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

St.Joseph'S Educational Trust, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Chennai - 1, Chennai

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

ITA 1620/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Institute Of Science & Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Educational Trust, Vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Tax, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Central, Chennai -1 [Pan: Aamts 3888G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…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…

St.Joseph'S Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Chennai - 1, Chennai

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

ITA 1619/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

St.Joseph'S Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Chennai - 1, Chennai

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

ITA 1618/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…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…

International Seaport Dredging Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT - 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1597/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baram Som, IRS, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 71Section 79

…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…

Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Chennai vs. DCIT Intl Tax 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1319/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

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

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 239Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Keller (M) SDN BHD, Income Tax, 7th floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [PAN: AAGCK 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : S…

The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20

ITA 2481/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ι.Τ.Α. No. 2480 /Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 2481 /Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) The National Bank Of Agriculture & Rural Development C-24, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aaact4020G Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Adv. & Shri Niraj Sheth & Shri Gunjan Kakkad, Ar Revenue/Respondent By : Shri S. Srinivasu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2024 Order Per Padmavathy S, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai 3 [In Short 'The Pcit'] Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 14.03.2024 For

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…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…

The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20

ITA 2480/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Ved Prakash & Sons Liumbers Pvt Ltd, Karnal vs. Pr. CIT, Karnal

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4079/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganeh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

…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…

Idemia Syscom India Private Limited, Noida vs. CIT(Tp), Delhi-2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 647/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT- DR

Section 263Section 92C

…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…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7 vs. M/S Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Ltd

ITA/247/2023HC Delhi19 Mar 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…957) 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 regard…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Delhi vs. M/S Clix Finance India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1428/2018HC Delhi01 Mar 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

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

…of Bombay in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:01.03.2024 17:06:54 Signature Not Verified ITA 1428/2018 Page 11 of 14 108(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 regarde…

M/S. S.R. Ferro Alloys, Jhabua vs. The PCIT, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 148/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

Section 263

…bhoy & 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 in…

Gillette India Limited, Spa-65A, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, District- Alwar vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 313/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. ParwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194Section 195Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

…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…

Girnar Software Private Limited, 6Th Floor, Jaipur Textile Market, B-2, Near Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur vs. PCIT – 2, Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

…(b) such order is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and the said principle has been held in the following decisions as well: • CIT vs. Max India Limited: 295 ITR 282 (SC) • CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd: 203 ITR 108 (Bom) • CIT vs. Smt. Meenalben S. Parikh: 215 ITR 81 (Guj.) • CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers: 259 ITR 502 (Guj) • CIT vs. Mehsana Dist. Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd.: 263 ITR 645 (Guj.) In the instant case, the assessment proceedings were initiated for complete scrutiny and one of the reason was ‘investment’. Also, a specific query on ‘investment’ was raised by the AO under the notice issued under sec…

Shri Bhawani Shankar Parashar, Indore vs. The DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 411/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

Section 263

…ataka 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 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 this context, it must be regarded as…

The Commissioner of Income Tax 7 vs. M/S Paville Projects Pvt Ltd

Appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-006126-006126 - 2021Supreme Court06 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55(1)(b)

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6126 OF 2021 (@ SLP (C) NO. 13380 OF 2018) The Commissioner of Income Tax 7 …Appellant(s) Versus M/s. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature, at Bombay in ITA No.78 of 2015 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the Revenue, the Revenue has preferred the present Appeal. Civil Appeal No. 6126 of 2021…

Diamond Heritage, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 116/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. K. Bhagat, CA & Sh. Vikas Bhagat, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

….129, CIT 7 Diamond Heritage v. Pr.CIT vs. T. Narayana Pai (1975) 98 ITR 422 (Kar) : TC 57R.185, CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 114 CTR (Bom) 81 : (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) : TC 57R.213 and CIT vs. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh (1995) 127 CTR (Guj) 333 : (1995) 215 ITR 81 (Guj) : TC 57R.312 approved; Venkatakrishna Rice Co. vs. CIT (1987) 62 CTR (Mad) 152 : (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad) : TC 57R.303 disapproved.” 9. In the present case, it could not be said that the assessment order was passed by the AO without making enquiries on the issues of limited scrutiny. The AO has taken one view and where only one view was p…

The Principal Commissioner vs. M/S Obulapuram Mining

ITA/100012/2017HC Karnataka17 Mar 2023

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 260ASection 37(1)Section 92ASection 92C

…s with which the Commissioner of income tax does not agree, it cannot be treated as the erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue, unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. (h) In the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Minalben S Parikh 215 ITR 81, Honourable Gujarat High Court held that, Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the assessing officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when an income tax officer adopted one of the coerces permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible a…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 70/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 64 to 70/Srt/2022 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2018-19) (Physical hearing) Sureshbhai Babubhai Asodariya, Pr.C.I.T., 20, Sadhana Society, Mtawadi, (Central) Circle, Vs. L.H. Road, Surat-395006. Surat. PAN No. AEEPA 5402 Q Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Department represented by Shri Ashok B Koli, CIT-DR Date of hearing 20/01/2023 Date of pronouncement 25/01/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER:…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 69/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263