Parulbhai Patel v. ACIT

367 ITR 234High Court#21213 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(20)Section 144BSection 147Section 263Section 144Section 143(1)Section 16Section 260A

Issues it is cited on

section 10(20)prejudicial to interest of revenuesection 16section 260aerroneous and prejudicialsection 263section 144bsection 26income from other sourcessection 143(1)appeal before the tribunalsection 144

Judgments citing Parulbhai Patel v. ACIT

SACHIN NOTIFIED AREA,SURAT vs. PR. CIT, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 248/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 10(20)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 263

…total income under the head ‘Income from other sources’ as the assessee was not eligible to claim exemption u/s 10(20) of the Act. Since the AO failed to make the above addition, the ld. PCIT, after considering decisions in cases of Parulbhai Patel vs. ACIT, 367 ITR 234 (Guj.), Jet Airways, 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) and CIT-1 vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200 (SC), held that the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 by the AO was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue u/s 263 of the Act. He issued show cause notice to the assessee, which is at pages 8 and 9 of the order u/s 263 of the Act. The…

SACHIN NOTIFIED AREA,SURAT vs. PR. CIT, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 247/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 10(20)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 263

…total income under the head ‘Income from other sources’ as the assessee was not eligible to claim exemption u/s 10(20) of the Act. Since the AO failed to make the above addition, the ld. PCIT, after considering decisions in cases of Parulbhai Patel vs. ACIT, 367 ITR 234 (Guj.), Jet Airways, 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) and CIT-1 vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200 (SC), held that the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 by the AO was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue u/s 263 of the Act. He issued show cause notice to the assessee, which is at pages 8 and 9 of the order u/s 263 of the Act. The…

SACHIN NOTIFIED AREA,SURAT vs. PR. CIT, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 246/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 10(20)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 263

…total income under the head ‘Income from other sources’ as the assessee was not eligible to claim exemption u/s 10(20) of the Act. Since the AO failed to make the above addition, the ld. PCIT, after considering decisions in cases of Parulbhai Patel vs. ACIT, 367 ITR 234 (Guj.), Jet Airways, 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) and CIT-1 vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200 (SC), held that the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 by the AO was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue u/s 263 of the Act. He issued show cause notice to the assessee, which is at pages 8 and 9 of the order u/s 263 of the Act. The…

SACHIN NOTIFIED AREA,SURAT vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX - 1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 223/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 10(20)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 263

…total income under the head ‘Income from other sources’ as the assessee was not eligible to claim exemption u/s 10(20) of the Act. Since the AO failed to make the above addition, the ld. PCIT, after considering decisions in cases of Parulbhai Patel vs. ACIT, 367 ITR 234 (Guj.), Jet Airways, 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) and CIT-1 vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200 (SC), held that the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 by the AO was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue u/s 263 of the Act. He issued show cause notice to the assessee, which is at pages 8 and 9 of the order u/s 263 of the Act. The…

Parulbhai Patel v. ACIT (367 ITR 234) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax