How many judgments cite Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh?

110 judgments on BharatTax cite Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh (215 ITR 81), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 1961.

Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh

215 ITR 81High Court1995#977 most cited

What is Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh authority for?

A loss of tax incurred by the Revenue is considered prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. This interpretation is key for invoking the revisionary powers under Section 263.

110

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh · Minalben S. Parikh · Section 263 · revision · prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue · loss of tax · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · Gujarat High Court · 215 ITR 81

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 142(1)Section 1961 Section 144B Section 139(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 263of section 141 section 282a(1)section 194la section 263(1)inadequate enquiry section 44ae revision under section 263 lack of enquiry malabar industrial section 145a(b)section 145b

Judgments citing Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 951/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…Co.v.S.P. Jain[(1957) 31 ITR 872(Cal)], the High Court of Karnataka in CITv.T. Narayana Pai[(1975) 98 ITR 422(Kant)], the High Court of Bombay in CITv.Gabriel India Ltd.[(1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CITv.Minalben S. Parikh[(1995) 215 ITR 81(Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co.v.CIT[(1987) 163 ITR 129(Mad)] interpreting 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue'. The High Court held: ' ''In this context, (it must) be regarded as inv…

B. Arunkumar Capital & Credit Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 2034/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

…in ((1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal)], the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pai ((1975) 98 ITR 422 (Kant)], the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh [(1995) 215 ITR 81 (Guj)) treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [(1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad)] interpreting "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue". The High Court held: "In this context, (it must) be regarded as involving a conception of acts or orders which are subversive of…

Asian Institute of Gastroenterology Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for both the assessment years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 are allowed

ITA 610/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: CA, S. VenugopalFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…taka in Commissioner of Income- tax, Mysore Vs. T. Narayana Pai [98 ITR 422], the High Court of Bombay in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [203 ITR 108] and the High Court of Gujarat in Commissioner of Income- tax Vs. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [215 ITR 81] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Mr. Abaraham relied 23 ITA.Nos.609 & 610/Hyd./2025 on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Company Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [163 ITR 129] interpreting prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The High Court held, In thi…

Muhammad Zameer Qureshi, Bareilly vs. Pr. CIT, Bareilly

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 344/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Muhammad Zameer Qureshi V. The Pcit 180, Azam Nagar Bareilly Bareilly Tan/Pan:Aacpz6783H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 69

…s not confined to the loss of tax [see Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain [1957] 31 ITR 872 (Cal.), CIT' v. T. Narayana ITA No.344/LKW/2024 Page 21 of 22 Pai[1975] 98 ITR 422 (Kar.), Gabriel India Ltd.'s case (supra) and CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh[1995] 215 ITR 81 (Guj.). Para 12. At the same time, the words "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue", as observed in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co.'s case (supra), can only mean that "the orders of assessment challenged are such as are not in accordance with law, in consequence whereof the lawful revenue due to the State has not been realized or cannot be realized."…

Ct. Ramanathan (HUF), Pudukkottai vs. PCIT 1, Madurai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 761/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.761/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 C.T.Ramanathan(Huf), Income Tax Officer, No.7/45, Ct.Rm.S.House, M.St.S. Street Ward-1, Kulipirai, Pudukottai Dist, Pudukottai. Tamil Nadu-622 402. [Pan: Aaahc0701L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.V.Subbarayan, Dcit(Retd.) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.M.K.Biju, Cir Dr By Virtual. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.V.Subbarayan, DCIT(Retd.)For Respondent: Mr.M.K.Biju, CIR DR by virtual

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3

…Co.v.S.P. Jain[(1957) 31 ITR 872(Cal)], the High Court of Karnataka in CITv.T. Narayana Pai[(1975) 98 ITR 422(Kant)], the High Court of Bombay in CITv.Gabriel India Ltd.[(1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CITv.Minalben S. Parikh[(1995) 215 ITR 81(Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co.v.CIT[(1987) 163 ITR 129(Mad)] interpreting ‘prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue’. The High Court held: “In this context, (it must) be regarded as involv…

Micromax Informatics Ltd, New Delhi vs. PCIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263

…Court of Karnataka in CIT v. 11 Micromax Informatics Ltd. T. Narayana Pai [(1975) 98 ITR 422 (Kant)], the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 17:06:54 108(Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh [(1995) 215 ITR 81 (Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [(1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad)] interpreting "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue". The High Court held: "In this context, (it must) be regarded as…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Te Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

ITA/53/2024HC Karnataka05 Jun 2025

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 260ASection 263Section 40

…57) 31 ITR 872 (Cal)] , the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pai [(1975) 98 ITR 422 (Kant)] , the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh [(1995) 215 ITR 81 (Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. xx xx xx xx xx 10. The phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue” has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as p…

Ajay Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 733/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…[(1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal)] , the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pai [(1975) 98 ITR 422 (Kant)] , the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh [(1995) 215 ITR 81 (Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [(1987) 24 Ajay Kumar, Ghaziabad 163 ITR 129 (Mad)] interpreting “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue”. The High Court held: “In this context,…

Radial International Mining Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT (Central), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1651/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 22Section 263

…[(1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal)] , the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pai [(1975) 98 ITR 422 (Kant)] , the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh [(1995) 215 ITR 81 (Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [(1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad)] interpreting “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue”. The High Court held: “In this context, (it must) be regarded as in…

Assotech Moonshine Urban Developers P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263

Apurva Natvar Parikh & Co. Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 2646/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…in [(1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal)], the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pai [(1975) 98 ITR 422 (Kant)], the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh [(1995) 215 ITR 81 (Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [(1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad)] interpreting "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue". The High Court held: “In this context, (it must) be regarded as in…

Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2844/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 94(7)

…ain [(1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal)] the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pai [(1975) 98 ITR 422 (Kant)], the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh [(1995) 215 ITR 81 (Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [(1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad)] interpreting “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue”. The High Court held: “In this context, (it must) be regarded as in…

Ankur Goyal, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263

A T and S India Private Limited, Nanjangud, Mysore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1220/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit, Kolkata-2 A T & S India Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 12A, Industrial Area Nanjangud Chowringhee Square, Vs. H.O, Mysore-571301, Karnataka Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2930J Assessee By : Shri Anup Sinha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

…hov & Co. v. S.P. Jain [1957] 31 ITR 872 , the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pai [1975] 98 ITR 422, the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 208 and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [1995] 215 ITR 81/ 79 Taxman 184 treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 8. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 129 interpreting 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue'. The High Court held, "In this context, it must be regarded as inv…

Sunitha, Coimbatore vs. PCIT -1, Coim, Batore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2013/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, IRS, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 69

…Co.v.S.P. Jain[(1957) 31 ITR 872(Cal)], the High Court of Karnataka in CITv.T. Narayana Pai[(1975) 98 ITR 422(Kant)], the High Court of Bombay in CITv.Gabriel India Ltd.[(1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CITv.Minalben S. Parikh[(1995) 215 ITR 81(Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co.v.CIT[(1987) 163 ITR 129(Mad)] interpreting ‘prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue’. The High Court held: “In this context, (it must) be regarded as involv…

Asian Hotels (North) Limited, New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-1, New Delhi

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

ITA 654/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember M/S. Asian Hotels (North) Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, 1A, Hotel Hyatt Regency, Delhi – 1. Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110 066. (Pan: Aaaca0125H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi-1 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Pcit’) Dated 31.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2016 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.32,48,76,393/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143 (3)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 438

…(1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal)], the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pai [(1975) 98 ITR 422 (Kant)], the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. 15 [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh [(1995) 215 ITR 81 (Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [(1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad)] interpreting “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue”. The High Court held: “In this context, (it must) be regarded as i…

Max Hospitals and Allied Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai -3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2907/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Max Hospitals & Principal Allied Services Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor, Income Tax Mumbai- 3 Man Excellenza, Room No.612, Vs. S. V. Road, 6Th Floor, Vile Parle (W.), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400056 Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aagcr9198D Mumbai- 400020. Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogia Nagpal (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…. Jain ((1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal)), the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pai (1975) 98 ITR 422 (Kant), the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. ((1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)) and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben S Parikh (1995) 215 ITR 81 (Guj) treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad)) interpreting "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue". The High Court held. "In this context, (it must) be regarded as involving a conception of acts or orders which are subversive of t…

Faiveley Transport Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Hosur vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1598/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

…Co.v.S.P. Jain[(1957) 31 ITR 872(Cal)], the High Court of Karnataka in CITv.T. Narayana Pai[(1975) 98 ITR 422(Kant)], the High Court of Bombay in CITv.Gabriel India Ltd.[(1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom)] and the High Court of Gujarat in CITv.Minalben S. Parikh[(1995) 215 ITR 81(Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co.v.CIT[(1987) 163 ITR 129(Mad)] interpreting ‘prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue’. The High Court held: “In this context, (it must) be regarded as involv…

Sandeep Kumar, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1545/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…TR 87 (Cal)), the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pai [(1975) 98 ITR 422 (Kant)), the 3/21/24, 6:32 PM High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom)) and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh [(1995) 215 ITR 81 (Guj)) treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [(1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad)] interpreting "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue". The High Court held: "In this context, (it must) be regarded as i…

Sandeep Kumar, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1542/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263