What is Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain authority for?

The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' under the Income Tax Act includes instances where there is a loss of tax.

How many judgments cite Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain?

103 judgments on BharatTax cite Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain (31 ITR 872), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 1961, Section 147.

Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain (31 ITR 872)

JAIN ENTERPRISES, BHILAI,DURG vs. PCIT, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as above

ITA 187/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 187/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jain Enterprises, Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 87-B, Light Industrial Area, Raipur-1, Central Revenue Building, Bhilai-490026, C.G. Civil Lines, Raipur, 492001, C.G. Pan: Aagfj3469G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri S. R. Rao, Advocate राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 11/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2018-19 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.03.2025 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (‘Pcit’) Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…al to the interests of the Revenue” is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain [(1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal)] , the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pai [(1975) 98 ITR 422 (Kant)] , the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh [(1995) 215 ITR 81 (Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr Abraham relied o…

AMBUJA CEMENTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

ITA 3474/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Sourabh Soparkar, AR (virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…al to the interests of the Revenue” is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain [(1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal)], the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pai [(1975) 98 ITR 422 (Kant)], the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh [(1995) 215 ITR 81 (Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr Abraham relied on t…

SRI RAMASEVA BAHUSARA KSHARIYA CO-OP. SOCIETY LIMITED,SHIMOGA vs. PR. CIT, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 861/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Ramaseva Bahusara Kshariya Co-Op. Society Ltd. 01, Ramanna Setty Park Spm Road, Doddapete So Vs. Principal Cit Shimoga 577 202 Bengaluru-1 Karnataka Pan No :Aaajs0083P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Kiran D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Kiran D., D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue." 7.7 In the case of Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain [1957] 31 ITR 872 (Cal.) explaining the meaning of the words prejudicial to the interest of the revenue it was held as under: "The words, "prejudicial to the interests of the revenue", have not been defined, but it must mean that the orders or assessment challenged are such as are not in accordance with law, in consequence whereof the lawful revenue due to the Stat…

BHARATH CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT, BANGALORE -1, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21

For Appellant: Sri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…ITA No.788/Bang/2025 Bharath Credit Co-operative Society Limited, Bengaluru IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE MS. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AssessmentYear:2020-21 Bharath Credit Co-operative Society Limited #748/18 8th Main Road Mahalakshmi Layout Pr. CIT Vs. Bengaluru 560 086 Bengaluru-1 Karnataka Bengaluru PAN NO :AAAAB4144K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Ravishankar S.V., A.R. Respondent by : Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R. Date of Hearing : 24.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDI…

BANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

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

ITA 1357/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…er to exercise his suo-motu power under Section 263, taking into consideration various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83 (MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LIMITED v/s COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX) and another judgment reported in (1957) 31 ITR 872 (DAWJEE DADABHOY AND CO. v/s S.P.JAIN AND ANOTHER). The Division Bench of this Court in ITA No.30/2006 in Paragraph 16 has held as under: 16. As is clear from the wording in Section 263, the Commissioner gets the jurisdiction to revise any proceedings under this Act, if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneo…

M/S. CITY UNION BANK LTD.,,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1126/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., CIT

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…cial to the interests of the Revenue' is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in 'Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co.v.S.P. Jain[(1957) 31 ITR 872(Cal)], the High Court of Karnataka in CITv.T. Narayana Pai[(1975) 98 ITR 422(Kant)], the High Court of Bombay in CITv.Gabriel India Ltd.[(1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CITv.Minalben S. Parikh[(1995) 215 ITR 81(Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment…

BHAVANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY NIYAMITA ,SIRSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SIRSI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1074/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

…ITANo.1074/Bang/2025 M/s. Bhavana Co op Credit Society Niyamitha, Sirsi IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI,VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2020-21 M/s. Bhavana Co-op. Credit Society Niyamita #38, Market Road Principal CIT Vs. Sirsi 581 401 Hubali PAN NO :AACAB5033D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year : 2020-21 M/s. Gonikoppal Primary Rural Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. Main Road, Gonikoppal Principal CIT Vs. Virajpet Taluk Bengaluru-3 Kodagu 571 213 PAN NO : AAAAG1109M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appel…

GONIKOPPAL PRIMARY RURAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,KODAGU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-3, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1072/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

…ITANo.1074/Bang/2025 M/s. Bhavana Co op Credit Society Niyamitha, Sirsi IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI,VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2020-21 M/s. Bhavana Co-op. Credit Society Niyamita #38, Market Road Principal CIT Vs. Sirsi 581 401 Hubali PAN NO :AACAB5033D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessment Year : 2020-21 M/s. Gonikoppal Primary Rural Agricultural Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. Main Road, Gonikoppal Principal CIT Vs. Virajpet Taluk Bengaluru-3 Kodagu 571 213 PAN NO : AAAAG1109M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appel…

DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT - 1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

…the interests of the Revenue” is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. vs. S.P. Jain and Another [31 ITR 872), the High Court of Karnataka in Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore vs. T. Narayana Pai [98 ITR 422), the High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [203 ITR 108] and High Court of Gujarat in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [215 ITR 81) treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the…

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1479/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…cial to the interests of the Revenue' is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in 'Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co.v.S.P. Jain[(1957) 31 ITR 872(Cal)], the High Court of Karnataka in CITv.T. Narayana Pai[(1975) 98 ITR 422(Kant)], the High Court of Bombay in CITv.Gabriel India Ltd.[(1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CITv.Minalben S. Parikh[(1995) 215 ITR 81(Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment…

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1478/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…cial to the interests of the Revenue' is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in 'Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co.v.S.P. Jain[(1957) 31 ITR 872(Cal)], the High Court of Karnataka in CITv.T. Narayana Pai[(1975) 98 ITR 422(Kant)], the High Court of Bombay in CITv.Gabriel India Ltd.[(1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CITv.Minalben S. Parikh[(1995) 215 ITR 81(Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment…

INDIA JAPAN LIGHTING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1427/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. M/S. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-4, No.1, Tiruvallur High Road, Chennai. Puduchatram B.O., Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur-600 124. [Pan: Aaaci 2673 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

…cial to the interests of the Revenue’ is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in ‘Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co.v.S.P. Jain[(1957) 31 ITR 872(Cal)], the High Court of Karnataka in CITv.T. Narayana Pai[(1975) 98 ITR 422(Kant)], the High Court of Bombay in CITv.Gabriel India Ltd.[(1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CITv.Minalben S. Parikh[(1995) 215 ITR 81(Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment…

PROCTER AND GAMBLE HEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2326/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: \nMs. Aarti Vissanji & Shri Ajay BhandariFor Respondent: \nShri R A Dhyani, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 40Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)Section 68

…to the interests of the Revenue\" is not an expression of\nart and is not defined in the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning it is of wide\nimport and is not confined to loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in Dawjee\nDadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain [1957] 31 ITR 872 (Calcutta), the High Court of\nKarnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pai[1975] 98 ITR 422 (Karnataka), the High Court\nof Bombay in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 71 Taxman 585/203 ITR 108\n(Bom.)/[1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben\nS. Parikh [1995] 127 CTR 333/215 ITR 81/79 Taxman 184 (Gujarat) treated loss of\n…

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 958/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…cial to the interests of the Revenue' is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in 'Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co.v.S.P. Jain[(1957) 31 ITR 872(Cal)], the High Court of Karnataka in CITv.T. Narayana Pai[(1975) 98 ITR 422(Kant)], the High Court of Bombay in CITv.Gabriel India Ltd.[(1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CITv.Minalben S. Parikh[(1995) 215 ITR 81(Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment…

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 957/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…cial to the interests of the Revenue' is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in 'Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co.v.S.P. Jain[(1957) 31 ITR 872(Cal)], the High Court of Karnataka in CITv.T. Narayana Pai[(1975) 98 ITR 422(Kant)], the High Court of Bombay in CITv.Gabriel India Ltd.[(1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CITv.Minalben S. Parikh[(1995) 215 ITR 81(Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment…

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 956/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…cial to the interests of the Revenue' is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in 'Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co.v.S.P. Jain[(1957) 31 ITR 872(Cal)], the High Court of Karnataka in CITv.T. Narayana Pai[(1975) 98 ITR 422(Kant)], the High Court of Bombay in CITv.Gabriel India Ltd.[(1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CITv.Minalben S. Parikh[(1995) 215 ITR 81(Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment…

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 953/CHNY/2025[953]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…cial to the interests of the Revenue' is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in 'Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co.v.S.P. Jain[(1957) 31 ITR 872(Cal)], the High Court of Karnataka in CITv.T. Narayana Pai[(1975) 98 ITR 422(Kant)], the High Court of Bombay in CITv.Gabriel India Ltd.[(1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CITv.Minalben S. Parikh[(1995) 215 ITR 81(Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment…

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL),, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 952/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…cial to the interests of the Revenue' is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in 'Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co.v.S.P. Jain[(1957) 31 ITR 872(Cal)], the High Court of Karnataka in CITv.T. Narayana Pai[(1975) 98 ITR 422(Kant)], the High Court of Bombay in CITv.Gabriel India Ltd.[(1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CITv.Minalben S. Parikh[(1995) 215 ITR 81(Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment…

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), , CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 951/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…cial to the interests of the Revenue' is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in 'Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co.v.S.P. Jain[(1957) 31 ITR 872(Cal)], the High Court of Karnataka in CITv.T. Narayana Pai[(1975) 98 ITR 422(Kant)], the High Court of Bombay in CITv.Gabriel India Ltd.[(1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CITv.Minalben S. Parikh[(1995) 215 ITR 81(Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment…

M/S.MAHOGANY LOGISTICS SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI-1

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

ITA 1631/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mahogany Logistics Services Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax-1, 10, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. Madurai 625 002. [Pan:Aafcd8781R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Madurai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company [Earlier Known As M/S. Drsr Logistics Services Private Limited] Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2018-19 Claiming Loss Of ₹.31,28,98,436/- Under 2

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36Section 37Section 40

…if it is not erroneous, but, it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, the recourse cannot be exercised under section 263 of the Act. He refers to many case law, which were relied on before the ld. PCIT in the case of Dawjee Dadabhoy and Co. V. S.P. Jain 31 ITR 872 (Cal HC), Venkata Krishna Rice Co. V. CIT 163 ITR 129 (Mad HC), Mukur Corporation 111 ITR 312 (Guj HC) and Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 5 I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/24 (Bom HC). He argued that every loss of Revenue as a consequence of order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 6. The ld. AR submits th…

Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain

What is Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain

JAIN ENTERPRISES, BHILAI,DURG vs. PCIT, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

AMBUJA CEMENTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

SRI RAMASEVA BAHUSARA KSHARIYA CO-OP. SOCIETY LIMITED,SHIMOGA vs. PR. CIT, BENGALURU-1, BENGALURU

BHARATH CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PR. CIT, BANGALORE -1, BANGALORE

BANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

M/S. CITY UNION BANK LTD.,,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

BHAVANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY NIYAMITA ,SIRSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SIRSI

GONIKOPPAL PRIMARY RURAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,KODAGU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-3, BENGALURU

DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT - 1, NEW DELHI

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

INDIA JAPAN LIGHTING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, CHENNAI

PROCTER AND GAMBLE HEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8 , MUMBAI

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), CHENNAI

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL),, CHENNAI

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), , CHENNAI

M/S.MAHOGANY LOGISTICS SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI-1