CIT v. Jagadhari Electric Supply & Industrial Co.

140 ITR 490High Court1983#5190 most cited

What is CIT v. Jagadhari Electric Supply & Industrial Co. authority for?

A revision order under Section 263 cannot substitute the grounds for revision that the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner did not originally rely upon in their order.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jagadhari Electric Supply & Industrial Co. · section 263 · revision order · grounds for revision · inadequate enquiry · non application of mind · revision cannot substitute grounds

Issues it is cited on

section 44afsection 262trade creditorsinadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263non application of mindsection 263(1)lack of enquirymalabar industrialsection 40a(3)section 194asection 44a

Judgments citing CIT v. Jagadhari Electric Supply & Industrial Co.

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)

…e; the true basis of depreciation allowance is the character of the asset not it‟s description.” 2011:DHC:219-DB 7. Thereafter, the tribunal referred to the decision cited by the revenue in CIT v. Jagadhari Electric Supply & Industrial Co., [1983] 140 ITR 490 (P&H) and proceeded to hold as follows: “As held by Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises (99 ITR 375), even an inertia of the Assessing Officer in examining a claim, when he ought to have examined the same, does render the assessment order erroneous. However, as far as situation before us is concerned, we have noted…

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)

…e; the true basis of depreciation allowance is the character of the asset not it‟s description.” 2011:DHC:219-DB 7. Thereafter, the tribunal referred to the decision cited by the revenue in CIT v. Jagadhari Electric Supply & Industrial Co., [1983] 140 ITR 490 (P&H) and proceeded to hold as follows: “As held by Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises (99 ITR 375), even an inertia of the Assessing Officer in examining a claim, when he ought to have examined the same, does render the assessment order erroneous. However, as far as situation before us is concerned, we have noted…