How many judgments cite Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd. v. ACIT?

47 judgments on BharatTax cite Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd. v. ACIT (108 ITR 407), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd. v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 263, Section 10(37), Section 143(2), Section 145A.

Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd. v. ACIT

108 ITR 407High Court1977#2430 most cited

What is Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

A revision order under section 263 is invalid if it is based solely on an audit objection without independent application of mind by the Commissioner. The Assessing Officer must apply their own mind rather than relying on audit party notes.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd v ACIT · section 263 · revision · audit objection · CIT application of mind · inadequate enquiry · prejudicial to interest of revenue · section 142(1) · assessment order erroneous · doctrine of merger

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263 Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 145A Section 147 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 44af section 262 inadequate enquiry lack of enquiry doctrine of merger trade creditors prejudicial to interest of revenue section 10(37)section 263(1)malabar industrial revision u/s 263 assessment order erroneous

Judgments citing Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd. v. ACIT

Sri Govind Lal Rathi, Kolkata vs. Pr. CIT-15, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 525/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sri Govind Lal Rathi -Vs.- Pr. C.I.T., Kol-15, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Adipr 0507 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Sunil Surana, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri R.S.Biswas, Cit Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S.Biswas, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)Section 263

…for in the scheme of the Income-tax Act. This principle was enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Amritlal Bhogilal & Co. [1958] 34 ITR 130 (SC). This was also reiterated in the decision in the case of Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 407 (Cal) and the decision in the case of Premchand Sitanath Roy v. Addl. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 751 (Cal). The Allahabad High Court reiterated the same principle in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 344 (All). Therefore, it appears to us that as the quantum of depreciation was the subject-matter of appeal the Commissioner had…

M/S Ab (Wines) Stores, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kolkata-14, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 901/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ab (Wines) Stores -Vs.- Pr. C.I.T., Kolkata-14 Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aajfa 6312 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri R.S.Biswas, Cit Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S.Biswas, CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co Ltd, Kolkata vs. C.I.T Kolkata - I, Kokata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as stated above

ITA 1005/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 32(1)(iia)Section 40

…the said assessment order got merged with the first appellate order and the impugned order passed U/Sec 263 is bad under law and to support the same relied on a decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd vs ACIT reported in 108 ITR 407 (Cal). 9. The Ld.DR submits that loss or income has to be treated as equal and loss has to be reduced and it has to be taken as an isolated one. The AO wrongly allowed additional depreciation on machines used in transmission of power. The Ld.DR argued that the decision as relied in the case Anita Exports, Supra is not relevant to the facts of t…

Arabinda Roy, Hooghly vs. C.I.T Kolkata - Xx, Hooghly

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1367/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2008-09

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

…ct, the Ld. CIT should satisfy himself with regard to the order passed by the Assessing Authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this connection we rely in the following judgments. 1) [JEEWANLAL (1929) LTD. -VS- ADDL.C.I.T. (1977) 108 ITR 407 (CAL)] where it was held : “CIT issuing notice under s. 263 at the suggestion of audit without exercising his own discretion and judgment, such notice is invalid.” 2) [B AND A PLANTATIONAND INDUSTRIES LID AND ANOTHER -VS- C.LT. (2007) 290 ITR 395 (GAU)]. “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Absence of finding/reasons by CIT—An order cannot…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Refex Refrigerants Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 611/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. K.N. Dhandapani, IRS, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. M. Narayanan, Addl. CIT(Retd)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35D

…taken into consideration the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sohana Woollen Mills reported as 296 ITR 238 and the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of JeewanLal (1929) Ltd.,Vs. ACIT reported as 108 ITR 407 (Calcutta). The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sohana Woollen Mills (supra) has held that mere audit objection and merely because a different view can be taken are not enough to say that order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the ca…

M/S. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5677/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 105Section 106Section 10BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ries Ltd ITA No. 5677/Mum/2008 examine the records only on application of his own minds and discretion rather than note put-up by the Audit party. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the following decisions; i) Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd. vs ACIT, 108 ITR 407(Cal.)(HC) ii) CIT vs. Sohann Woolen Mills, 296 ITR 238(P&H)(HC) iii) B&A Plantation and Industries Ltd vs CIT, 290 ITR 395 (Gauhati)(HC). (ii) The AO has applied his mind in detail with regard to computation of income, claim of deduction regarding 10B Units, including losses and depreciation right from assessment year 1997-98 onwards. Further al…

M/S. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4875/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 105Section 106Section 10BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263