(i) CIT v. Suresh Paul Bansal
2 Taxmann.com 260High Court#6291 most cited
What is (i) CIT v. Suresh Paul Bansal authority for?
Revisionary proceedings under section 263 are not sustainable if the reasons for reopening the assessment under section 147 are identical to the reasons for invoking revisional jurisdiction, indicating a lack of application of mind.
18
judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.
Also referred to as
CIT v Suresh Paul Bansal · section 147 · section 263 · reopening assessment · revisionary jurisdiction · identical reasons · inadequate enquiry · non-application of mind