How many judgments cite CIT v. Girdhari Lal?

21 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Girdhari Lal (258 ITR 331), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Girdhari Lal come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133(6), Section 142(1), Section 263, Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 143(3A).

CIT v. Girdhari Lal

258 ITR 331High Court2002#5481 most cited

What is CIT v. Girdhari Lal authority for?

An Assessing Officer has applied their mind and not made a perfunctory assessment if they have considered the material on record and the assessee's explanation, even if additions were made or accounts rejected. Consequently, a revision order under section 263 may not be sustainable.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Girdhari Lal · 258 ITR 331 · section 263 · prejudicial to interest of revenue · inadequate enquiry · Assessing Officer applied mind · revision order cancelled · tribunal correct · question of facts

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 263 Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 143(3A)Section 143(3B)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 45(5)(b)public servant section 23(2)section 145a(b)inadequate enquiry section 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)revision u/s 263 prejudicial to interest of revenue section 10(37)enhanced compensation

Judgments citing CIT v. Girdhari Lal

M/S Southern Ferro Steels Ltd., Dharwad vs. ITO, Hubli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 429/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijay Pal Raom/S.Southern Ferro Steels Ltd. No.172, Kiadb, Belur Industrial Estate, Belur, Dharwad. … Appellant Pan:Aalcs 7704 H Vs.

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devadas, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43(1)

…revision is not permitted on the ground that inquiry should have been more detailed. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions: i. CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co.Ltd. (341 ITR 180)(Del); ii. CIT vs. Giridhar Lal (258 ITR 331) (Raj); iii. CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502)(Gau.); and iv. CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108(Bom.) Page 5 of 8 5. On the other hand, learned DR submitted that the AO did not apply his mind on the issue of valuation of fixed assets which were already used by the seller in the light of Explanation 3 to sec.43(1). There is no dispute…