How many judgments cite CIT v. Ralson Industries Ltd. 5?

153 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ralson Industries Ltd. 5 (288 ITR 322), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ralson Industries Ltd. 5 come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 194C, Section 201(1), Section 201(1A).

CIT v. Ralson Industries Ltd. 5

288 ITR 322Supreme Court of India2007#643 most cited

What is CIT v. Ralson Industries Ltd. 5 authority for?

The Supreme Court affirmed that lower authorities are bound by decisions of higher authorities due to judicial discipline. It also clarified that the Commissioner, in exercising revisional power under Section 263, can conduct necessary inquiries to determine if an assessment is prejudicial to the Revenue.

153

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ralson Industries Ltd. · 288 ITR 322 (SC) · Section 263 revision power · Commissioner inquiry power · assessment prejudicial to revenue · judicial discipline principle · binding precedent · lower authority must follow higher authority · Section 143(3) assessment · scrutiny assessment inquiry

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 194C Section 201(1)Section 201(1A)Section 10 Section 12A

Issues it is cited on

person business company total income interest document india section 143(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. Ralson Industries Ltd. 5

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI BABA MOHAN RAM KALI KHOLI WALE

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA/13/2025HC Rajasthan28 Mar 2026

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 12ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 263

…nnot be said that there have been no application filed and that the order passed by the AO was prejudical to the interest of Revenue in terms of provisions of Section 263 Explanation Clause 2(a) of the Act of 1961. In CIT v. Ralsons Industries Ltd. 288 ITR 322 (SC), Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 8 has held as under…. “The power of revision under Section 263 is exercised by the higher authority. It is a special provision. The revisional jurisdiction is vested in the Commissioner. An order there under can be passed if it is found that the order of assessment is prejudicial to the Revenue. In such a…

NARENDRA KUMAR MAKHIJA,KOTA vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 605/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Said Appeal Is Pending Before Learned Cit(A), As Claimed By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri B.L. Bhojwani, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 263Section 68

…nd issued directions to the Assessing Officer, as noticed above:-  Malabar Industrial Limited v/s CIT, 243 ITR ( S.C);  TTK LIG Ltd., v/s ACIT, (Mad) 51 DTR 228;  Arvee International v/s Addl. CIT, (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495.  CIT vs Raisons Industries ltd, 288 ITR 322 (SC); and  Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 ( Mad. H.C) 12. In para 7.4 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer dealt with the issue of cash deposit and observed that the assessee had deposited cash to the tune of Rs. 2,98,62,000/- with HDFC Bank and sum of Rs. 11,39,49,000/- with ICICI Bank. 8 Narendra Kumar Makhija,…

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 69C

…Appeals) and the Hon'ble ITAT working in the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High\nCourt. For this reliance is placed on the following cases:-\n18\nITA NO.704/JPR/2024\nSHRI BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY VS ITO, WARD 3(1), JAIPUR\nCIT -vs.- Ralson Industries Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 322 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex\nCourt held that when an order is passed by a higher authority, the lower authority\nis bound thereby keeping in view the principles of judicial discipline.\nRussell Properties (P.) Ltd. -vs.- Addl. CIT (1977) 109 ITR 229 (Cal.) the\nHon'ble High Court, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the\ncase of Eas…

JCIT(OSD),CIRCLE-1, SALEM vs. SHRI NARAYANASAMY GUNASEKAR, SALEM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 638/CHNY/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.638/Chny/2023 Assessment Years: 2010-11 The Joint Commissioner Of Income Shri Narayanasamy Gunasekar, Tax(Osd), No.196-C, Anna Nagar, Circle-1, Shyamala Nivas, Salem Kannankurichi, Salem, Tamil Nadu-636 008. [Pan: Ajopg3410B]

For Appellant: Shri T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.E.Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 132Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…ITA No. 638 /Chny/2023 6.10 The undersigned being the Judicial Authority under the Act is bound to follow the decision of the Higher Judicial Forum. In this regard, the observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Ralson Industries Ltd.-(2007) 288 ITR 322(SC) is reproduced as under:- “When an order is passed by a higher authority, the lower authority is bound thereby keeping in view the principles of judicial discipline. This aspect of the matter has been highlighted by this Court in Bhopal Sugar Industries vs Income Tax Officer, Bhopal (AIR 1961 SC 182) in the following terms (Page 622) Please a…

Mr. Vasamsetty Veera Venkata Satyanarayana vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1

Appeal stands dismissed

ITTA/13/2025HC Telangana19 Mar 2025

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 12ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 263

ALOK VIJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 605/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…e circumstances of the case are such as to provoke inquiry - If there is failure to make such enquiry, order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue - CIT need not prove that it is erroneous and he can revise it u/s 263. (iv) CIT v/s. Raisons Industries Ltd., 288 ITR 322 (SC): The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "The power of revision under section 263 is exercised by a higher authority. It is a special provision. The revisional jurisdiction is vested in the Commissioner. An order there under can be passed if it is found that the order of assessment is prejudicial to the Revenue. In such a proceeding, he may…

BARODA RAJASTHAN KHESTRIYA GRAMIN BANK,AJMER vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024

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

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…e circumstances of the case are such as to provoke inquiry - If there is failure to make such enquiry, order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue - CIT need not prove that it is erroneous and he can revise it u/s 263. (iv) CIT vis. Raisons Industries Ltd., 288 ITR 322 (SC): The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under- "The power of revision under section 263 is exercised by a higher authority. It is a special provision. The revisional jurisdiction is vested in the Commissioner. An order there under can be passed if it is found that the order of assessment is prejudicial to the Revenue. In such a proceeding, he may…

SHRI BABA MOHAN RAM KALI KHOLI WALE ,ALWAR vs. CIT(TDS), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order u/s 263

ITA 501/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 201(1)Section 263

…quiry or verification was not made out, even though actually proper enquiry and verification is made by the Assessing Officer. In this regard, reference may be made to decisions in Malabar Industrial Limited v. CIT, 243 ITR 83, CIT v. Raisons Industries Ltd., 288 ITR 322 (SC) and Sir Dorabji Tata Trust’s case(supra) . 10 Shri Baba Mohan Ram Kali Kholi Wale 20. In view of the above discussion, we find that the impugned order deserves to be set aside, same having been passed by the Learned CIT(TDS) against well settled law, and even while, the Assessing Officer had conducted proper enquiry and verification, after…

STRIDES PHARMA SCIENCE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 15 (3)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1558/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.1558 /मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2012-13) Strides Pharma Science Limited [Formerly Known As Strides Arcolab Limited/ Strides Shasun Limited] 201, Devavrata, Sector -17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan: Aadcs-8104-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle – 15(3)(2), Mumbai Room No.451, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate With Shri Ninand Patade "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Anoop Hiwase & Dr.Samuel Pitta सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 30/10/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/01/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 24/01/2019, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. This Appeal Emanates From The Proceedings U/S. 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, Advocate with Shri Ninand PatadeFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase &

Section 154

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “एच ”,मुंबई "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी अमरजीत "सह, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “ H ”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.1558 /मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2012-13) Strides Pharma Science Limited [Formerly known as Strides Arcolab Limited/ Strides Shasun Limited] 201, Devavrata, Sector -17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 PAN: AADCS-8104-P ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle – 15(3)(2), Mumbai Room No.451, 4th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumb…

THE LAKE PALACE HOTELS & MOTELSPRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PCIT,CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 52/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

…e circumstances of the case are such as to provoke inquiry - If there is failure to make such enquiry, order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue - CIT need not prove that it is erroneous and he can revise it u/s 263. (iv) CIT vis. Raisons Industries Ltd., 288 ITR 322 (SC): The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-" The power of revision under section 263 is exercised by a higher authority. It is a special provision. The revisional jurisdiction is vested in the Commissioner. An order there under can be passed if it is found that the order of assessment is prejudicial to the Revenue. In such a proceeding, he ma…

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…se of assessee the ld AO has passed the order after making all the inquiries and after verification of the facts stated by the assessee/ Ld PCIT has not pointed out any defects or falsehood in the facts stated by the assessee. d) CIT Vs Raisons Industries Ltd 288 ITR 322 (SC) This case is also not applicable to the case of assessee in hand. The power of ld PCIT is not absolute to treat any order as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. The assessee filed detailed reply to PCIT during the course of 263 proceedings. It submitted detailed chart of source of investment in MF/equities. It also submitted th…

BHASKAR ARVIND KUMAR HINGAD,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT CIT-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 692/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.692/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Bhaskar Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-24(1) Hingad 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Flat No. 1, Ratnakar Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Building, 26 Narayan Mumbai-400012. Dhabolkar Road, Mumbai- 400006. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacph2812F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2014- 15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the order of the Assessing Officer is unsustainable. Anything short of that would not clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under section 263 of the Act. CIT v. M.M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT v. Ralson Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83, relied on. (Para 72) As regard the third question as to whether the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind, it was held that the Court has to start with the presumption that the assessment order was regularly passed. There i…

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

ITA 187/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)

…nce with the prevailing late 7. Judgments relied upon by Ld. PCIT i. Malabar Industrial Limited V/S CIT2431TR ii. TTK LIG Ltd.. v/s. ACIT(Mad) 51 DTR 228 iii. Arvee international v/s. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495, iv. CIT v/s. Raisons Industries Ltd., 288 ITR 322 (SC v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 490 (Mad.) 44 Castamet Works Private Limited vs. PCIT SUBMISSION: 77. The submission on this ground is without prejudice to the fact that no basis has been provided in the impugned order as to how the order dated 14.12.2019 is erroneous in as much is prejudicial to the interest of revenue as…

RSG SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-20(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 1478/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Soni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR) and Ms. Rajeshjwari R., JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43Section 43B

…as a whole in the light of the questions raised, upon which the case is decided. Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat (1987) 1 SCC 213; and CIT vs. Sun Engg. Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 4 SCC 363. 16. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. (288 ITR 322) observed that when an order is passed by a higher authority, the lower authority is bound thereby keeping in view the principles of judicial discipline. 17. The High Courts are Court of record under Article 215 of the Constitution. By virtue of the provisions of Article 227, the High Courts have power of superintendence over all Courts and trib…

APEX INSURANCE CONSULTANT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD -3(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 4748/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4748/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Apex Insurance Consultant Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 54, Basement Vinoba Puri, Lajpat Ward-3(1), Nagar-Ii, New Delhi-110024 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca3234H Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Kanav Bali, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.09.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Kanav Bali, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 2Section 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…as a whole in the light of the questions raised, upon which the case is decided. Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat (1987) 1 SCC 213; and CIT vs. Sun Engg. Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 4 SCC 363. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. (288 ITR 322) observed that when an order is passed by a higher authority, the lower authority is bound thereby keeping in view the principles of judicial discipline. 17. The High Courts are Court of record under Article 215 of the Constitution. By virtue of the provisions of Article 227, the High Courts have power of superintendence over all Courts and trib…

SONA FASHIONS INC,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-29(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1217/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Memberassessment Year: 2018-19 Sona Fashions Inc. Vs. Ito, H 9, Mohan Coop. Industrial Ward-29(5), Estate, B1, Mathura Road, New Delhi South Delhi, New Delhi Pan :Aacfs7353L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…as a whole in the light of the questions raised, upon which the case is decided. Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat (1987) 1 SCC 213; and CIT vs. Sun Engg. Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 4 SCC 363. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. (288 ITR 322) observed that when an order is passed by a higher authority, the lower authority is bound thereby keeping in view the principles of judicial discipline. 17. The High Courts are Court of record under Article 215 of the Constitution. By virtue of the provisions of Article 227, the High Courts have power of superintendence over all Courts and trib…

SHRI. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 40/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Puri, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR

Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 39 & 40/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Sh. Manjit Krishan Malhotra Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Street No. 3, Jain Nagri, Tax, Civil Station, Bathinda Abohar [PAN: ABOPM 0859N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Anil Puri, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 28.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 11.08.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, A.M.: These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against the impu…

SH. MANJIT KRISHAN MALHOTRA,ABOHAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCME TAX , BATHINDA

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

ITA 39/ASR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Puri, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR

Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

SUN STONE INGINEERING INDURIES P.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCTI-2, JAIPUR

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 50/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Avdhesh Kumar (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 263

…IT(Mad) 51 DTR 228. • ARvee International vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495. • CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. 345 ITR 135 (Delhi H.C.). • Gee Vee Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (1975) 99 ITR 375. • CIT vs. Raisons Industries Ltd. 288 ITR 322 (SC). • Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad H.C.). 7. The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted before us that the revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act could be exercised within two years from 5 Sun Stone Engineering Industries P. Ltd. the end of the financial year in which the assessment was completed in terms of sec…

RAJAN BANQUET PVT.LTD.,MORADABAD vs. ACIT-1, MORADABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1427/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…as a whole in the light of the questions raised, upon which the case is decided. Ambica Quarry Works vs. State of Gujarat (1987) 1 SCC 213; and CIT vs. Sun Engg. Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 4 SCC 363. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. (288 ITR 322) observed that when an order is passed by a higher authority, the lower authority is bound thereby keeping in view the principles of judicial discipline. 13 | P a g e AY: 2020-21 17. The High Courts are Court of record under Article 215 of the Constitution. By virtue of the provisions of Article 227, the High Courts have power of superintendence…

Showing 1–20 of 153 · Page 1 of 8

...