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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal?

50 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal (157 ITR 484), spanning 2016 to 2026.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 271(1)(c), Section 270A, Section 271(1)(a).

CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal (157 ITR 484)

M/S Eternal Heart Care Centre & Research Institute Pvt. Ltd., 3A, Jagatpura Road, Near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 263/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271A

…IT 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), Addll. CIT vs…

Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 231/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…mar Jain ACIT Vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals reported in (1983) 142 ITR 606 (1980) 123 ITR 874 (MP) (Del) Judgment of Rajasthan High Judgment of MP High Court in Court in CIT Vs. Keshrimal ACIT Vs. Kantilal Jain (1980) 125 Parasmal reported in (1986) ITR 373 (MP) 157 ITR 484 (Raj) Judgment of Madras High Court Judgment of MP High Court in in CIT Vs. CRK Swamy reported ACWT Vs. Nathoolal Balaram in (2002) 254 ITR 158 (Mad.) (1980) 125 ITR 596 (MP) Judgment of P&H High Court in Judgment of MP High Court in CIT Vs. Rakesh Nain Trivedi CIT Vs. Narpat Singh Malkhan reported in (2016) 282 CTR 205 Singh (1980) 128 ITR 77 (M…

Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 230/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…mar Jain ACIT Vs. Indian Pharmaceuticals reported in (1983) 142 ITR 606 (1980) 123 ITR 874 (MP) (Del) Judgment of Rajasthan High Judgment of MP High Court in Court in CIT Vs. Keshrimal ACIT Vs. Kantilal Jain (1980) 125 Parasmal reported in (1986) ITR 373 (MP) 157 ITR 484 (Raj) Judgment of Madras High Court Judgment of MP High Court in in CIT Vs. CRK Swamy reported ACWT Vs. Nathoolal Balaram in (2002) 254 ITR 158 (Mad.) (1980) 125 ITR 596 (MP) Judgment of P&H High Court in Judgment of MP High Court in CIT Vs. Rakesh Nain Trivedi CIT Vs. Narpat Singh Malkhan reported in (2016) 282 CTR 205 Singh (1980) 128 ITR 77 (M…

Dhankot Filling Station, Gurgaon vs. Pr.CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshdhankot Filling Station, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sultanpur Road, Village Faridabad Dhankot, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122505 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaefd7291A Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 275Section 69A

…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…

Anjis Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT-5, Mumbai

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

ITA 959/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anjis Developers Private Limited, Pcit-5, 2Nd Floor, Soham Apartments, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, 208, Walkeshwar Road, Teen Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk. Batti, Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 6022 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By S. Sriram/Dinesh Kukreja/Ssnyaknavedie Revenue By : Shri Chetan Kacha, Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

For Respondent: Assessee by S. Sriram/Dinesh

Section 270A

…. Similar view has been taken by the Rajasthan High Court 10. Similar view has been taken by the Rajasthan High Court 10. Similar view has been taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. KeshrimalPara in the case of CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal [1986)157 ITR 484%, smal [1986)157 ITR 484%, Gauhati High Court in the case of Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT Gauhati High Court in the case of Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT 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. (19881_173 ITR 610°, Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. (19881…

Kusegaon Realty Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-2, Mumbai

Accordingly appeals of the assessee for both the years are allowed

ITA 1071/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Nishita MadalaywalaFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malti Ghosh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA Nos. 1070 &1071/MUM/2022 (Assessment Years 2010-11 & 11-12) Kusegoan Realty Pvt. Ltd PCIT-2 Ground Floor, D.B.House, Room No. 1920, Air India Gen. A.K. Vaidya Marg, Vs. Goregaon (East), Mumbai- Bldg., Mumbai-400 021 400 063 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADCK0621P Assessee by : Ms. Nishita Madalaywala Revenue by : Ms. Madhu Malti Ghosh, CIT DR Date of hearing: 07.11.2022 Date of pronouncement : 29.12.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. These are the 2 appeals filed by the…