CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal

157 ITR 484High Court1986#2304 most cited

What is CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal authority for?

The revisional power of the Commissioner under section 263 can be exercised when the Assessing Officer has not initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) in the assessment order, and the CIT finds such omission to be erroneous.

50

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal · section 263 · revisionary powers · CIT · Assessing Officer · penalty proceedings · section 271(1)(c) · assessment order · erroneous assessment

Also reported as

27 Taxmann 447

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 148Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 270ASection 271(1)(a)Section 273(b)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(a)satisfaction for initiation of penaltysection 271aab(1a)section 275(1)(c)revision under section 263penalty u/s 270aassessment order erroneousrevision u/s 263penalty under section 270asection 271aacunder-reporting of incomesection 271aab

Judgments citing CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal

Mahaveer Singh, Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 840/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234FSection 263(1)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 44A

…cause of the failure of the income tax officer to record his opinion about the leviability of penalty as penalty proceedings do not form a part of an assessment proceedings and such finding has also been given in following cases. 1. CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal-157 ITR 484 (Rajsthan) 2. Surendra Prasad singh vs. CIT-173 ITR 510 (Guhati) 3. Linotype and machinery limited vs. CIT-192 ITR 337 (Cal.) In all these case view taken by the Delhi High Court in J.K.D. costa's case 133 ITR 7 has been followed. In view of these facts read with above decisions it is respectfully submitted that the order passed by the A.O. and o…

Dinesh Verma, Manali, Himachal Pradesh vs. ITO, ITO Ward Kullu

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 897/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinamar Gupta, C.A (Virtually)For Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 263Section 270A

…nce was placed upon the decisions in Addl. CIT vs. J.K. D’Costa (133 ITR 7, Delhi), Addl. CIT vs. Achal Kumar Jain (142 ITR 606, Delhi), CIT vs. Sudarshan Talkies (201 ITR 289, Delhi), CIT vs. Nihal Chand Rekyan (242 ITR 45, Delhi), CIT vs. KeshrimalParasmal (157 ITR 484, Rajasthan), CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (192 ITR 337, Calcutta), CIT vs. Parmanand Patel (278 ITR 3, Gujarat), and certain Tribunal decisions including Amarjeet Dhall, Easy Transcription & Software Pvt. Ltd., GM Builders and Air Wind Green Energy Ltd., to contend that revision cannot be exercised merely for initiation of penalty proceeding…

Dubbi Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd, Dausa vs. ITO WD, Dausa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1283/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.C.)
Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80P

…IT acting u/s 263, cannot direct the AO to initiate penalty proceedings us 271(1)(c)/270A/271AAB. The issue involved is no longer Res Integra in as much as identical issue is directly covered by the binding decision in case of CIT vs Keshrimal Parasmal [1986] 27 Taxmann 447 (Raj) (DPB 1-3), holding that: "In J.K. D'Costa's case (supra), it was held that the Commissioner was not entitled to set aside the assessment order passed by the ITO on the ground that there was no mention of initiation of penalty proceedings in the order and that he could not direct the ITO to make fresh assessment to initiate penalty procee…

Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohan Rao Koduri, East Godhavari vs. ACIT, Cirlce - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 291/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

…ing with the view of High Courts of Delhi in Additional J.K.D.'s Costa case (supra), CIT v.Sudershan Talkies [1993] 201 ITR 289 (Delhi) and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45/[2002] 123Taxman 353 (Delhi), Rajasthan in CIT v. Keshrimal Parasmal [1986] 157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.),Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra PrasadSingh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals [1980] 123 ITR 874 (MP.),Addl. CIT v. Kantila…

Veera Venkata Ramakrishna Mohana Rao Koduri, Rajahmundry vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Rajahmundry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam22 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 290 & 291/Viz/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Veera Venkata Ramakrishna V. Acit – Circle – 1 Mohana Rao Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan Flat No. 201, Sri Towers Nh-16 Veerabadhrapuram Venkateswara Nagar Rajahmundry – 533105 Syamalanagar Andhra Pradesh East Godavari District - 533103 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0888C] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आईटीए. नं. / Ita Nos. 293 & 294/Viz/2025 निर्धारणवर्ा/ Assessment Years:2018-19 & 2019-20) Satya Venkata Krishna Ravi V. Acit – Circle – 1 Prasad Koduri Ayakkar Bhawan 81-10-3/6, Venkateswaranagar Veerabadhrapuram Near Ima Halla, Danavaipeta Rajahmundry – 533105 East Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afrpk0889D] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Smt Hemalatha K, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit(Dr)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 263Section 270A

…ing with the view of High Courts of Delhi in Additional J.K.D.'s Costa case (supra), CIT v.Sudershan Talkies [1993] 201 ITR 289 (Delhi) and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45/[2002] 123Taxman 353 (Delhi), Rajasthan in CIT v. Keshrimal Parasmal [1986] 157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.),Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra PrasadSingh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals [1980] 123 ITR 874 (MP.),Addl. CIT v. Kantila…

Koti Narasimha Reddy Guttikonda, Guntur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 332/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.332/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Koti Narasimha Reddy Guttikonda Vs. Pr. Cit 1-99, Rudravaram – 522410 Siddhardha Public School Road Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh Mogalrajapurm Vijayawada – 520010 [Pan: Amcpg7882N] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…ng with the view of High Courts of Delhi in Additional J.K.D.'s Costa case (supra), CIT v. Sudershan Talkies [1993] 201 ITR 289 (Delhi) and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45/[2002] 123 Taxman 353 (Delhi), Rajasthan in CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal [1986] 157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.), Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals [1980] 123 ITR 874 (MP.), Addl. CIT v. Kant…

Vikas Vijay Gupta, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby

ITA 404/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No. 404/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nVikas Vijay Gupta\nPrincipal Commissioner\n604 Sarap,\nof Income Tax,\nOpp. Navjivan Press Vs Ahmedabad-1,\nP.O. Navjivan,\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad-380014,\nGujarat\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AEOPG6723L\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR\nDate of hearing : 27-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 27-05-2025\nआदे

Section 115BSection 147Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274Section 69A

…aria (1986) 161 ITR 694, Addl. CIT v. Sudershan Talkies (1993).200 ITR 153, CIT v. Sudershan Talkies [19931.201 ITTR 289 and Nihal Chand Rekyan (supra). 10. Similar view has been taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Keshrimal Parasmal (1986)157 ITR 484%, Gauhati High Court in the case of Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT (19881_173 ITR 610°, Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT V. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (19911_192 ITR 337 and Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. C.R.K. Swami (2002) 254 ITR 1584. 11. On the other hand the Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken a contrary view in the case of Addl…

Singanamala Sarala, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 200/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: : Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263Section 269S

…judgements relied upon by the assessee which are as under : 1. ACIT Vs. JKD Costa reported in (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Delhi High Court). 2. ACIT Vs. Achal Kumar Jain reported in (1983) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi High Court.) 3. CIT Vs. Keshrimal Parasmal reported in (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Rajasthan High Court) 4. CIT Vs. CRK Swamy reported in (2002) 254 ITR 158 (Mad.) 5. CIT Vs. Rakesh Nain Trivedi reported in (2016) 282 CTR 205 (Punjab & Haryana High Court.) 6. Harish Jain Vs. PCIT reported in (2023) 221 TTJ 276 (Jaipur). 7. CIT Vs. Vegetable Products Limited reported in (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC). 26.” 6.1 On perusal of the above,…

Shri Vijay Kumar Patel, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

ITA 212/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 212/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 68

…v. J.K.D.'Costa (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sudershan Talkies (1993) 201 ITR 289 (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nihal Chand Rekyan (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del), Rajasthan in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Keshrimal Parasmal (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Calcutta in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Additional Commissioner of Income Tax v. Indian Phar…

Mikuni India Private Limited, Alwar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT

12. In view of the above discussion, we find merit in this appeal, when the assessment order dated 27

ITA 745/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: passing the impugned order, Learned PCIT issued notice to the assessee, as Learned PCIT found that the Assessing Officer, while framing the above said assessment and the making addition, did not initiate penalty proceedings 270A of the Act. Learned PCIT was of the view that penalty proceedings were to be initiated under the said provision on account of misreporting of income, which came to be added by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee company. It being a Transfer Pri

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Agarwal, C.A. (Through V.C.) &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 194C(5)Section 263Section 270ASection 92CSection 94C

…High Court, Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, Hon’ble Madras High Court and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court as well. As observed in para 10 of the said decision, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, in the case of Keshrimal Parasmall (1986) 157 ITR 484 took the view that was taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Additional CIT vs. J.K. Costa, (1982) 9 Taxman 88. The view taken by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in J.K. Costa’s (supra) case was that assessment cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue because of the failure of the Income Tax Officer to record his opini…

Kag India Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Circle -2, Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1366/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1366/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Pcit (Central), M/S. Kag India Pvt Ltd., V. Chennai -2. No. 264/15-1, Sathiyanathan Complex, Velachery Road, East Tambaram, Chennai – 600 059. [Pan: Aadck-5381-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Fca ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 263Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)Section 271(1)

…:-7-: ITA. No:1366/Chny/2024 5. The Ld.AR cited the decision in the case of CIT v. CRK Swamy reported in [2002] 254 ITR 158 (Mad.) and he also cited the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v.Keshrimal Parasmal reported in [1986] 157 ITR 484 (Raj.) to assail the impugned action of the Ld.PCIT invoking his revisional jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act to interfere with the initiation of penalty by the AO in the assessment order. 6. Per contra, the ld.DR supporting the action of the ld.PCIT, doesn’t want us to interfere with the impugned order of the ld.PCIT u/s.263 of the Act. 7. We…

Hasmukh Hirji Gada, Pune vs. PCIT (Central), Pune

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

ITA 1023/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1023/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hasmukh Hirji Gada, Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. 1073, Bhosale Mystiqa, Plot No.425, Flat No.203, Gokhale Road, Om Super Market, Shivaji Nagar, Pune- 411002. Pan : Adxps3533L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Neelesh Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Pcit (Central), Pune For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Of Law It Be Held That The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Under Section 263 For Initiating The Penalty Under Section 271Aac Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Hence Is Improper, Unwarranted, Unjustified & Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts Prevailing In The Case. The Order Passed U/S. 263 Be Set Aside. The Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 263Section 271ASection 69A

…. CIT vs. J.K.D.'Costa (supra), CIT vs. Sudershan Talkies (1993) 112 CTR (Del) 165; (1993) 201 ITR 289 (Del) and CIT vs. Nihal Chand Rekyan (1999) 156 CTR (Del) 59; (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del), Rajasthan in CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1985) 48 CTR (Raj) 61 (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Calcutta in CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125; (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals (1980) 123 ITR 874 (MP), Addl. CIT vs.…

Anotra Realators Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT (Central)- 1, Chennai

ITA 1451/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2024AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 69A

…alty proceedings in the assessment order, and to direct the ITO to make fresh assessment and to initiate penalty proceedings." 9.2 Similar proposition was laid down by various high courts as under:- i) Addl.CIT vs. Achal Kumar Jain, Keshrimal Parasmal, (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj) ii) Addl.CIT vs. Precision Metal Works, (1985) 156 ITR 693 (Del) iii) CWT vs. A.N. Sarvaria, (1986) 161 ITR 694 (Del) iv) Surendra Prasad Singh vs. CIT, (1988) 173 ITR 510, 515 (Gauh) v) CIT vs. Linotype and Machinery Ltd., (1991) 192 ITR 337, 341- 42 (Cal) vi) Addl.CIT vs. Sudershan Talkies, (1993) 200 ITR 153, 156(Del) vii) CIT vs. Suders…

Skill Promoters Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the 3

ITA 116/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.114 To 116/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-2020) Skill Promoters (P) Ltd Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Aawcs1257Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Moha Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Moha Rao, CaFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 269SSection 271D

…ur Bench in the case of Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. PCIT (ITA No.132/JP/2022) iii) ITAT Hyderabad Benches in the case of Sri Aditya Homes (P) Ltd in ITA Nos.230 and 2312/Hyd/2023 iv) Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1986) 27 Taxmann 447. v) Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rakesh Nain Trivedi (2017) 80 Taxmann.com 238 vi) ITAT Hyderabad Benches in the case of Sunil Kumar Ahuja vs. DCIT (Ita Nos.501, 502/Hyd/2023) 8. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned PCIT submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT…

Skill Promoters Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the 3

ITA 115/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.114 To 116/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-2020) Skill Promoters (P) Ltd Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Aawcs1257Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Moha Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Moha Rao, CaFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 269SSection 271D

…ur Bench in the case of Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. PCIT (ITA No.132/JP/2022) iii) ITAT Hyderabad Benches in the case of Sri Aditya Homes (P) Ltd in ITA Nos.230 and 2312/Hyd/2023 iv) Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1986) 27 Taxmann 447. v) Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rakesh Nain Trivedi (2017) 80 Taxmann.com 238 vi) ITAT Hyderabad Benches in the case of Sunil Kumar Ahuja vs. DCIT (Ita Nos.501, 502/Hyd/2023) 8. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned PCIT submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT…

Skill Promoters Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the 3

ITA 114/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.114 To 116/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-2020) Skill Promoters (P) Ltd Vs. Asstt. C. I. T. Hyderabad Central Circle 2(3) Pan:Aawcs1257Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Moha Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Moha Rao, CaFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 269SSection 271D

…ur Bench in the case of Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya vs. PCIT (ITA No.132/JP/2022) iii) ITAT Hyderabad Benches in the case of Sri Aditya Homes (P) Ltd in ITA Nos.230 and 2312/Hyd/2023 iv) Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1986) 27 Taxmann 447. v) Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rakesh Nain Trivedi (2017) 80 Taxmann.com 238 vi) ITAT Hyderabad Benches in the case of Sunil Kumar Ahuja vs. DCIT (Ita Nos.501, 502/Hyd/2023) 8. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned PCIT submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT…

Gurjant Singh, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. K.Gogra (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 44ASection 68

…iated by the ld. AO. 7.1 The ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the various judgment challenging the action of ld. PCIT and the same are as under :- • Harish Jain vs PCIT (2023) 102 ITR (Trib.) 84 • Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1986) 157 ITR 484 • Rekha Shekhawat vs. Pr. CIT (2022) 99 ITR (Trib.) 69 7.2 Out of the above judgment so cited, we find that we have binding precedent of the jurisdictional High Court on the similar set of facts wherein the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income- tax vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1986) 157 ITR 484 hold a view that “Revision: Commis…

Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 502/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…g with the view of High Courts of Delhi in Additional J.K.D.'s Costa case (supra), CIT v. Sudershan Talkies [1993] 201 ITR 289 (Delhi) and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45/[2002] 123 Taxman 353 (Delhi), Rajasthan in CIT v. Keshrimal Parasmal [1986] 157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.), Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals [1980] 123 ITR 874 (MP.), Addl. CIT v. Kant…

Sunil Kumar Ahuja, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 501/HYD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT-DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…g with the view of High Courts of Delhi in Additional J.K.D.'s Costa case (supra), CIT v. Sudershan Talkies [1993] 201 ITR 289 (Delhi) and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45/[2002] 123 Taxman 353 (Delhi), Rajasthan in CIT v. Keshrimal Parasmal [1986] 157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.), Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approach of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT v. Indian Pharmaceuticals [1980] 123 ITR 874 (MP.), Addl. CIT v. Kant…

Prakash Davara, Raipur vs. Assistant Coimmissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 177/RPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 177/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prakash Davara, 08, Gitanjali Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Acupd0169K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-4(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: S/shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR &
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 156Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…. Subhash Kumar Jain (2011) 335 ITR 364 ( P & H) (iv) Addl. CIT Vs. J.K D.’ Costa (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del) (v) CIT Vs. Sudershan Talkies (1993) 201 ITR 289 (Del) (vi) CIT Vs. Nihal Chand Rekyan (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del) (vii) CIT Vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj) (viii) CIT Vs. Linotype & Machinery (1991) 192 ITR 337 ( Cal.) (ix) Surendra Prasad Singh and Ors Vs. CIT (1988) 173 ITR 510 ( Guj.) Referring to the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the Hon’ble Courts had held that where the A.O had not initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) in the assessment…

CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal (157 ITR 484) — Cited in 50 Judgments | BharatTax