Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pai

98 ITR 422High Court1975#1405 most cited

What is Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pai authority for?

Loss of tax is considered prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, which is a fundamental condition for the Commissioner to invoke revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act.

81

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. T. Narayana Pai · 98 ITR 422 · Section 263 · prejudicial to interests of Revenue · loss of tax · revision order · inadequate enquiry · erroneous assessment · revisional powers

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 enquirylack of enquiryrevision under section 263malabar industrialsection 145a(b)section 145bsection 45(5)

Judgments citing Karnataka in CIT v. T. Narayana Pai

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

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ, कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE 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 AND 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 AND आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA Nos.195/CTK/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Asse…

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

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ, कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE 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 AND 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 AND आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA Nos.195/CTK/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Asse…

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

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ, कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE 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 AND 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 AND आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA Nos.195/CTK/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Asse…

M/S Kay Em Kay Industries, Ludhiana vs. Pr.CIT-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.27/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S Kay Em Kay Industries, Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, बनाम 13-H, Textile Colony, Ludhiana Ludhiana

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…upreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC), judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dwjee Dadabhoy and Co. Vs. SP Jain 31 ITR 872(Cal), Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Narayana Pal 98 ITR 422 (Karn.) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd.203 ITR 108(Bom) submitted that since the order passed by the Ld. PCIT is not in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Courts referred above, the same is liable to be set aside. ITA No.27-Chd-2021- M/s Kay Em Kay Ind…

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

…d is not confined to loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. Vs. S.P. Jain and Another [31 ITR 872], the High Court of Karnataka in :- 14 -: Sri Talluri Srinivasulu, Hyderabad. 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…

M/S. Provimi Animal Nutrition India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2215/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…s of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. Vs. S.P. Jain and Another [31 ITR 872], the M/s. Provimi Animal Nutrition India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 5 of 16 High Court of Karnataka 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. ……. 9. The phrase prejudicial to the interests of the revenue has to be read in conjun…

M/S.Baby Memorial Hospital Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Kozhikkode

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

ITA 420/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 115JSection 142Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 37(1)

…er u/s 263 of the I.T. Act on how the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In support of his submission, the learned AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Narayana Pai (T) [98 ITR 422]. The Explanation 2(a) to section 263 of the I.T. Act, states that the assessment order shall deem to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue if I.T.A. No.420/Coch/2019 such an order was passed without making inquiry or verification, which should have been made. 5. On merit the Ld. AR submitted that the issue taken up by the…

M/S.Sahyadri Agencies Ltd, Kandnassery, Thrissur vs. The ITO, WD-1(3), Thrissur

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

ITA 439/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Bomi Daruwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…ter u/s 263 of the I.T.Act on how the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In support of his submission, the learned AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Narayana Pai (T) [98 ITR 422]. The Explanation 2(a) to section 263 of the I.T.Act, states that the assessment order shall deem to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue if such an order was passed without making inquiry or verification, which should have been made. As mentioned earlier, in this case the assessment order was passed without making inquiry /…

Mahim Patran P. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT -2, Agra

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 195/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(3)Section 199(1)Section 205Section 263

…t defined in the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning, it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain [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 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. 8. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Ric…

Winvest Holdings (I) Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1519/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1519/Chny/2019. "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. M/S. Winvest Holdings (I) Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of D-16, 2Nd Floor, Nelson Chambers, Income Tax, No.115 Nelson Manickam Road, Corporate Circle 3(2), Aminjikarai, Chennai. Chennai 600 029. [Pan Aaacw 7724Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…19 /2019 :- 8 -: Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs. CIT, 243, ITR 83 and also the following decisions of various Hon’ble High Courts. (i) Davjee Dadabhoy and Co. vs. S.P. Jain, (1957) 31 ITR 872 (ii) CIT vs. T. Narayana Pai, (1975) 98 ITR 422. (iii) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd, (1993) 203 ITR 108. (iv) CIT vs. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh, (1995) 215 ITR 81. (v) CIT vs. G.R. Thangamaligai, (2003) 259 ITR 129. It is further contended that assessment order was passed after making due enquiry on the issues sought to be revised, in case if the ld. PCIT was of the opinion that the Assessing Offic…

M/S. Swastik Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT, 5(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 486/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…n its ordinary meaning it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. Vs. S.P. Jain and Another [31 ITR 872], the High Court of Karnataka 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. [ITA 486/Ind/2018] [Swastik Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Indore] Mr. Abaraham relied o…

M/S. Sanspareils Greenlands Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

ITA 695/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2008-09 Sanspareils Greenlands Cit, Pvt. Ltd. 28/32, Victoria Park Vs. Meerut Meerut Pan : Aaccs2788N Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, adv., Sh. Deepesh JainFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…td.'s case, is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act and, therefore, must be understood 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)]. 5.3 At the same time, the words "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue", as observed in Dawjee Dadabhoy and Co. vs. S.P. Jain, (Sanspareils Greenlands Pvt. Ltd.) (1957) 311 ITR 872 (Calcutta), can only mean that "the orders of assessmen…

M/S Sanspareils Greenlands Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

ITA 3225/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2008-09 Sanspareils Greenlands Cit, Pvt. Ltd. 28/32, Victoria Park Vs. Meerut Meerut Pan : Aaccs2788N Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, adv., Sh. Deepesh JainFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…td.'s case, is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act and, therefore, must be understood 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)]. 5.3 At the same time, the words "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue", as observed in Dawjee Dadabhoy and Co. vs. S.P. Jain, (Sanspareils Greenlands Pvt. Ltd.) (1957) 311 ITR 872 (Calcutta), can only mean that "the orders of assessmen…

Vijay Kundu, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 808/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 808/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Vijay Kundu, Vs Pr. Cit, C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Delhi-21, Cas, L-7A (Lgf), South Ext., New Delhi Part-2, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajnpk7914P Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2016 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-21, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 263

…f the assessee. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) " CIT Vs Raja Industries (2012) 340 ITR 344 (P&H) " Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. Vs S.P. (1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal.) " CIT Vs T. Narayana Pai (1975) 98 ITR 422 (Kar.) " CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) 15. The ld. CIT cancelled the order passed by the AO and directed him to make fresh assessment by observing in para 3.2.4 of the impugned order as under: “In the assessment order under reference, I have noticed vital flaws which is inter alia, attributable to the defiant and deliberate a…

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

…3] 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (paras 10, 11, 13) ii. CIT v. Kashi Nath and Co. [1988] 170 ITR 28 (All) (para 16) iii. CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh (Smt.) [1995] 215 ITR 81 (Guj) (para 11) 9 The Mumbai District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. iv. CIT v. Narayana Pai (T.) [1975] 98 ITR 422 (Karn) (para 11) v. CIT v. R. K. Metal Works [1978] 112 ITR 445 (P&H) (para 17) vi. CIT v. Sunder Lal (Late) [1974] 96 ITR 310 (All) (para 16) vii. Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. Jain (S. P.) [1957] 31 ITR 872 (Cal) (paras 11, 12) viii. J. P. Srivastava and Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 326 (All) (para 16) ix. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. 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)

…ot defined in the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning, it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhov & 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…

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

…Ltd.'s case, is not an expression of art and is not defined in the Act and, therefore, must be understood 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…

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)

…the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. 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 Reven…

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)

…the Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning it is of wide import and is not confined to loss of tax. The High Court of Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. 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 Reven…