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

Issues it is cited on

section 263ofsection 141section 282a(1)section 194lasection 263(1)inadequate enquirysection 44aerevision under section 263lack of enquirymalabar industrialsection 145a(b)section 145b

Judgments citing Gujarat in CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh

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

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 68/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

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 67/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

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 66/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

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 65/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

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 64/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

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:…

Haris Kalandan Mohammed, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on merits

ITA 435/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Haris Kalandan Mohammed, The Principal D.No. 23-10-810, Commissioner Of Umay Bagh, Income Tax 1St Cross, [Central], Yemmekere, Vs. Bengaluru. Mangaluru – 575 001. Pan: Abjph9234P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 22/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit U/S. 263 For A.Y. 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 22/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 263Section 68

…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…

Mayur Khara, Yavatmal vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

In the result, Both the appeals of above mentioned assessee’s are allowed

ITA 64/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mayur Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8869 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Amit Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8868 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Above Mentioned Assessees Against Two Different Orders Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Nagpur- 2 Dated 17-02-2017 & 16-02-20217 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Respectively. The Grounds Of Raised By The Above Mentioned Assessees Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…examine if his own order is erroneous. Lastly, that the view taken by the AO was certainly a possible view. In the facts and circumstances, the appeal was dismissed. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [1995] 79 Taxman 184/215 ITR 81 - order pronounced on 17-10-1994 – Para 12 – "From the aforesaid, it can well be said that the well-settled principle in considering the question as to whether an order is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue or not is to address oneself to the question whether the legitimate revenue due to the exchequer has been realised or not or can be r…

Masthi Gowda P, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 367/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2016-17 Shri Masthi Gowda P, Vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income- Purada Koppalu Village, tax, Bengaluru-3. Manday Tq, Mandya-571 416. PAN – AHFPG 2134 H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ravishankar S.V, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 27.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 04.05.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member This appeal is against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PC…

Manjunatha, K R Pet vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 364/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2016-17 Shri Manjunatha, Vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income- No.2213, Basavanagudi Road, tax, Bengaluru. KR Pet Town-571426. PAN – AIDPM 4082 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Ravishankar S.V, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Srinivasa T Bidari, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 27.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 04.05.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member This appeal is against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Bangaluru-3…

Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd, Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 195/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…dabhov & Co. v. S.P. Jain [1957) 31 ITR 872, the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pei [1975) 98ITR 422, the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Gabrie1 India Ltd. [1993) 203 ITR208 and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Smt. Mina1ben S. Parikh [1995) 215 ITR 81/ 79 Taxman 184 treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 9. 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 prejudicial to the int…

M/S- Sbep-Gril(Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 194/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…dabhov & Co. v. S.P. Jain [1957) 31 ITR 872, the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pei [1975) 98ITR 422, the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Gabrie1 India Ltd. [1993) 203 ITR208 and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Smt. Mina1ben S. Parikh [1995) 215 ITR 81/ 79 Taxman 184 treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 9. 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 prejudicial to the int…

M/S- Rawat Balaji (Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Prilncipal, CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 193/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…dabhov & Co. v. S.P. Jain [1957) 31 ITR 872, the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pei [1975) 98ITR 422, the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Gabrie1 India Ltd. [1993) 203 ITR208 and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Smt. Mina1ben S. Parikh [1995) 215 ITR 81/ 79 Taxman 184 treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 9. 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 prejudicial to the int…

Rajhans Metals, Na

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

ITA 933/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Oct 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(C)

…officer should be erroneous and assessment order should be prejudicial to the interest of revenue, should be cumulatively satisfied by the ld. PCIT. The reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT v/s. Minalben S. Parikh – 215 ITR 81 (Guj.) and the decision of Hon`ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v/s Gabriel India Ltd. – 203 ITR 108 (Bom.). In this case it was held that “there must be material before commissioner to satisfy him, prima facie, that the two requisites are present. Power cannot be exercised at the whims and caprice of the commissioner”. It has been held in the…

Talluri Srinivasulu, Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Nellore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 162/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2017-18 Talluri Srinivasulu, Nellore Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nellore. Pan – Aaupt9827G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad Revenue By: Shri Balakrishna Date Of Hearing: 07/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2021

For Appellant: Shri M.V. PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Balakrishna
Section 263

…erabad. 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…

Faith Builders & Realties P Ltd, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-1, Bhopal

ITA 118/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2015-16 Faith Builders & Realties, P. Pr. Cit-1, Ltd., Bhopal Bhopal बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No. Aabcf7558A Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.08.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-1 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 31.01.2020.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

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

…ount filed by assessee, in absence of any supporting material without making any enquiry, exercise of jurisdiction by Commissioner under section 263(1) was justified - Held, yes 14. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Smt. Minalben S. Parikh – [1995] 215 ITR 81 – order pronounced on 17.10.1994 – Para 12 – “From the aforesaid, it can well be said that the well- settled principle in considering the question as to whether an order is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue or not is to address oneself to the question whether the legitimate revenue due to the exchequer has been realised or not or can…

M/S. Rajdhani Land & Housing Corporation, Bhopal vs. Pr. CIT -1, Bhopal

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and

ITA 975/IND/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2007-08 M/S Rajdhani Land & Pr. Cit-1, Housing Corporation, Bhopal बनाम/ Bhopal Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Aahfr4618J Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.08.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit-1 Bhopal Vide Order Dated 20.09.2019. Rajdhani Land & Housing

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…ount filed by assessee, in absence of any supporting material without making any enquiry, exercise of jurisdiction by Commissioner under section 263(1) was justified - Held, yes 15. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Smt. Minalben S. Parikh – [1995] 215 ITR 81 – order pronounced on 17.10.1994 – Para 12 Rajdhani Land & Housing 12 – “From the aforesaid, it can well be said that the well-settled principle in considering the question as to whether an order is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue or not is to address oneself to the question whether the legitimate revenue due to the exchequer has…

Shri Bhanwar Singh, Ujjain vs. PCIT Ujjain, Ujjain

ITA 659/IND/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2015-16 Shri Bhanwar Singh Pr. Cit, Dewas Ujjain बनाम/ (Appellant) (Respondent ) Vs. P.A. No. Gyrps7926C Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: By Way Of This Appeal, The Appellant Has Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961( Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’ For Short) By Ld. Pr. Cit, Ujjain Vide Order Dated 27.03.2019.The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…ount filed by assessee, in absence of any supporting material without making any enquiry, exercise of jurisdiction by Commissioner under section 263(1) was justified - Held, yes 17. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Smt. Minalben S. Parikh – [1995] 215 ITR 81 – order pronounced on 17.10.1994 – Para 12 – “From the aforesaid, it can well be said that the well- settled principle in considering the question as to whether an order is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue or not is to address oneself to the question whether the legitimate revenue due to the exchequer has been realised or not or can…

M/S Radhishwari Devlopers P Ltd, Indore vs. Pr CIT -2 Indore, Indore

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

ITA 493/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jul 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

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

…ny supporting material without making any enquiry, exercise of jurisdiction by Commissioner under section 263(1) was justified - Held, yes M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. 24. Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Smt. Minalben S. Parikh - [1995] 215 ITR 81 - order pronounced on 17.10.1994 - Para 12 - "From the aforesaid, it can well be said that the well- settled principle in considering the question as to whether an order is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue or not is to address oneself to the question whether the legitimate revenue due to the exchequer has been realised or not or can…

Dhirendra International (P) Ltd., Neemuch vs. Pr. CIT Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

ITA 750/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…ount filed by assessee, in absence of any supporting material without making any enquiry, exercise of jurisdiction by Commissioner under section 263(1) was justified - Held, yes 11. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Smt. Minalben S. Parikh – [1995] 215 ITR 81 – order pronounced on 17.10.1994 – Para 12 – “From the aforesaid, it can well be said that the well- settled principle in considering the question as to whether an order is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue or not is to address oneself to the question whether the legitimate revenue due to the exchequer has been realised or not or can…

Shri Manoj Mundra, Indore vs. PCIT Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

ITA 637/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…ount filed by assessee, in absence of any supporting material without making any enquiry, exercise of jurisdiction by Commissioner under section 263(1) was justified - Held, yes 11. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Smt. Minalben S. Parikh – [1995] 215 ITR 81 – order pronounced on 17.10.1994 – Para 12 – “From the aforesaid, it can well be said that the well- settled principle in considering the question as to whether an order is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue or not is to address oneself to the question whether the legitimate revenue due to the exchequer has been realised or not or can…