Allahabad High Harish Jain v. PCIT

275 ITR 123High Court2005#15519 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(a)assessment order erroneouserroneous and prejudicialsection 263section 26section 271section 271(1)(c)section 27search and seizuresection 153section 153asection 132

Judgments citing Allahabad High Harish Jain v. PCIT

Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohan Rao Koduri, East Godhavari vs. ACIT, Cirlce - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 291/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

…under section 270A of the Act nor there is any observation of the underreporting or misreporting of income by the assessee. The Ld.Pr.CIT placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Associated Contracts Corpn. (2005) 275 ITR 123 (Allahabad) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that non-initiation of penalty proceedings by the Assessing Authority in the course of assessment proceedings renders order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore can be subject matter of revision under section 263 of the Act. However, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in…

Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohana Rao Koduri, Rajahmundry vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

…under section 270A of the Act nor there is any observation of the underreporting or misreporting of income by the assessee. The Ld.Pr.CIT placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Associated Contracts Corpn. (2005) 275 ITR 123 (Allahabad) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that non-initiation of penalty proceedings by the Assessing Authority in the course of assessment proceedings renders order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore can be subject matter of revision under section 263 of the Act. However, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in…

Hasmukh Hirji Gada, Pune vs. PCIT (Central), Pune

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

ITA 1023/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1023/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hasmukh Hirji Gada, Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. 1073, Bhosale Mystiqa, Plot No.425, Flat No.203, Gokhale Road, Om Super Market, Shivaji Nagar, Pune- 411002. Pan : Adxps3533L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Neelesh Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Pcit (Central), Pune For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Of Law It Be Held That The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Under Section 263 For Initiating The Penalty Under Section 271Aac Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Hence Is Improper, Unwarranted, Unjustified & Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts Prevailing In The Case. The Order Passed U/S. 263 Be Set Aside. The Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 263Section 271ASection 69A

….CIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals, 123 ITR 874 (MP). (iii) Addl.CIT vs. Kantilal Jain, 125 ITR 373 (MP). (iv) Jyoti Ranjan Roy, vs. PCIT, ITA No.1015/Kol/2017. (v) CIT vs. Ashok Construction Company, 280 ITR 368 (All). (vi) CIT vs. Associated Contractors Corpn. 275 ITR 123 (All). 9. On the other hand Ld. Counsel of the assessee also relied on various judgements / decisions (cited supra) in support of his contention that initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the IT Act are discretionary and based upon the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer and such penalty proceedings cannot be initiated at the instance…

Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 231/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…IT Vs. Narpat Singh Malkhan reported in (2016) 282 CTR 205 Singh (1980) 128 ITR 77 (MP) (P&H) Order of ITAT Jaipur Bench in Judgment of Allahabad High Harish Jain Vs. PCIT reported Court in Associated Contractors in (2023) 221 TTJ 276 (JP) Corp Vs. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 123 (All) 13. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that the issue of whether the ld.PCIT can invoke jurisdiction or not, is supported by various High Courts. He relied upon the decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Surendra Prasad Agarwal reported in 142 taxman 653 (Allahabad) and Indian Pharmaceuticals reported in (1980) 123 ITR 874 (Madhya Pradesh High…

Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 230/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…IT Vs. Narpat Singh Malkhan reported in (2016) 282 CTR 205 Singh (1980) 128 ITR 77 (MP) (P&H) Order of ITAT Jaipur Bench in Judgment of Allahabad High Harish Jain Vs. PCIT reported Court in Associated Contractors in (2023) 221 TTJ 276 (JP) Corp Vs. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 123 (All) 13. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that the issue of whether the ld.PCIT can invoke jurisdiction or not, is supported by various High Courts. He relied upon the decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Surendra Prasad Agarwal reported in 142 taxman 653 (Allahabad) and Indian Pharmaceuticals reported in (1980) 123 ITR 874 (Madhya Pradesh High…

Gopal Soundararaj, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 181/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.181/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr.Gopal Soundararaj, V. The Principal Commissioner- 255, Avinashi Road, B.R.Puram, Of Income Tax-1, Coimbatore-641 004. Coimbatore. [Pan: Amkps 3188 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. (Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.R.Mohan Reddy, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 06.04.2023

For Respondent: Mr.R.Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, माननीय "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मंजूनाथा .जी, माननीय लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANJUNATHA. G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.181/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr.Gopal Soundararaj, v. The Principal Commissioner- 255, Avinashi Road, B.R.Puram, of Income Tax-1, Coimbatore-641 004. Coimbatore. [PAN: AMKPS 3188 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by Mr.S.Sridhar, Adv. (Erode) ""यथ" क" ओर से /Res…

Allahabad High Harish Jain v. PCIT (275 ITR 123) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax