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

31 ITR 872High Court1957#1061 most cited

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.

103

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain · 31 ITR 872 · Section 263 Income Tax Act 1961 · prejudicial to interests of Revenue · loss of tax · meaning of prejudicial to revenue · revision under section 263 · erroneous and prejudicial · inadequate enquiry

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 1961Section 147Section 148Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 263ofinadequate enquirysection 263(1)revision under section 263malabar industriallack of enquirysection 159erroneous and prejudicialsection 80hhcsection 80hhnon-application of mindassessment order erroneous

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

Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. Beverages Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1394/2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…erests 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 & Anr. [1957] 31 ITR 872, the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pai [1975] 98 ITR 422, the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [1995] 215 ITR 81 treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.” After so stating, their Lordships proceeded…

Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. Beverages Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1391/2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…erests 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 & Anr. [1957] 31 ITR 872, the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pai [1975] 98 ITR 422, the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [1995] 215 ITR 81 treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.” After so stating, their Lordships proceeded…

Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. Beverages Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1396/2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…erests 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 & Anr. [1957] 31 ITR 872, the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pai [1975] 98 ITR 422, the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [1995] 215 ITR 81 treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.” After so stating, their Lordships proceeded…