Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Deccan Jewellers Ltd.

438 ITR 131High Court2021#3526 most cited

What is Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Deccan Jewellers Ltd. authority for?

Section 263 revision is permissible when the Assessing Officer (AO) fails to properly inquire into transactions revealed by search materials obtained in an associate's search and seizure operation, making the assessment prejudicial to the revenue.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Also referred to as

PCIT vs. Deccan Jewellers Ltd. · section 263 · revisionary powers · prejudicial to interest of revenue · search and seizure · third party information · assessment order · Assessing Officer inquiry · preponderance of probability

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Deccan Jewellers Ltd.

WORLDVIEW EDUCATION SERVICES PRIVATE LMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1056/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1056/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Worldview Education Services Private Limited, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad – 500 016. Ward-17(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aaacw9480F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Ca C. Maheshwar Reddy राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: G Saratha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 27.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: CA C. Maheshwar ReddyFor Respondent: G Saratha, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…ommissioner to Income-tax vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 71 Taxman 585 (Bombay); 4. India Research and Development (P) Ltd vs Add. CIT and Others 445 ITRI 83 (Kar.-HC); 5. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.-HC); 6. Pr. CIT vs. Deccan Jewellers P. Ltd. 438 ITR 131 (AP- HC); 7. D. Pedda Reddaiah vs. ITO, dated 30.04.2020 (ITAT, Hyd. Tribu); 8. CIT vs. M. Chandra Sekhar 151 ITR 433 (SC). 9. CIT vs. Mulchand Bagri (108 CTR 206 Cal.). 10. CIT vs. D P Karai (266 ITR 113 Guj); 9 ITA.No.1056/Hyd./2025 11. Paul Mathews vs. CIT (263 ITR 101 Ker); 12. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [200…

SHREE SOCIETY,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 226/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.226/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Society Vs. Income Tax Officer Visakhapatnam Ward 1(5) Pan:Aanas1911Q Visakhapatnam (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri I Rama Sastry, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30/03/2024 Of The Learned Pr.Cit Passed U/S 263 R.W.S. 254 Of The Act For The A.Y 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri I Rama Sastry, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Court on this point, however, there are various decisions of the Tribunal on this issue decided in favour of the assessee and therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. M/s. Deccan Jewellera P Ltd reported in 438 ITR 131 the order of the Tribunal is binding on the Assessing Officer and therefore, the claim of the assessee allowed by the Assessing Officer as per law as held by the jurisdictional Tribunal cannot be held as erroneous as well as prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. The learned AR has referred to the assessment order and submitted that the case w…

Showing 120 of 34 · Page 1 of 2