What is CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee authority for?

An assessment order is erroneous for the purpose of Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to apply mind to relevant material, proceeds on an incorrect assumption of facts, or makes an incorrect application of law.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee?

99 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (341 ITR 434), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee come up under?

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

CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (341 ITR 434)

Vinod Kumar Kundanmalji Jain, Chennai vs. PCIT-8, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees in I

ITA 310/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:307/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

For Appellant: Shri. M. Abhishek, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…e in his return. Passing an order without applying mind to relevant facts would certainly be an erroneous assessment requiring exercise of Jurisdiction u/s263. This view is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Guhati High Court in CIT Vs Jawahar Bhattacharjee 341 ITR 434 (Gau((FB). In 41 ITR 286 (Ker), it was held that when AO passed a cryptic order which does not contain details and claims were accepted without enquiry, the assessment order was erroneous and order u/s 263 was justified. In case of Supercloth, 99 lTD 300 (Chn), it was held that lack of enquiry by AO was sufficient to invoke revisionary jurisdicti…

Vinod Kumar Kundanmal, Chennai vs. PCIT-8, Chennai

ITA 309/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:307/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

For Appellant: Shri. M. Abhishek, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…e in his return. Passing an order without applying mind to relevant facts would certainly be an erroneous assessment requiring exercise of Jurisdiction u/s263. This view is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Guhati High Court in CIT Vs Jawahar Bhattacharjee 341 ITR 434 (Gau((FB). In 41 ITR 286 (Ker), it was held that when AO passed a cryptic order which does not contain details and claims were accepted without enquiry, the assessment order was erroneous and order u/s 263 was justified. In case of Supercloth, 99 lTD 300 (Chn), it was held that lack of enquiry by AO was sufficient to invoke revisionary jurisdicti…

Tarun Kundanmal HUF, Chennai vs. PCIT-8, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees in I

ITA 308/CHNY/2021[2013-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2013-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:307/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

For Appellant: Shri. M. Abhishek, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…e in his return. Passing an order without applying mind to relevant facts would certainly be an erroneous assessment requiring exercise of Jurisdiction u/s263. This view is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Guhati High Court in CIT Vs Jawahar Bhattacharjee 341 ITR 434 (Gau((FB). In 41 ITR 286 (Ker), it was held that when AO passed a cryptic order which does not contain details and claims were accepted without enquiry, the assessment order was erroneous and order u/s 263 was justified. In case of Supercloth, 99 lTD 300 (Chn), it was held that lack of enquiry by AO was sufficient to invoke revisionary jurisdicti…

Tarun Kumar Kundanmalji Jain, Chennai vs. PCIT-8, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees in I

ITA 307/CHNY/2021[213-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:307/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

For Appellant: Shri. M. Abhishek, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…e in his return. Passing an order without applying mind to relevant facts would certainly be an erroneous assessment requiring exercise of Jurisdiction u/s263. This view is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Guhati High Court in CIT Vs Jawahar Bhattacharjee 341 ITR 434 (Gau((FB). In 41 ITR 286 (Ker), it was held that when AO passed a cryptic order which does not contain details and claims were accepted without enquiry, the assessment order was erroneous and order u/s 263 was justified. In case of Supercloth, 99 lTD 300 (Chn), it was held that lack of enquiry by AO was sufficient to invoke revisionary jurisdicti…

Learning Curve Edutech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 832/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…1.2017 • CIT Vs. Ballarpur Indistries Ltd. (85 taxamnn.com 10)(Bom) • Sripan Land Development (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (46 SOT 447)(Mum) • Arvee International Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (101 ITD 495)(Mum) • CIT Vs.Deepak Garg (299 ITR 435)(MP) • CIT Vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (342 ITR 74)(Gau) • Toyota Motor Corporation Vs. CIT (306 ITR 52)(SC) 10. We find that in all the aforesaid cases relied by the learned DR, there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer and requisite enquiries were not carried out by the learned Assessing Officer and hence revision jurisdiction of learned PCIT under section 263 of the Act was uphe…

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 13, Mumbai

ITA 3600/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 163Section 263Section 40

…r passed by the AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A), also filed written submissions which have been made part of the judicial record. 8. The Ld. D.R. also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in case of CIT vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (341 ITR 434), Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of ITO vs. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company (213 ITR 843), Hon’ble Delhi High Court in cases of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. ADCL (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), DLF Commercial Developers Ltd., Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC), Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of…

Smt. Anuradha Upadhyay, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(5)

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 22/JAB/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR

Section 263Section 263(2)

…the law. Case law in the matter is legion, with several by the Apex Court, both before and after Malabar Indl. Corp. Ltd. (supra), as well by Hon‟ble High Courts across the country, including by their larger benches, as in CIT vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434 (Gau)(FB). We may though refer to some by the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court, explaining the law in different fact settings, as indeed is the case in all the decisions, viz. CIT vs. Deepak K. Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT v. Mahavar Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); H.H. Maharaja Raja Pawar Dewas v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 518 (MP). Rather, the…

Suresh Upadhyay and Sons, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(5)

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 21/JAB/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR

Section 263Section 263(2)

…the law. Case law in the matter is legion, with several by the Apex Court, both before and after Malabar Indl. Corp. Ltd. (supra), as well by Hon‟ble High Courts across the country, including by their larger benches, as in CIT vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434 (Gau)(FB). We may though refer to some by the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court, explaining the law in different fact settings, as indeed is the case in all the decisions, viz. CIT vs. Deepak K. Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT v. Mahavar Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); H.H. Maharaja Raja Pawar Dewas v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 518 (MP). Rather, the…

Suresh Upadhyay and Sons, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(5)

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 20/JAB/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR

Section 263Section 263(2)

…the law. Case law in the matter is legion, with several by the Apex Court, both before and after Malabar Indl. Corp. Ltd. (supra), as well by Hon‟ble High Courts across the country, including by their larger benches, as in CIT vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434 (Gau)(FB). We may though refer to some by the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court, explaining the law in different fact settings, as indeed is the case in all the decisions, viz. CIT vs. Deepak K. Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT v. Mahavar Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); H.H. Maharaja Raja Pawar Dewas v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 518 (MP). Rather, the…

Suresh Upadhyay and Sons, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(5)

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 19/JAB/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR

Section 263Section 263(2)

…the law. Case law in the matter is legion, with several by the Apex Court, both before and after Malabar Indl. Corp. Ltd. (supra), as well by Hon‟ble High Courts across the country, including by their larger benches, as in CIT vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434 (Gau)(FB). We may though refer to some by the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court, explaining the law in different fact settings, as indeed is the case in all the decisions, viz. CIT vs. Deepak K. Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT v. Mahavar Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); H.H. Maharaja Raja Pawar Dewas v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 518 (MP). Rather, the…

Chennai Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 176/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.176/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr.Y.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Mr.M. Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

…in his return. Passing an order without applying mind to relevant facts would certainly be an erroneous assessment requiring exercise of Jurisdiction u/s.263. This view is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Guahati High Court in CIT Vs Jawahar Bhattacharjee 341 ITR 434 (Gau((FB)). In 41 ITR 286 (Ker), it was held that when AO passed a cryptic order which does not contain details and claims were accepted without enquiry, the assessment order was erroneous and order u/s.263 was justified. In case of Supercloth, 99 ITD 300 (Chn), It was held that lack of enquiry by AO was sufficient to invoke revisionary jurisdict…

Shri Saleem Parvez, Bhopal vs. PCIT -1, Bhopal

In the result this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 248/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore09 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Saleem Parvez Pcit-1 Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ P.A.No. Acyps8006L Vs. Appellant (Assessee) Respondent (Revenue) Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpandey, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mitra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22 / 02 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement 09 /03/ 2022 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…the interest of the revenue. 4. Pratap Footwear v. ACIT (2003) SOT 638 (Jabalpur) Trib. - the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer was prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5. CIT vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (2012) 341 ITR 434 (Gauhati) (HC) (FB) - the Hon'ble High court has held that error in assessment order arising by ignoring relevant material or on incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law - Amenable to revision u/s 263. 6. (2017) (Himachal Pradesh) / (2017) 298 CTR 393 Virbhadra Singh (HUF) vs. Principal commissioner of Income Tax (Himachal Pr…

Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporatio Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1452/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 263

…plication of law which constitutes an error and as such the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue since there is loss of revenue. In this regard, support is drawn from the following decisions: i) CIT Vs. JawaharBhattacharjee, 341 ITR 434 (Gau.) ii) Jai Bharath Tanners Vs. CIT, 264 ITR 673 (Mad.) iii) Vashti Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, Del.)(2010- TIOL-642-ITAT-DEL) 7.3 In the case of CIT Vs. JawaharBhattacharjee (supra), the following ratio was laid down: “Jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised whenever it is found that the order of assessment was errone…

Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 724/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 263

…plication of law which constitutes an error and as such the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue since there is loss of revenue. In this regard, support is drawn from the following decisions: i) CIT Vs. JawaharBhattacharjee, 341 ITR 434 (Gau.) ii) Jai Bharath Tanners Vs. CIT, 264 ITR 673 (Mad.) iii) Vashti Management Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, Del.)(2010- TIOL-642-ITAT-DEL) 7.3 In the case of CIT Vs. JawaharBhattacharjee (supra), the following ratio was laid down: “Jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised whenever it is found that the order of assessment was errone…

Shri Puneet Talera, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 25/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 25/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Puneet Talera, Cuke P.C.I.T. Vs. 17, Purohit Ji Ka Bagh, M.I. Road, Jaipur-1 Jaipur. Pan No.: Aezpt 8279 D Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pcit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Jaipur-1, Jaipur Dated 28/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Is Illegal & Bad In Law & The Same Be Quashed. 2. The Ld. Pcit Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That The Order Passed By The Ao Allowing The Loss On Account Of Differential Interest Under The Head Income From Other Sources In The Absence Of Balance Sheet/ Bank Statement Of Relevant Period Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue Ignoring The Fact That:-

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT-DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 57

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 25/JP/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Puneet Talera, cuke P.C.I.T. Vs. 17, Purohit Ji Ka Bagh, M.I. Road, Jaipur-1 Jaipur. PAN No.: AEZPT 8279 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT-DR) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 28/07/2021 mn?kk…

Cuttack Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Cuttack vs. Principal CIT, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 184/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri N.R.Biswal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 Cuttack Central Co-operative Vs. Pr. CIT, Cuttack Bank Ltd., Nimchouri, Chandini Chowk, Cuttack PAN/GIR No.AAOPD 1277 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri N.R.Biswal, AR Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT, DR Date of final Hearing : 21/10/2020 Date of Pronouncement : 22 /1/2021 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg,JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed under section 263 of the Income tax Act, (in short ‘Th…

Shri Nitin Sharma, Jabalpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 25/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 153DSection 263Section 7(1)

…being: wrong assumption of facts; incorrect application of law; and omission to observe the principles of natural justice, laid down by the Apex Court, as in Malabar Indl. Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC)(also see: CIT vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434 (Gau)(FB)), for an order to be regarded as erroneous. For instance, an assessment made by accepting the income returned as such, without inquiring if the income returned had been earned by the person returning the same, was held 15 | P a g e Nitin Sharma v. Pr. CIT by the Apex Court to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue…

Surekha Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. Principal CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT,DR

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

…re, ld Pr. CIT was right in alleging the impugned assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Ld CIT DR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee reported in 342 ITR 74 (Gau) and submitted that where there was non-application of mind by the AO on the issue then the order has to be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 10. Placing rejoinder to above, ld A.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer has made proper, sufficient and adequate enquiries by way of issuance of two notices u/s.14…

Chandukaka Saraf and Sons Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Pune

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 690/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…Considering above, it is apparent that the A.O has failed to apply his mind to the case in all perspectives and the order passed by him was erroneous and in result prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the case of CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434 (Gauhati) (HC) (FB) it has been held that Non application of mind to relevant material or an incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of order being erroneous . 13.6 It is now a settled law that an order passed by the A.O become erroneous and prejudice to the interest of Revenue as per the prov…

Chandukaka Saraf and Sons Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Pune

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 689/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…Considering above, it is apparent that the A.O has failed to apply his mind to the case in all perspectives and the order passed by him was erroneous and in result prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the case of CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434 (Gauhati) (HC) (FB) it has been held that Non application of mind to relevant material or an incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of order being erroneous . 13.6 It is now a settled law that an order passed by the A.O become erroneous and prejudice to the interest of Revenue as per the prov…

CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee

What is CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee

Vinod Kumar Kundanmalji Jain, Chennai vs. PCIT-8, Chennai

Vinod Kumar Kundanmal, Chennai vs. PCIT-8, Chennai

Tarun Kundanmal HUF, Chennai vs. PCIT-8, Chennai

Tarun Kumar Kundanmalji Jain, Chennai vs. PCIT-8, Chennai

Learning Curve Edutech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-7, Mumbai

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 13, Mumbai

Smt. Anuradha Upadhyay, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(5)

Suresh Upadhyay and Sons, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(5)

Suresh Upadhyay and Sons, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(5)

Suresh Upadhyay and Sons, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(5)

Chennai Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

Shri Saleem Parvez, Bhopal vs. PCIT -1, Bhopal

Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporatio Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Shri Puneet Talera, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

Cuttack Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Cuttack vs. Principal CIT, Cuttack

Shri Nitin Sharma, Jabalpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Jabalpur

Surekha Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. Principal CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

Chandukaka Saraf and Sons Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Pune

Chandukaka Saraf and Sons Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Central), Pune