M/s. Jubilant Organosys v. CIT

265 ITR 420Reported decision2004#24105 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 119Section 133(6)Section 139Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A(d)

Judgments citing M/s. Jubilant Organosys v. CIT

Harish Narang, Panipat vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3637/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Harish Narang, The Principal Commissioner Of H. No.238, Ward No.8, Income Tax, Rohtak, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Mansarover Park, Rohtak, Haryana-124001 Pan:Acvpn4090J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Amit Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2025

Section 144BSection 147Section 263Section 69C

…side merely unfavourable orders and bring to tax some more money into the treasury. Nor is thesection meant to get at sheer escapement of revenue. The prejudice must be prejudice to the revenue administration. 7.2. Further, in Jubilant Organosys v. CIT[2004] 265 ITR 420/137 Taxman 515(All.), it was held that under section 263, the Commissioner can correct both the errors of fact and error of law. His jurisdiction is not limited to correcting errors of law alone as there is no such express restriction in the language of section 263. 7.3. Also, in Jai Kumar Kankaria vs. CIT, Cal.171 CTR 483, 251 ITR 707, 120 Taxma…

DCIT vs. Treads Direct Limited, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2941/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Philip George, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)

…course. The assessee has claimed the Bad Debts written off following principles of Section 36(1) (vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 but the Assessing Officer relied on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Jubilant Organosys vs. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 420. Further in the appellate proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) the assessee has filed written submissions and relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT and Others (2010) 323 ITR 166 wherein it has been held that there is no need to debit the accounts of debtors and need not be squared of…

Treadsdirect Limited, Coimbatore vs. JCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2794/CHNY/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2015AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Philip George, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)

…course. The assessee has claimed the Bad Debts written off following principles of Section 36(1) (vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 but the Assessing Officer relied on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Jubilant Organosys vs. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 420. Further in the appellate proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) the assessee has filed written submissions and relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Vijaya Bank vs. CIT and Others (2010) 323 ITR 166 wherein it has been held that there is no need to debit the accounts of debtors and need not be squared of…

M/s. Jubilant Organosys v. CIT (265 ITR 420) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax