How many judgments cite Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT?

95 judgments on BharatTax cite Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT (163 ITR 129), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 144B.

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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 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 263 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 1961 Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 263of section 141 section 282a(1)section 194la section 263(1)revision under section 263 inadequate enquiry malabar industrial lack of enquiry section 80hhc(3)section 145a(b)section 145b

Judgments citing Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT

Shri Hari & Co Owners, Kaithal vs. Pr. CIT, Chandigarh -1, Rohtak

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 402/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ssment which, on a 'broad reckoning, the Commissioner might think to be prejudicial to the revenue administration. The prejudice must be prejudice to the Revenue administration. 8. 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…

Idemia Syscom India Private Limited, Noida vs. CIT(Tp), Delhi-2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 647/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT- DR

Section 263Section 92C

…jarat 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 bad trend or pattern…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7 vs. M/S Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Ltd

ITA/247/2023HC Delhi19 Mar 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…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 bad trend or pat…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Delhi vs. M/S Clix Finance India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1428/2018HC Delhi01 Mar 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

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

…t 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 bad trend or patt…

Sanmar Engineering Services Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT Chennai-3, Chennai

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

ITA 568/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.568/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sanmar Engineering Services Limited, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of 9, Cathedral Road, Income Tax Chennai-3, Chennai 600 086. 121, Mahatma Gandhi High Road, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacs8765K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.11.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai-3, Chennai, Dated 30.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 37

…63 does not visualize a case of substitution of judgement of the Commissioner for that of the Assessing Officer, who passed the Order unless it is erroneous. The Madras High Court in the case of Venkatakrishna Rice Mills Limited Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (163 ITR 129) has held that to invoke action under Section 263, Power of the CIT has to be judged on the words employed in the section. The language used by the Legislature in section 263 is to the effect that the Commissioner may interfere in revision if he considers that the Order passed by the Income-Tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial…

M/S. S.R. Ferro Alloys, Jhabua vs. The PCIT, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 148/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. CIT, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) PAN: ABHFS7377Q Appellant by Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement 09.11.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 30.03.2021 of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, passed u/s 26…

Gillette India Limited, Spa-65A, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, District- Alwar vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 313/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. ParwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194Section 195Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

…IT 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 Rice Co. v. CIT [1987] 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 46 Gillette India Ltd vs. PCIT of revenue. There must be some grievous error in the Order passed by the ITO, which might set a bad trend or…

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1051/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1050 & 1051/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mumbai Postal Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Ward 17(2)(1) Society Limited, Gpo Room No. 115, 1 St Floor, Building, Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai – 400001 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajm0032G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…e brought under the scope of sec. 263. The deduction allowed by several judicial authorities was legitimately followed by AO in original assessment. We rely on Bismillah Trading Co. Vs. Intelligence Officer 248 ITR 292 (Ker.) & Venkatakrishna Rice Co. Vs. CIT 163 ITR 129 (Mad). Refer Annexure 3&4. iii.in the proposed action, you have interpreted scope of sec. 80P in a completely different way and concluded that the original assessment order suffered inherent deficiencies. This interpretation is farfetched, absurd and simply amounts to change of opinion to support proposed action u/s 263, We rely on CIT Vs Greenwo…

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1050/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Shri Bhawani Shankar Parashar, Indore vs. The DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 411/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

Section 263

…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 Page 14 of 21 Bhawani Shankar Page 15 of 21 Order passed by the Income-tax Officer, which m…

Abhishek Sheti Udyog Bhandar, Nashik vs. PCIT, Nashik-1, Nashik

Appeal stands DISMISSED

ITA 346/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 346/Pun/2022 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Abhishek Sheti Udyog Bhandar, Shop 11 & 12, Bhagchand Complex, Dindori Naka, Panchavati, Nashik. Pan: Aaefa0318B . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…vered from the assessee. The loss to ex-chequer on account of outstepping from CBDT- mandates while framing an assessment in our considered view tent to set bad trend in terms of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in ‘Venkatakrishna Rice Company Vs CIT’ reported in 163 ITR 129 (Mad). Their lordship therein have held that; 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 assessments, which on a broad reck…

The Commissioner of Income Tax 7 vs. M/S Paville Projects Pvt Ltd

Appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-006126-006126 - 2021Supreme Court06 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55(1)(b)

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6126 OF 2021 (@ SLP (C) NO. 13380 OF 2018) The Commissioner of Income Tax 7 …Appellant(s) Versus M/s. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature, at Bombay in ITA No.78 of 2015 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the Revenue, the Revenue has preferred the present Appeal. Civil Appeal No. 6126 of 2021…

Diamond Heritage, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 116/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. K. Bhagat, CA & Sh. Vikas Bhagat, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 114 CTR (Bom) 81 : (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) : TC 57R.213 and CIT vs. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh (1995) 127 CTR (Guj) 333 : (1995) 215 ITR 81 (Guj) : TC 57R.312 approved; Venkatakrishna Rice Co. vs. CIT (1987) 62 CTR (Mad) 152 : (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad) : TC 57R.303 disapproved.” 9. In the present case, it could not be said that the assessment order was passed by the AO without making enquiries on the issues of limited scrutiny. The AO has taken one view and where only one view was plausible for such view, no second view can be taken to make the order erroneous and prejudicial to the i…

Haris Kalandan Mohammed, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed on merits

ITA 435/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Haris Kalandan Mohammed, The Principal D.No. 23-10-810, Commissioner Of Umay Bagh, Income Tax 1St Cross, [Central], Yemmekere, Vs. Bengaluru. Mangaluru – 575 001. Pan: Abjph9234P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 22/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit U/S. 263 For A.Y. 2018-19 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 22/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 263Section 68

…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…

Vinod Kumar Gupta, Uttarpradesh vs. Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 664/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 263

…Act. Understood in its ordinary meaning it is of wide import and is not conferred) to loss of tax. 6. Mr. Abraham relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Venkatakrishna Rice Company vs. CIT (1987) 62 CTR (Mad) 152 : (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad) :TC 57R.303 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 ITO, which might set a bad trend or pattern 17 Vin…

Anup Enterprises, Mumbai vs. The Principal CIT-19, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 1641/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalanup Enterprises, 41, 4Th Floor, Neelkamal, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026 Pan: Aaafa5067D ...... Appellant Vs. The Pr.Cit-19, Room No. 228, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai-400007 ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-19, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Ld. Pr.Cit) Dated 22.03.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 263Section 263(1)Section 3

…al to the interests of the revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. In Bismillah Trading Co. v. Intelligence Officer [2001] 248 ITR 292 (Ker.), as also in the case of Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 129 (Mad.) it was held that there must be grievous error in the order passed by the ITO which might set a bad trend or pattern for similar assessments which, on a broad reckoning, the Commissioner might think to be prejudicial to the revenue administration. The prejudice must be prejudice to the Revenue administration. 7 ITA No. 1641/Mum/2011-Anup…

C.B. Mubarka Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 638/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhc.B. Murarka Charitable Vs. Cit(Exemption) Trust, B-310, Virwani 617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Industrial Estate, Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel Western Express Mumbai - 400012 Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai – 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaatc0036C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sanjay C. ShahFor Respondent: Sandeep Rai

Section 143(3)Section 263

…. After placing reliance on the number of judicial pronouncements i.e Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), Bismillah Trading Company Vs. Intelligence Officer (2001) 248 ITR 292 (Karnataka) Venkateshkrishna Rice Company Vs. CIT (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Madras), Smt. Taradevi Aggarwal Vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC), Thalibai F. Jain Vs. ITO (1975) 101 ITR 1 (Karnataka), CIT Vs. Amitabh Bachhan, 384 ITR 200 & Others decision the ld. Pr. CIT held that the A.O has passed assessment order without basic verification of issue as mentioned above in this order. Therefore, the assessment order dated 01.…

Wealthy Sky Development Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 15/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43(5)(d)Section 73Section 73(4)

…not to set aside merely unfavourable orders and bring to tax more money to treasury. The reversionary power u/s 263 cannot in any manner be equated to or regarded as approaching in any way in Appellate jurisdiction as was held in the case of V K. Rice Co. [163 ITR 129 (Mad)].” Further powers u/s. 263 require both the conditions should co-exist i.e order should erroneous as well as should be prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this regard reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd. reported in 203 ITR 128. In this regard further reliance is placed o…

M/S. Vpa Civilcon (P) Ltd., Indore vs. Pr. CIT-2, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 864/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri C.P. Rawka and Shri Venus Rawka, CAsFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR

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

…he interest of the revenue [CIT v.Executors of the Estate of late H.H. Rajkuverba Dowager Maharani Saheb of Gondal,(1978) 115 ITR 301,305 (Karn); Jagadhri Electric Supply & Industrial Co. v. CIT, (1987) 166 ITR 143 (Punj); Venkatkrishna Rice Co. v. CIT (1987) 163 ITR 129, 137 (mad); Shivaputrappa Channappa Mungoli v. Ag ITO, (1986)160 ITR 123 (Karn); K.N. Agrawal v. CIT, (1991) 189 ITR 769, 772 (All); Keshrimal Bapulal v. CIT, (2001) 252 ITR 764, 769 (MP); Shy am Sundar Agrawal v. State of Assam, (2003) 131 ITR 70, 72-73hl following Rajendra Singh v. Superitendent of taxes, (1990) 79 STC 10,17 3 (Gauh).Also, see…

M/S Adm Agro Industries Kota & Akola Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/IND/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 535/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 M/S Adm Agro Industries Kota & Akola Vs Pr. Cit-1, Pvt. Ltd., Vatika Professional Point, 3Rd “Aayakar Bhawan”, Floor, Golf Course Extension Road, 48, Arera Hills, Sector-66, Gurgaon-122018 Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal-462011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcs9646L Assessee By : Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Satpal Gulati, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.02.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 43BSection 44ASection 92C

…ssioner of Income-tax can proceed to invoke such powers, some of the judgments on this proposition are as under:  CIT Vs. Executors of Estate of Late H.H. Raj Kuverba Dowager 115 ITR 301, 305 (Kara.)  Jagadhary Electricity Supply Co. 166 ITR 143 (Punjab)  163 ITR 129,137 (Mad.) - Venkata Krishna Rice Co. Vs. CIT.  160 ITR 123 (Karnataka) - Shivaputrappa Chanappa Mangoli  189 ITR, 772 (Allahabad) - K.N. Agarwal Vs. CIT  243 ITR 83, 87 (S.C.) - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT  243 ITR 490, 500 (Madras) - CIT Vs. Seshasiyas Paper 5. The objections of the ld. AR have been overruled by the ld. PCIT who ha…