Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO

106 ITR 1Supreme Court of India1977#143 most cited

What is Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

The principle of finality dictates that stale issues should not be reactivated, and lapse of time brings repose to judicial and quasi-judicial controversies. A Commissioner cannot substitute their judgment for the Assessing Officer's unless the assessment order is legally erroneous, not merely less elaborate, thus limiting revisionary powers under Section 263.

486

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 1991 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO · Parashuram Pottery · Section 263 · erroneous order · revision power · substitution of Commissioner's judgment · finality of assessment · stale issues · judicial precedent · 106 ITR 1

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO

ACIT Circle-1(1) (E)New Delhi, Delhi vs. Delhi Bureau of Text Books, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1115/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalacit, Delhi Bureau Of Text Books Circle-1(1), 25/2 Institutional Area, New Delhi. Vs. Pankha Road, D Block, Janak Puri, Delhi-110058 Pan-Aaatd4122G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Suman Malik, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/06/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: Both The Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-40/10313/2018-19 & Appeal No. Nfac/2016- 17/10028873 For Assessment Year 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively.

Section 11Section 12

…out of the activity of publishing and selling of School text books, it cannot be said that they ceased to carry on the activity of education and by following the rule of consistency, as explained in Parashuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC), Radhasoami Satsang Saomi Bagh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), Hoystead vs. Commissioner of Taxation (1926) AC 155 (PC), CIT vs. Excel Industries (2013) 262 CTR 261 (SC) the Hon'ble High Court held that the Revenue in the absence of any change of circumstances cannot take a different view from that taken in the earlier…

ACIT Circle-1(1) (E) New Delhi, Delhi vs. Delhi Bureau of Text Books, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1114/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalacit, Delhi Bureau Of Text Books Circle-1(1), 25/2 Institutional Area, New Delhi. Vs. Pankha Road, D Block, Janak Puri, Delhi-110058 Pan-Aaatd4122G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Suman Malik, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/06/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: Both The Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi-40/10313/2018-19 & Appeal No. Nfac/2016- 17/10028873 For Assessment Year 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively.

Section 11Section 12

…out of the activity of publishing and selling of School text books, it cannot be said that they ceased to carry on the activity of education and by following the rule of consistency, as explained in Parashuram Pottery Works Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC), Radhasoami Satsang Saomi Bagh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), Hoystead vs. Commissioner of Taxation (1926) AC 155 (PC), CIT vs. Excel Industries (2013) 262 CTR 261 (SC) the Hon'ble High Court held that the Revenue in the absence of any change of circumstances cannot take a different view from that taken in the earlier…

Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs. Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 269/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 269/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Prop. Khodiyar Silver Manufacture Income Tax – 1, Rajkot Champak Nagar Chs Ltd., Opp. Pani Aayakar Bhavan, Race Na Ghoda, Pedak Road, Course Ring Road, Rajkot – 360003 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adnpk3148B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rashmin Vekariya, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Rashmin Vekariya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 133ASection 133A(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 269/RJT/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya Vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Prop. Khodiyar Silver Manufacture Income Tax – 1, Rajkot Champak Nagar CHS Ltd., Opp. Pani Aayakar Bhavan, Race Na Ghoda, Pedak Road, Course Ring Road, Rajkot – 360003 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ADNPK3148B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rashmin Vekariya, Ld. AR Respondent by : Sh…