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

M/S.Oberon Edifices & Estates P. Ltd, Kochi vs. The Pr.CIT, Trivandrum

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

ITA 361/COCH/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm I.T.A. No. 361/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Oberon Edifices & Estates Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Oberon Mall, Income-Tax, Trivandrum. Nh Bye-Pass, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [Pan:Aaaco 7942E]

Section 263

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., JM I.T.A. No. 361/Coch/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/s. Oberon Edifices and Estates Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Oberon Mall, Income-tax, Trivandrum. NH Bye-pass, Edapally, Kochi-682 024. [PAN:AAACO 7942E] (Assessee-Appellant) (Revenue-Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sherry Samuel Oommen, Adv. Revenue by Shri A. Dhanaraj, Sr. DR Date of hearing 19/06/2018 Date of pronouncement 23/07/2018 O R D E R Per CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee…

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1(1), Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3198/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

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

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ, जे, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI श्री जोगगन्दय स िंह, न्मायमक दस्म एवुं श्री एन. के. प्रधान, रेखा दस्म, के भक्ष Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District CIT-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAAAM3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee by Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by Shri B. Srinivas, C…

M/S Shree Saibaba Construction, Nagpur vs. CIT-IV, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 292/NAG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…bhov & Co. v. S.P. Jain [1957] 31ITR 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". 6. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the ACIT, Circle-8, Nagpur, on 30.12.2011 is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. By virtue of powers vested in me u/s. 263 of the I. T. Act. I hereby se…

Alpex Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3319/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negialpex Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai 400 013 Pan:Aaacn 7738H ...... Appellant Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -6, Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 020 .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak D. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…e Act. In this context, reliance has been placed on the following decisions:- 1. Malbar Industries Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. CIT v.. Gabriel India Ltd. - 203 ITR 108(Bom) 3. CIT v. D.G. Gopala Gowda 354 ITR 501(KAR) 4. CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh, 215 ITR 81(Guj) 5. CIT v. G.R. Thangamaligai [2003] 259 ITR 129 (Mad.) 4. On the other hand, on this aspect, Ld.CIT-DR appearing for the Revenue has merely relied upon the order of the PCIT in support of the case of the Revenue. 5. In the context of the preliminary point made by the appellant, it has to be appreciated that the phraseology of section 263(1)…

Ashok Arora, New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3024/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

Section 132Section 142Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 22(2)(e)Section 263

…erstood in its ordinary meaning. It is of wide import and is not confined to the loss of tax [see Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. (supra), CIT vs. T. Narayana Pai (1975) 98 ITR 422 (KAR), CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (supra) and CIT vs. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh, (1995) 215 ITR 81 (Guj)]. 9. At the same time, the words "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue", as observed in Dawjee Dadabhoy and Co. vs. S.P. Jain, (1957) 311 ITR 872 (Calcutta), 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 real…

Ms. Beena Jain, Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

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

ITA 2080/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263Section 68

…nd that the condition precedent for invoking jurisdiction under section 263 by the Commissioner did not exist. The Tribunal was justified in upsetting the order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. (f) CIT Vs. Smt.Minalben S. Parikh [1995] 215 ITR 81 (Guj.) It was held in this case that two conditions are required to be satisfied before the CIT can exercise powers under section 263 of the Act, viz : (a) The order of the AO must be found to be erroneous, and (b) The order of the AO must also be found to be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Unless both the conditions are satisfi…

CIT vs. Ashok Logani

Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/488/2011HC Delhi11 May 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 132Section 153(3)Section 253Section 263

…at least reflected that he had satisfied with the explanation disclosing source of the cash found and that Je' there was a proper and valid retraction. \l\ reproduce the following observations of the Gujarat High Court in the case of may also S. Parskh (1995) 215 ITR 81 (GyJ): 'The words "prejudicial to the interest of the;Revenue" has not been defined. However, giving the ordinary meaning to the words used in the statute, they, must mean that the orders under consideration are such as ^re not in accordance with law and in consequence whereof, the lawful revenue due to the State has not been realized or cannot be…

Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. Beverages Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1394/2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…. S.P. Jain & Anr. [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 108 and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [1995] 215 ITR 81 treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.” After so stating, their Lordships proceeded to hold as under: “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 Assess…

Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. Beverages Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1391/2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…. S.P. Jain & Anr. [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 108 and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [1995] 215 ITR 81 treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.” After so stating, their Lordships proceeded to hold as under: “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 Assess…

Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. Beverages Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1396/2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…. S.P. Jain & Anr. [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 108 and the High Court of Gujarat in CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh [1995] 215 ITR 81 treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.” After so stating, their Lordships proceeded to hold as under: “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 Assess…