Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT

163 ITR 129High Court1987#1184 most cited

What is Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT authority for?

The expression 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act involves acts or orders that are subversive of the administration of revenue. This requires a grievous error in the Assessing Officer's order that might set a bad trend or pattern for similar assessments.

95

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT · 163 ITR 129 · Section 263 Income Tax Act · prejudicial to interests of revenue · meaning of prejudicial to revenue · revision by Commissioner · erroneous order by AO · subversive of revenue administration · grievous error ITO · bad trend pattern assessments

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 1961Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 263ofsection 141section 282a(1)section 194lasection 263(1)revision under section 263inadequate enquirymalabar industriallack of enquirysection 80hhc(3)section 145a(b)section 145b

Judgments citing Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…being ab initio void. 11.5 It is submitted thus that, if either of the two conditions does not exist or are found not satisfied, the learned PCIT cannot initiate proceedings to set aside otherwise an unfavourable order, as has been held in following cases: a) 163 ITR 129 (Mad) Venkat Krishna Rice Company v. CIT b) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (PAGES 265-270 of JPB) c) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Ltd. (pages 271-276 of JPB) "It is not mere prejudice to the Revenue, or a mere erroneous view which can be revised, under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There should be the added element…

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…being ab initio void. 11.5 It is submitted thus that, if either of the two conditions does not exist or are found not satisfied, the learned PCIT cannot initiate proceedings to set aside otherwise an unfavourable order, as has been held in following cases: a) 163 ITR 129 (Mad) Venkat Krishna Rice Company v. CIT b) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (PAGES 265-270 of JPB) c) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Ltd. (pages 271-276 of JPB) "It is not mere prejudice to the Revenue, or a mere erroneous view which can be revised, under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There should be the added element…

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…being ab initio void. 11.5 It is submitted thus that, if either of the two conditions does not exist or are found not satisfied, the learned PCIT cannot initiate proceedings to set aside otherwise an unfavourable order, as has been held in following cases: a) 163 ITR 129 (Mad) Venkat Krishna Rice Company v. CIT b) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (PAGES 265-270 of JPB) c) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Ltd. (pages 271-276 of JPB) "It is not mere prejudice to the Revenue, or a mere erroneous view which can be revised, under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There should be the added element…

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…being ab initio void. 11.5 It is submitted thus that, if either of the two conditions does not exist or are found not satisfied, the learned PCIT cannot initiate proceedings to set aside otherwise an unfavourable order, as has been held in following cases: a) 163 ITR 129 (Mad) Venkat Krishna Rice Company v. CIT b) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (PAGES 265-270 of JPB) c) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Ltd. (pages 271-276 of JPB) "It is not mere prejudice to the Revenue, or a mere erroneous view which can be revised, under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There should be the added element…

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…being ab initio void. 11.5 It is submitted thus that, if either of the two conditions does not exist or are found not satisfied, the learned PCIT cannot initiate proceedings to set aside otherwise an unfavourable order, as has been held in following cases: a) 163 ITR 129 (Mad) Venkat Krishna Rice Company v. CIT b) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (PAGES 265-270 of JPB) c) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Ltd. (pages 271-276 of JPB) "It is not mere prejudice to the Revenue, or a mere erroneous view which can be revised, under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There should be the added element…

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…being ab initio void. 11.5 It is submitted thus that, if either of the two conditions does not exist or are found not satisfied, the learned PCIT cannot initiate proceedings to set aside otherwise an unfavourable order, as has been held in following cases: a) 163 ITR 129 (Mad) Venkat Krishna Rice Company v. CIT b) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (PAGES 265-270 of JPB) c) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Ltd. (pages 271-276 of JPB) "It is not mere prejudice to the Revenue, or a mere erroneous view which can be revised, under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There should be the added element…

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…being ab initio void. 11.5 It is submitted thus that, if either of the two conditions does not exist or are found not satisfied, the learned PCIT cannot initiate proceedings to set aside otherwise an unfavourable order, as has been held in following cases: a) 163 ITR 129 (Mad) Venkat Krishna Rice Company v. CIT b) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (PAGES 265-270 of JPB) c) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Ltd. (pages 271-276 of JPB) "It is not mere prejudice to the Revenue, or a mere erroneous view which can be revised, under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There should be the added element…

JAIN ENTERPRISES, BHILAI,DURG vs. PCIT, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as above

ITA 187/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 187/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jain Enterprises, Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 87-B, Light Industrial Area, Raipur-1, Central Revenue Building, Bhilai-490026, C.G. Civil Lines, Raipur, 492001, C.G. Pan: Aagfj3469G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri S. R. Rao, Advocate राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 11/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2018-19 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.03.2025 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (‘Pcit’) Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ujarat in CIT v. Minalben S. Parikh [(1995) 215 ITR 81 (Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [(1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad)] interpreting “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue”. The High Court held: “In this context, (it must) be regarded as involving a conception of acts or orders which are subversive of the administration of revenue. There must be some grievous error in the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, which might set a 16 Jain Enterprises…

AMBUJA CEMENTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

ITA 3474/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Sourabh Soparkar, AR (virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3474/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) Ambuja Cements Limited v/s. Principal Commissioner of Adani Corporate House, बनाम Income Tax, Mumbai 3, Shantigram Near Vaishnodevi Room No. 612, 6th Floor, Circle, SG Highway, Khodiyar Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat Karve Road, Mumbai 382421, Gujarat 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACG0569P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Sourabh Soparkar, AR (virtually appear)…

HARISH NARANG,PANIPAT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, 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

…o the interests of the revenue. The phrase ‘prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. 7.1 Further, it has been held in the case of Venkatakrishna Rice Co. V. CIT (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad) it has been held by the Hon’ble Court that the expression prejudicial to the interest of the revenue must be regarded as involving a conception of facts or orders which are subversive of the administration of revenue. There must be some grievous error in the order passed by the ITO which might set a bad trend or pattern for similar assessme…

M/S. CITY UNION BANK LTD.,,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1126/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., CIT
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी ट" वक", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम$ BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1126/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. City Union Bank, PCIT, No.148-149, T.S.R Big Street, vs. Madurai - 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. [PAN: AAACC-1287-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) अपीलाथ' क* ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. S. Ananthan, F.C.A. & Ms. R. Lalitha, F.C.A. ()यथ' क* ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. Bipin C.N., C…

DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT - 1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

…x 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 in Venkatakrishna Rice Company vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [163 ITR 129] interpreting prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The High Court held, in this context, it must be regarded as involving a conception of acts or orders which are subversive of the administration of revenue. There must be some grievous error in the order passed by the Income-tax Officer, which might set a bad trend or pattern for similar…

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1479/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…rt of Gujarat in CITv.Minalben S. Parikh[(1995) 215 ITR 81(Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co.v.CIT[(1987) 163 ITR 129(Mad)] interpreting 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue'. The High Court held: ' ''In this context, (it must) be regarded as involving a conception of acts or orders which are subversive of the administration of revenue. There must be some grievous error in the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, which might set a bad trend or pattern…

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1478/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…rt of Gujarat in CITv.Minalben S. Parikh[(1995) 215 ITR 81(Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co.v.CIT[(1987) 163 ITR 129(Mad)] interpreting 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue'. The High Court held: ' ''In this context, (it must) be regarded as involving a conception of acts or orders which are subversive of the administration of revenue. There must be some grievous error in the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, which might set a bad trend or pattern…

QADER ABDUL RAZZAQUE ABDUL,AURANGABAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 937/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.937/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Qader Abdul Razzaque Abdul, Principal Commissioner M/S. Captain Color Home Opp. Of Income Tax, Nashik-1 Bhartiya Hospital Raja Bazar Chh. Vs. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad), Pin Code-431001 Pan : Acqpk8963L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Department By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 24-06-2025 Date Of 04-09-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 69

…Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) that the assessment order is erroneous as also prejudicial to the interests of Revenue as it caused prejudice to revenue administration as emphasised by Hon‟ble Madras High Court in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. vs. CIT 163 ITR 129 (Mad). The case laws relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the assessees are rendered in a different factual scenario which is not applicable to the present facts of the assessee‟s case. 14. It has been held by various Courts that lack of enquiry on the germane issue renders the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Re…

INDIA JAPAN LIGHTING PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1427/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. M/S. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-4, No.1, Tiruvallur High Road, Chennai. Puduchatram B.O., Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur-600 124. [Pan: Aaaci 2673 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

…rt of Gujarat in CITv.Minalben S. Parikh[(1995) 215 ITR 81(Guj)] treated loss of tax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co.v.CIT[(1987) 163 ITR 129(Mad)] interpreting ‘prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue’. The High Court held: ‘ ‘’In this context, (it must) be regarded as involving a conception of acts or orders which are subversive of the administration of revenue. There must be some grievous error in the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, which might set a bad trend or patter…

PROCTER AND GAMBLE HEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2326/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nMs. Aarti Vissanji & Shri Ajay BhandariFor Respondent: \nShri R A Dhyani, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 40Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)Section 68

…5] 127 CTR 333/215 ITR 81/79 Taxman 184 (Gujarat) treated loss of\ntax as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.\n9. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of\nMadras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT[1987] 62 CTR 152/163 ITR 129/30\nTaxman 528 (Madras) interpreting \"prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue\". The\nHigh Court held:\n\"In this context, (it must) be regarded as involving a conception of acts or\norders which are subversive of the administration of revenue. There must\nbe some grievous error in the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, which\nmight set…

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 958/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 951 to 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, PCIT (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [PAN: AERPM-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2…

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 957/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 951 to 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, PCIT (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [PAN: AERPM-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2…

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 956/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 951 to 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, PCIT (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [PAN: AERPM-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2…

Showing 1–20 of 95 · Page 1 of 5

Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT (163 ITR 129) — Cited in 95 Judgments | BharatTax