CIT v. Jain Construction

257 ITR 336High Court2013#12510 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2022.

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing CIT v. Jain Construction

Sach Electro Mech Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 392/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 145ASection 14ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 40A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Hearing in Virtual Court) Sach Electro Mech Private Limited Pr. Commissioner of Income C/2, Maheshwari Apartment, Tax-2, Vs. Nanpura, Timaliawad, Room No. 227, 2nd Floor, Surat. Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, PAN : AAICS 8963 M Surat-395001 APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by Shri H. P. Meena, CIT-DR Date of hearing 21/01/2022 Date of pronouncement 06/04/2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Thi…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 94/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.92, 93 & 94/SRT/2021 A.Y: 2014-15 to 2016-17 (Hearing in Virtual Court) M/s.Amrut Sarovar, The Principal Commissioner Block No. 514-515, of Income Tax – Central, Vs. Opposite Girnar Hotel, Surat. At & PO Kather, Taluka-Kamrej, Surat. PAN: ABGFA 2065 C Applicant /assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 21.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 93/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.92, 93 & 94/SRT/2021 A.Y: 2014-15 to 2016-17 (Hearing in Virtual Court) M/s.Amrut Sarovar, The Principal Commissioner Block No. 514-515, of Income Tax – Central, Vs. Opposite Girnar Hotel, Surat. At & PO Kather, Taluka-Kamrej, Surat. PAN: ABGFA 2065 C Applicant /assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 21.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 92/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.92, 93 & 94/SRT/2021 A.Y: 2014-15 to 2016-17 (Hearing in Virtual Court) M/s.Amrut Sarovar, The Principal Commissioner Block No. 514-515, of Income Tax – Central, Vs. Opposite Girnar Hotel, Surat. At & PO Kather, Taluka-Kamrej, Surat. PAN: ABGFA 2065 C Applicant /assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 21.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act…

ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Shri Sunil Kumar P. Jain, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1164/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1164/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Supreme Auto, Principal Commissioner Bilimora Road, National Of Income-Tax- Valsad Highway No.8, Samroli, At Chikhli, Navsari 396 521 Pan: Aamfs 3499 K अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Supreme Auto vs. Pr. CIT- Valsad /I.T.A.No.1164/Ahd/2017/A.Y. 12-13 Page 6 of 19 Learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgement of Hon`ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jain Construction [2013] 257 ITR 336 (Raj.) of which head notes reads as: Held, that safeguard provided to assessee in section 263 is that mere erroneous orders are not revisable but revisional authority has to further establish with material on record that such erroneous order is also prejudicial to the interest of revenue-twin conditions of assessment order being erroneous and it…

Smt. Kavita Dipesh Shah, Surat vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.219/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Kavita Dipesh Shah, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 1, Vishal House, Next To Gautam Income-Tax- 2, Surat Market, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat. [Pan: Anhps 4998 R] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P. Singh, Cit(D.R.)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 57Section 8D

…n account of low tax effect. We further, observe that the Pr. CIT has not discussed as to how the assessment order passed by the AO is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Hon`ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jain Construction [2013] 257 ITR 336 (Raj.) of which head notes reads as: Held, that safeguard provided to assessee in section 263 is that mere erroneous orders are not revisable but revisional authority has to further establish with material on record that such erroneous order is also prejudicial to the interest of revenue-twin conditions of assessment order being erroneous and it…

Shri Dipesh L. Shah, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 218/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.218/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Dipesh L Shah, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 1, Vishal House, Next To Gautam Income-Tax- 2, Surat Market, Kamela Darwaja, Ring Road Surat [Pan: Afsps 3839J] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri Prasenjit Singh, Cit(D.R.)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 57Section 8D

…n account of low tax effect. We further, observe that the Pr. CIT has not discussed as to how the assessment order passed by the AO is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Hon`ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jain Construction [2013] 257 ITR 336 (Raj.) of which head notes reads as: Held, that safeguard provided to assessee in section 263 is that mere erroneous orders are not revisable but revisional authority has to further establish with material on record that such erroneous order is also prejudicial to the interest of revenue-twin conditions of assessment order being erroneous and it…

Supreme Auto, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1141/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh&Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1141/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम M/S. Supreme Auto, Principal Commissioner Of Vs. Bilimora Road, National Income-Tax- Valsad Highway No.8, Samroli, At Chikhli, Navsari - 396521. [Pan: Aamfs 3499 K] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Prasenjit Singh, Cit(D.R.) राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 22.10.2019 सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- Valsad [In Short “The Pr. Cit ”] Dated 22.03.2016 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Under Section 263 Of Income Tax Act,1961 ( In Short ‘The Act’).

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…AHD/2016/A.Y. 2011-12 not discussed as to how the assessment order passed by the AO is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgement of Hon`ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jain Construction [2013] 257 ITR 336 (Raj.)of which head notes reads as: Held, that safeguard provided to assessee in section 263 is that mere erroneous orders are not revisable but revisional authority has to further establish with material on record that such erroneous order is also prejudicial to the interest of revenue-twin conditions of assessment order being erroneous and it a…

CIT v. Jain Construction (257 ITR 336) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax