What is CIT v. Mehsana District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. authority for?

Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be invoked to correct every mistake by the Assessing Officer; it applies only to erroneous orders prejudicial to the revenue, especially when two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible one.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Mehsana District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 263, Section 115BBE, Section 142(1), Section 144C(13).

CIT v. Mehsana District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. (263 ITR 645)

Q: How many judgments cite CIT v. Mehsana District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd.?

29 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Mehsana District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. (263 ITR 645), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Worldview Education Services Private Lmited, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1056/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1056/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Worldview Education Services Private Limited, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad – 500 016. Ward-17(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw9480F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca C. Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: G Saratha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA C. Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: G Saratha, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…167 (Del.-HC); 6. Pr. CIT vs. Deccan Jewellers P. Ltd. 438 ITR 131 (AP- HC); 7. D. Pedda Reddaiah vs. ITO, dated 30.04.2020 (ITAT, Hyd. Tribu); 8. CIT vs. M. Chandra Sekhar 151 ITR 433 (SC). 9. CIT vs. Mulchand Bagri (108 CTR 206 Cal.). 10. CIT vs. D P Karai (266 ITR 113 Guj); 9 ITA.No.1056/Hyd./2025 11. Paul Mathews vs. CIT (263 ITR 101 Ker); 12. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) 3.1. He has submitted that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court for the State of Telangana in the case of CIT vs. V. Dhana Reddy and Co. [2018] 407 ITR 96 (T & AP) has held that whe…

Balubhai Kikabhai Patel, Valsad vs. Principal Commisioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 461/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.461/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Balubhhai Kikabhai Patel Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ Nahuli, Karmbele, Umbergon, Income-Tax, Valsad, Room No. Vs. Surat-396 105 301, 3Rd Floor, Palak Arcade, Shanti Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Akqpp 2563 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 13/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

…der of CIT(A). He also submitted that the agricultural income has also been accepted by the AO in the next assessment year. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Meshana District Co-Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. 263 ITR 645 (Guj) and CIT vs. Shashi Theater (P.) Ltd. 248 ITR 126 (Guj); CIT vs. Amit Corporation 81 CCH 69 (Guj); CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj); CIT vs. R.K. Construction Co. 313 ITR 65 (Guj) and Rayon Silk Mills vs. CIT 221 ITR 155 (Guj). ITA No.461/SRT/2024/AY.18-19 Balubhai K Patel 5. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue support…

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

…of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar [335 ITR 83].  Copy of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan [384 ITR 200].  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.P. Karai [266 ITR 113].  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers [259 ITR 502]  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Limited [388 ITR 81].  Copy of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Limited [295 ITR 282].  Copy of decision of Hon'bl…