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 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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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 263 Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 270A Section 271(1)(a)Section 273(b)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(a)satisfaction for initiation of penalty section 271aab(1a)section 275(1)(c)revision under section 263 penalty u/s 270a assessment order erroneous revision u/s 263 penalty under section 270a section 271aac under-reporting of income section 271aab

Judgments citing CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, 005, Village Beedmandi, Nayagaon, Ramganjmandi, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A..)For Respondent: Shri Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…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. KeshrimalParasmal (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.…

Sh. Narendar Kumar Agarwal, Jawali Bhawan, Station Road, Alwar vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271FSection 50CSection 54F

…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…

Lokesh Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. PCIT- Central Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 123/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 May 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi (CA)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Mehar (CIT)

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263Section 271A

…. In support of his contention, the ld. A/R placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of CIT vs. Rakesh Nain Trivedi, (2016) 128 DTR 309 (P&H) and Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj.). 6. After considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and the case laws cited before us, we are of the considered view that in the interest of 4 Shri Lokesh Khandelwal, Mumbai. natural justice, it will be appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the ld. PCIT to adjudicate the matter afresh after affording s…

Anushakti Chemicals & Drugs Ltd. (Formerly Known As Aarti Healthcare Ltd. Now Merged Into Aarti Industries Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - Range-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 639/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Mum/2021 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11) Anushakti Chemicals & Pr. Cit, Range-2 Drugs Ltd. Room No.1920, 19Th Floor, Air (Formerly Known As Aarti India Building, Nariman बनाम/ Health Care Ltd. Now Point, Mumbai-400 021, Vs. Merged Into Aarti Industries Maharashtra Ltd.) Mumbai (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aabca2787L अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Ms. Shailja Rai, Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15.11.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2021

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai, DR

Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 254Section 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…

Sunila Awasthi, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-12, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 496/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamblea N D Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 496/Del/2021 (A.Y. 2015-16) (Through Video Conferencing) Ms. Sunila Awasthi, Principal Cit – 12, E–802, Uniworld City East, Vs. New Delhi. Sector : 30, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan : Aaepa9591J (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv.; & Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate; Department By : Shri H. K. Chaudhary [Cit] – Dr; Date Of Hearing 01.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07.07.2021

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaudhary

Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…CIT vs. Sudershan Talkies (1993) 112 CTR (Del) 165 : (1993) 201 ITR 289 (Del) and followed in CIT vs. Nihal Chand Rekyan (1999) 156 CTR (Del) 59 : (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del). The Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1985) 48 CTR (Raj) 61 : (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Gauhati High Court in Surendra Prasad Singh &Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125 : (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau) and Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) have followed the judgment of Delhi High Court in J.K.D' Costa's case (supra). 14. However, Honourable Madhya Pradesh High Court in Addl. CIT vs.…

M/S. Arsh Vision C/O- M/S. Mahendra Gargieya & Associates, Advocates & Tax Consultants, 537-539, 5Th Floor, Mahima'S Trinity, Near Jyoti Rao Phule College, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle-1, Ajmer, Circle-1

ITA 592/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Sh. Hemang Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘B’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] 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. 592/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 cuke M/s Arsh Vision The DCIT, Vs. Ras Bhawan, Naya Bazar, Circle-01, Ajmer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAMFA6227B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Hemang Gargieya (Adv.) & Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by…

Jayesh V. Sheth, Mumbai vs. CIT 16, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3922/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh, C.A Department byFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…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 Chartd 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 Sureridra 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…

Jayesh V. Sheth, Mumbai vs. CIT 16, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3921/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh, C.A Department byFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Jayesh V. Sheth, Mumbai vs. CIT 16, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3920/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh, C.A Department byFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

Asst CIT CC 43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 933/MUM/2014[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…to M/s Roha Dyechem Ltd. (1984) 147 ITR (St.) 1. He also relied upon the following decisions in which similar proposition has been laid down: CIT v. Sudershan Talkies (201 ITR 289 (Delhi) CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan (242 ITR 45(Delhi) CiT v. Keshrimal Parsmal (157 ITR 484 (Rajasthan) Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT (173 ITR 510 (Gauhati) CIT v. Linotype and Machinery Ltd. (192 ITR 337(Calcutta). CIT v. Subhash kumar Jain (335 ITR 364(Punjab & Haryana) 4.1 Ld. AR further referred to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Achal Kumar Jain, 142 ITR 606, in which it was observed that thoug…