Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Jagat Jayantilal Parikh v. Deputy Commissioner of Income- Tax come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10, Section 10(34), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 14A.

Jagat Jayantilal Parikh v. Deputy Commissioner of Income- Tax

Q: How many judgments cite Jagat Jayantilal Parikh v. Deputy Commissioner of Income- Tax?

10 judgments on BharatTax cite Jagat Jayantilal Parikh v. Deputy Commissioner of Income- Tax (355 ITR 400), spanning 2015 to 2025.

355 ITR 400High Court2013#10898 most cited

What is Jagat Jayantilal Parikh v. Deputy Commissioner of Income- Tax authority for?

Reopening of assessment proceedings is invalid if the reasons for reopening are identical to an audit report, indicating a lack of independent application of mind and subjective satisfaction by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer must form an independent belief for the reopening notice to be sustained.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Jagat Jayantilal Parikh v. Dy.CIT · section 147 · reopening of assessment · independent application of mind · audit objection · subjective satisfaction · Assessing Officer belief · validity of notice

Sections most often in play

Section 10 Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 14A Section 151 Section 271(1)(c)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

full and true disclosure change of opinion reopening of assessment section 148 section 147 section 143 person company section 14 section 143(3)india total income

Judgments citing Jagat Jayantilal Parikh v. Deputy Commissioner of Income- Tax

L.H Sugar Factories Ltd., Pilibhit vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 194/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…roceedings beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year was invalid when there was full and true disclosure on the part of the assessee. The learned A.R. for the assessee also placed reliance on Jagat Jayantilal Parikh vs. Dy.CIT 355 ITR 400 (Guj) for the proposition I.T.A. No.194/Lkw/2020 Assessment Year:2012-13 11 that the assessment proceedings based on audit objection without independent application of mind and without absence of satisfaction of the Assessing Officer leading to independent belief of the Assessing Officer; were invalid. The learned A.R. for the assessee also dre…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 872 to 875 & 901/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2016-17 cuke Income Tax Officer, Kedia Builders and Colonizers Vs. Jaipur Pvt. Ltd., A-6-10, Shyam Nagar, Benad Road, Nadi Ka Phatak Jhotwara, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCA 4547 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 875/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर पीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीथालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड कमलेश जयंतभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.872 to 875 & 901/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., A-6-10, Shyam Nagar, Benad Road, Nadi Ka Phatak Jhotwara, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFCA 4547 C अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रTREOR/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 872/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर पीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतललक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयंतीभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.872 to 875 & 901/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Jaipur Vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., A-6-10, Shyam Nagar, Benad Road, Nadi Ka Phatak Jhotwara, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFCA 4547 C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रिर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee…

Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 54/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)Section 80I

…iling the objections and the same was not denied by the Assessing Officer while disposing of the objections. The Ld. AR relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Shilp Gravures Ltd. 40 taxmann.com 309 (Guj) and Jagat Jayantilal Parikh 355 ITR 400 (Guj). The Ld. AR further submitted that there is no escapement of income and issues raised in the reasons do not affect the Book Profit which has remained unchanged. The Ld. AR further submitted that Explanation 1 to Section 147 does not apply and relied upon the decisions in case of Oracle India (P) Ltd. 397 ITR 480 (Del) and Vodafone Idea Ltd.…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1867/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 35Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37(1)Section 80I

The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1)(2), Surat vs. Gujarat Jhm Hotels Ltd., Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 27/SRT/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) D.C.I.T. M/S Gujarat Jhm Hotels Ltd., Circle-1(1)(2), Hotel Holiday In, Near Ambica Vs. Surat. Niketan, Athwalines, Surat- 395001. Pan : Aaacg 8562 E Appellant Respondednt C.O. No. 02/Srt/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 27/Srt/2017)(Ay: 2010-11) M/S Gujarat Jhm Hotels Ltd., D.C.I.T. Hotel Holiday In, Near Bharti Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Park, Ambikaniketan, Surat. Athwalines, Surat-395007. Pan : Aaacg 8562 E Appellant Respondednt

Section 143Section 254(1)Section 80I

…his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decisions: (a) Agricultural Produce Market Committee 63 DTR 7 (Guj) (b) Cadila Healthcare Ltd. 65 DTR 383 (Guj) (c) Gujarat Fluor Chemicals Ltd. 353 ITR 398 (Guj) (d) Jagat Jayantilal Parikh 355 ITR 400 (Guj) (e) N.K. Roadways (P) Ltd. 362 ITR 522 (Guj) (f) Shree Ram Builders 377 ITR 631 (Guj) (g) P.C. Patel & Co. 379 ITR 151 (Guj) (h) Sahajanand Medical Technologies (P) Ltd. 397 ITR 607 (Guj) (i) Eastern Medikit Ltd. 100 TTJ 382 (Del Trib) (j) Eastern Medikit Ltd. 153 Taxmann 48 (Del Trib)(Magazine) (k) Jindal Aluminium Ltd. 54 SOT 283 (Bang Tr…

Razual Rahman, Jsr vs. ITO Ward-2(4), Jsr

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 356/RAN/2017[08-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Apr 2021

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargi.T.A. No.356/Ran/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Razual Rahman.…....……………… … ...........…………………………Appellant C/O Ca Nawal Kishore Mahato, Flat No.401, 4Th Floor, K.C. Apartment, 137, Ambagan Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur, Pin-831001. [Pan:Agvpr2426E] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4), Jamshedpur...........……………………...………..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Chinmaya Aurangabadkar, Jcit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing :March 25, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 30, 2021 Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10.10.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur [Hereinafter As ‘Cit(A)’]. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI ‘E-COURT’ AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member I.T.A. No.356/Ran/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Razual Rahman.…....……………… … ...........…………………………Appellant C/o CA Nawal Kishore Mahato, Flat No.401, 4th Floor, K.C. Apartment, 137, Ambagan Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur, PIN-831001. [PAN:AGVPR2426E] vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Jamshedpur...........……………………...………..…..Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Smt. Chinmaya Aurangabadkar, JCIT, DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing :March 25, 2021 Date of pronoun…

DCIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana vs. The Mehsana Dist. Central Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Mehsana

In the result, petition is allowed

ITA 2272/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Us, The Ld. Counsel Has Brought To Our Notice That This Issue Has Been Adjudicated By

For Appellant: Smt. Arti Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 147Section 246A

…proceedings, at least at that stage when the petitioner raised the objections which even without such objections, the Assessing Officer was convinced, were valid. 12. In case of Jagat Jayantilal Parikh v. Deputy Commissioner of Income- Tax reported in [2013] 355 ITR 400 (Guj), Division Bench of this Court had observedas under: “Under the circumstances, it clearly emerges from the record that the Assessing Officer was of the opinion that no part of the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. In fact, after the audit party brought the relevant aspects to the notice of the AO, she held correspondence with th…

ITO 12(3)4, Mumbai vs. Urmila Construciton Company, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4634/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2005-06 Ito-12(3)(4), M/S Urmila Construction Room No.123, 1St Floor, Company, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road 422, Nagindas Master Road, Vs. Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400023 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaafu0226C Shri B.Yadagiri -Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay C. Kothari

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 69

…7990 of 2002 : (2002) 258 ITR (St.) 74 (SC). The ratio laid down by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs Vrindaban Real Estate (P.) Ltd. (IT Appeal Nos. 486 of 2008 and 344, 347 & 609 of 2011) order dated 24/07/2012, Jagat Jayantilal Parikh vs. DCIT) (2013) 355 ITR 400 (Guj-HC), Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT, (1979) 119 ITR 996 and 6 Urmila Construction Company CIT Vs Modipon Ltd., reported in 2011 334 ITR 106 supports the case of the assessee. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Satosh Kumar Dalmia (1994) 208 ITR 337 (Cal.) held that valuation report cannot by itself form the basis for…