Oevi (1987) 1641TR 658 (Pat.)\nCIT Vs. Bela Nisa (1988) 1711TR 643 (Pat.)\nCIT v. Smt. Kaushalya Oevi

201 ITR 162High Court1993#23597 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2024 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 43B Section 69C Section 110 Section 11U (IT Rules)

Issues it is cited on

section 263(1)erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 26 transfer india business interest

Judgments citing Oevi (1987) 1641TR 658 (Pat.)\nCIT Vs. Bela Nisa (1988) 1711TR 643 (Pat.)\nCIT v. Smt. Kaushalya Oevi

COMER INDUSTRIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1228/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 234CSection 263Section 36(1)(va)

…ing law and shows that the AO's order was contrary to or inconsistent with it, such an order can be considered erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. This is because the higher court merely expounds existing law, as held in CIT v. United Commercial Bank [1993] 201 ITR 162 (Calcutta) and CIT v. Shriram Development Co. [1986] 25 Taxman 341 (Madhya Pradesh). 16. Thus we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld PCIT in holding that the order of the ld AO is erroneous and Prejudicial to the interest of revenue as on the date of examination of Records due to the decision of Honourable Supreme court in case of C…

SIMBHAOLI POWER PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT CENTRAL, KANPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 505/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Anshul Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CIT- DR

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

…at.) Swaroop Vegetable Products Industries Ltd., Vs. CIT (All.) 1871TR 412 CIT Vs. Smt. Rambha Oevi (1987) 1641TR 658 (Pat.) CIT Vs. Bela Nisa (1988) 1711TR 643 (Pat.) CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya Oevi (1988) 1711TR 686 (Pat.) CfT Vs. United Commercial Bank (1993) 201 ITR 162 (Gal.) Jubilant Organosys Vs. CIT (2004) 2651TR 4201137 Taxman 515 (All.) . Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 109 Taxman 6612431TR 83 (SC) CIT Vs. McMilon and Company (SC) 33 ITR 182 Lajjawati Singhal Vs. CIT (All.) 226 ITR 527 12. In .view of the aforesaid discussion, it is found that the order passed by the A.O. is erroneous as well a…

SIMBHAOLI POWER PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT GHAZIABAD, NEW DELHI

ITA 4620/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: \nShri Anshul Kumar, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Sanjay Gupta, CIT- DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 69C

…\nSwaroop Vegetable Products Industries Ltd., Vs. CIT (All.) 1871TR 412\nCIT Vs. Smt. Rambha Oevi (1987) 1641TR 658 (Pat.)\nCIT Vs. Bela Nisa (1988) 1711TR 643 (Pat.)\nCIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya Oevi (1988) 1711TR 686 (Pat.)\nCfT Vs. United Commercial Bank (1993) 201 ITR 162 (Gal.)\nJubilant Organosys Vs. CIT (2004) 2651TR 4201137 Taxman 515 (All.) .\nMalabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 109 Taxman 6612431TR 83 (SC)\nCIT Vs. McMilon and Company (SC) 33 ITR 182\nLajjawati Singhal Vs. CIT (All.) 226 ITR 527\n\n12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is found that the order passed by the A.O. is erroneous as w…