CIT v. Prem Syndicate

141 ITR 290High Court1983#14896 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 147 Section 148 Section 154 Section 263 Section 68

Judgments citing CIT v. Prem Syndicate

Ashutosh Kumar Prabhat, Arrah vs. PCIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 564/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 154Section 263

…s* [(1979) 121 ITR 535 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the principles of natural justice must be adhered to in proceedings under Section 263, and failure to do so would render the order unsustainable. 12. That in *CIT v. Prem Syndicate* [(1983) 141 ITR 290 (MP)], the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that when proper opportunity is not given to the assessee in a Section 263 proceeding, the order is liable to be set aside. 13. That in *Sona Construction v. ITO* [(1998) 64 ITD 1 (Patna-Trib.) (TM)], the ITAT Patna Bench (Third Member) ruled that an ex-parte order under Section 263 should be set…

Namrata Kapale, Chindwara vs. Pr.CIT-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 41/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148(1)Section 159(2)(b)Section 263

…. The purport of a notice u/s. 263, and all that he is required to do, is to give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and make (or cause to make) such enquiry as he deems necessary. To the same effect is the decision in CIT v. Prem Syndicate [1983] 141 ITR 290 (MP). That is, the notice u/s. 263 is not a jurisdictional notice, for the ratio of the decision in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) to apply. No rebuttal was made by Sh. Bardia, the ld. counsel for the assessee, despite being allowed time to respond. Rather, to the extent the decision in Sheela Devi (supra) holds the non-communication of the fac…

Saurabh Singhai L/H Late Shri Mahendra Kumar Jain, Sagar vs. Income Tax Officer-3 Sagar, Sagar

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5/JAB/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

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

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(1)Section 263

…umstances surrounding such facts, as may be considered relevant by the assessee, must be afforded to him by the Commissioner prior to the finalisation of the decision.‟ Reference in this context may also be made to the decision in CIT v. Prem Syndicate [1983] 141 ITR 290 (MP), clarifying the same position of law. The only purport of the notice u/s. 263 is thus to put the assessee to notice, providing him an opportunity of being heard. The same, as per the impugned order, stands granted to the assessee through service of notice u/s. 263. The same, as noted, being not a jurisdictional notice, duly served, the decis…

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT-13, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 3830/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Section 263Section 40Section 9

…a finding that the Assessing Officer has duly examined the issue on the basis of document said to have been filed before Assessing Officer. 14. We find that these issues were examined by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Prem Syndicate, 141 ITR 290 (MP). In this decision, the Hon'ble High Court has duly taken note of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Electro House, 82 ITR 824 (SC) and CIT vs National Taj Traders, 121 ITR 535 (SC). We may gainfully refer to paragraph 3 and 4 of the said order as under :- “3. We have already held relying on the decision of the Supreme Cour…

Piramal Enterprise Limited (Formerly Known As Piramal Healthcare Limited), Mumbai vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 7, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the specific terms indicated above

ITA 2489/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…ITA No. 2489/Mum/19 Assessment year: 2012-13 Page 1 of 16 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI C BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Justice P P Bhatt (President) and Pramod Kumar (Vice President)] ITA No. 2489/Mum/19 Assessment year: 2012-13 Pirmal Enterprises Limited (formerly Piramal Healthcare Limited) ……………….………Appellant Piramal Ananta, Agastaya Corporate Park, Kamani Junction, LBS Marg, Kurla (West) Mumbai 400 070 [PAN: AAACN4538P] Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 7(3)(2), Mumbai ……………………Respondent Appearances by J D Mistry, along with Madhur Agarwal, Ronak Doshi and Manshi Padhiar for the appellant…

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. .CIT-(A) 13, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3910/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija

Section 263

…finding that the Assessing Officer has duly examined the issue on the basis of document said to have been filed before Assessing Officer. 14. We find that these issues were examined by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Prem Syndicate, 141 ITR 290 (MP). In this decision, the Hon'ble High Court has duly taken note of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Electro House, 82 ITR 824 (SC) and CIT vs National Taj Traders, 121 ITR 535 (SC). We may gainfully refer to paragraph 3 and 4 of the said order as under :- “3. We have already held relying on the decision of the Supreme Cou…