section 263(1)section 271aac erroneous and prejudicial

Judgments citing ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain

Anushakti Chemicals & Drugs Ltd. (Formerly Known As Aarti Healthcare Ltd. Now Merged Into Aarti Industries Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - Range-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 639/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Mum/2021 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11) Anushakti Chemicals & Pr. Cit, Range-2 Drugs Ltd. Room No.1920, 19Th Floor, Air (Formerly Known As Aarti India Building, Nariman बनाम/ Health Care Ltd. Now Point, Mumbai-400 021, Vs. Merged Into Aarti Industries Maharashtra Ltd.) Mumbai (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aabca2787L अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Ms. Shailja Rai, Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15.11.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2021

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai, DR

Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 254Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…id issue is no longer res integra. This Court in Subhash Kumar Jain case (supra) agreeing with the view of High Courts of Delhi in Additional J.K.D.'s Costa case (supra), CIT v. Sudershan Talkies [1993] 201 ITR 289 (Delhi) and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45/[2002] 123 Taxman 353 (Delhi), Rajasthan in CIT v. Keshrimal Parasmal [1986] 157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.), Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High…

Sunila Awasthi, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-12, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 496/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamblea N D Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 496/Del/2021 (A.Y. 2015-16) (Through Video Conferencing) Ms. Sunila Awasthi, Principal Cit – 12, E–802, Uniworld City East, Vs. New Delhi. Sector : 30, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan : Aaepa9591J (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv.; & Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate; Department By : Shri H. K. Chaudhary [Cit] – Dr; Date Of Hearing 01.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07.07.2021

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaudhary

Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…ismissed by the apex Court (1984) 147 ITR (St) 1. The same view was reiterated by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sudershan Talkies (1993) 112 CTR (Del) 165 : (1993) 201 ITR 289 (Del) and followed in CIT vs. Nihal Chand Rekyan (1999) 156 CTR (Del) 59 : (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del). The Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1985) 48 CTR (Raj) 61 : (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Gauhati High Court in Surendra Prasad Singh &Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125 : (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau) and Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) have followed the judgment of Delhi High…

Kiri Dyes & Chemicals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1232/AHD/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Oct 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1232/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani & Shri P. B

Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…ment and direct the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment afresh? Such a question is no more res integra. In the case Addl.CIT vs. J.K. D’Costa [192] 133 ITR 7 (Delhi) followed in ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain (142 ITR 606) and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45 (Delhi) and in Addl.CIT vs. Sudarshan Talkies (1993) 200 ITR 153 (Delhi); also by Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT vs. C.K.K.Swami (254 ITR 158); Sarda Prasad Singh v. CIT (173 ITR 510 (Gauhati), it has been hled that if the Commissioner finds, while examining the records of an assessment order under section 263, that the Assessing Officer has not…

Reliance Money Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3259/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh

Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 50

…the case whether the same amounted to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, there is no tailor made formula to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)( c ) of the Act. The ld. AR referred to the case of Addl. CIT V/s Achal Kumar Jain 142 ITR 606 (Bom) in which the Hon‟ble High Court held that the penalty proceedings do not form part of the assessment proceedings and will not make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, the ld. AR prayed that exercise of revisionary jurisdiction on the ground that wrong claim of depreciation and non initia…

Jayesh V. Sheth, Mumbai vs. CIT 16, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3922/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh, C.A Department byFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…T vs. Subhosli Kumar Jam (supra) agreeing with the view of High Courts of Delhi in Addl. CIT vs. J.K. D'Costa (supra), CIT vs. Sudershan Talkies (1993) 112 CTR (Del) 165: (1993) 201 ITR 289 (Del) and CIT vs. Nihal Chartd Rekyan (1999) 156 CTR (Del) 59: (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del), Rajasthan in CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1985) 48 CTR (Raj) 61 (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Calcutta in CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) and Gauhati in Sureridra Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125: (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh H…

Jayesh V. Sheth, Mumbai vs. CIT 16, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3921/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh, C.A Department byFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Jayesh V. Sheth, Mumbai vs. CIT 16, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3920/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh, C.A Department byFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Asst CIT CC 43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 933/MUM/2014[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…Court and reference in this regard was made to M/s Roha Dyechem Ltd. (1984) 147 ITR (St.) 1. He also relied upon the following decisions in which similar proposition has been laid down: CIT v. Sudershan Talkies (201 ITR 289 (Delhi) CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan (242 ITR 45(Delhi) CiT v. Keshrimal Parsmal (157 ITR 484 (Rajasthan) Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT (173 ITR 510 (Gauhati) CIT v. Linotype and Machinery Ltd. (192 ITR 337(Calcutta). CIT v. Subhash kumar Jain (335 ITR 364(Punjab & Haryana) 4.1 Ld. AR further referred to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Achal Kumar Jain, 142…