Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT

67 ITR 84Supreme Court of India1968#94 most cited

What is Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT authority for?

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests if the Assessing Officer accepts a sum offered as income by an assessee, even when that sum was not actually earned, thereby allowing revision under Section 263.

616

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT · Section 263 revision · assessment erroneous and prejudicial · unearned income offered · Assessing Officer accepting income · Commissioner's power of revision · inadequate inquiry by AO · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. reference · Income Tax Act 1961 Section 263

Also reported as

3 SCC 482240 Taxmann 221

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 1961Section 147Section 144BSection 148Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 263(1)inadequate enquirymalabar industriallack of enquiryprejudicial to interest of revenuerevision under section 263assessment order erroneousrevision u/s 263erroneous and prejudicialsection 263non-application of mindsection 26

Judgments citing Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT

MICROTEK INFRASTRUTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3112/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year:2020-21]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 68

…tain issues and therefore, there was an error on the part of AO which led to a correct conclusion of the CIT that the order of the AO was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Hon. Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Saraogi v CIT 67 ITR 84 while taking note of the fact that the AO had concluded the assessment in “undue hurry” by passing a short, stereotyped assessment order, without making any inquiries, upheld the revision done by the CIT. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd. (2011) ITA no, 973/2011, held that if the Assessing Officer keeps on record an…

STARSHINE LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI-5, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2148/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 23(5)Section 263

…The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375) has held that failure to make enquiries which are called for renders the order erroneous. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (67 ITR 84) and Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT (88 ITR 323). Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (384 ITR 200) has held that where the Assessing Officer has not made proper enquiry, the Commissioner is justified in invoking section 263. 5 Starshine Land Developers Private Limited 10. The reliance placed by the Ld. AR on Kelvinator of I…

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी लिलत कुमार, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 488/Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Surjeet Singh बनाम The Pr. CIT H.No. 14/672, Baldev Singh Rohtak Nambardar wali G Khairpur Sirsa 125055, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: DEGPS6997D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 494 /Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Randhir Singh बनाम…

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी लिलत कुमार, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 488/Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Surjeet Singh बनाम The Pr. CIT H.No. 14/672, Baldev Singh Rohtak Nambardar wali G Khairpur Sirsa 125055, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: DEGPS6997D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 494 /Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Randhir Singh बनाम…

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी लिलत कुमार, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 488/Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Surjeet Singh बनाम The Pr. CIT H.No. 14/672, Baldev Singh Rohtak Nambardar wali G Khairpur Sirsa 125055, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: DEGPS6997D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 494 /Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Randhir Singh बनाम…

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी लिलत कुमार, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 488/Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Surjeet Singh बनाम The Pr. CIT H.No. 14/672, Baldev Singh Rohtak Nambardar wali G Khairpur Sirsa 125055, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: DEGPS6997D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 494 /Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Randhir Singh बनाम…

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी लिलत कुमार, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 488/Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Surjeet Singh बनाम The Pr. CIT H.No. 14/672, Baldev Singh Rohtak Nambardar wali G Khairpur Sirsa 125055, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: DEGPS6997D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 494 /Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Randhir Singh बनाम…

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी लिलत कुमार, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 488/Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Surjeet Singh बनाम The Pr. CIT H.No. 14/672, Baldev Singh Rohtak Nambardar wali G Khairpur Sirsa 125055, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: DEGPS6997D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 494 /Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Randhir Singh बनाम…

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी लिलत कुमार, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 488/Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Surjeet Singh बनाम The Pr. CIT H.No. 14/672, Baldev Singh Rohtak Nambardar wali G Khairpur Sirsa 125055, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: DEGPS6997D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 494 /Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Randhir Singh बनाम…

JAIN ENTERPRISES, BHILAI,DURG vs. PCIT, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as above

ITA 187/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 187/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jain Enterprises, Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 87-B, Light Industrial Area, Raipur-1, Central Revenue Building, Bhilai-490026, C.G. Civil Lines, Raipur, 492001, C.G. Pan: Aagfj3469G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri S. R. Rao, Advocate राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 11/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2018-19 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.03.2025 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (‘Pcit’) Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधरी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अवधेश कुमार िम", लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No: 187/RPR/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jain Enterprises, vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, 87-B, Light Industrial Area, Raipur-1, Central Revenue Building, Bhilai-490026, C.G. Civil Lines, Raipur, 492001, C.G. PAN: AAGFJ3469G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri S. R. Rao, Advocate राज" की ओ…

JHV CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed but the order of the Pr

ITA 1289/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

…/06/2015 for exercising revisionary power under section 263 of the act. He has relied upon the decisions in Thalibai F. Jain v. ITO 101 ITR 1, 6 (Karn), Malabar Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83, 87-88 (SC), Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 & Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC), Gee Vee Enterprise v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del) and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ITA No.: 1289/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 JHV Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53/96 Taxman 1 and h…

SUMANTH BADIGA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 628/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.628/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Sumanth Badiga, The Dcit, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad – 500 004. Vs. Hyderabad. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Ahqpb8508F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वधिध/Assessee By : Ca C S Subrahmanyam & Sri V. Siva Kumar, Advocate िधजस् व द्वधिध/Revenue By : Sri Lv Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2026 घोषणध की तधिीख/Pronouncement: 06.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA C S Subrahmanyam and Sri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…ted to invoke the provisions of 7 ITA.No.628/Hyd./2025 sec.263 of the Act merely because he does not agree with the view taken by the Assessing Officer. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions: i. Rampyari Devi Saraogi [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC); ii. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) . iii. Swarup Vegetable Products [1991] 54 Taxman 175 (All.) iv. Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd., [2009] 31 SOT 353 (Chennai) (SB). v. SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd., T.C.(A) No.824 of 2010 dated 31.08.2010 of Madras High Court. vi. Deloitte Haskins & Sells ITA.No.1164/Mad./2012 dated 0…

AMBUJA CEMENTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

ITA 3474/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Sourabh Soparkar, AR (virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…uiry to be conducted by the Assessing Officer while scrutinising any case in the course of assessment order is concerned, it would be relevant to quote certain landmark decisions of hon'ble Supreme Court as in the case of Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT [1968) 67 ITR 84 [SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT(1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) holding that in a stereo-typed order which simply accepts what the assessee has stated and fails to make enquiries which are called for in the circumstances, is erroneous. The hon'ble Court further observed that where the Assessing Officer had accepted a particular contention or issue withou…

CONE CRAFT PAPER PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT-1, DELHI

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

ITA 3592/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

…here a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC).” 21. For the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. PCIT has assumed the Jurisdiction wrongly and his observation that the assessment order is hit by Clause b and d of Explanation 2 of Section 263 of the Act are found to be not supported by facts and the law…

SMT. KUSUM KUJWAL,NAINITAL vs. PCIT, BAIREILLY

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 102/DDN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 45(2)Section 50C

…of the CIT under the old Act held that, “where assessment was completed by the ITO with under haste, without holding necessary enquiry, it is sufficient to hold that the assessment order is erroneous.” (¡¡¡) In the case of Smt. Tara Devi Agarwal v/s CIT(1973) 88 ITR 323(SC), it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that, “even where income has not been earned and is not assessable merely because the assessee wants it to be assessed in his or her end in order to assist someone else who would have been assessed to a larger amount, the assessment to made can certainly be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of rev…

M/S. CITY UNION BANK LTD.,,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1126/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., CIT
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी ट" वक", "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम$ BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.:1126/Chny/2024 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. City Union Bank, PCIT, No.148-149, T.S.R Big Street, vs. Madurai - 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. [PAN: AAACC-1287-E] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) अपीलाथ' क* ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. S. Ananthan, F.C.A. & Ms. R. Lalitha, F.C.A. ()यथ' क* ओर से/Respondent by : Shri. Bipin C.N., C…

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

ITA 100/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 263

…he CIT under the old Act held that, \"where assessment was\ncompleted by the ITO with under haste, without holding necessary\nenquiry, it is sufficient to hold that the assessment order is erroneous.\"\n(iii) In the case of Smt Tara Devi Agarwal v/s CIT(1973) 88 ITR 323(SC), it\nwas held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, \" even where income has not\nbeen earned and is not assessable merely because the assessee wants it\nto be assessed in his or her end in order to assist someone else who would\nhave been assessed to a larger amount, the assessment to made can\ncertainly be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest…

M/S GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1053/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ere a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - RampyariDevi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). [Emphasis Supplied]” 13. On examining the facts of the instant case, in light of the provisions of section 263 of the Act and judicial precedence, we note that the discussion of Ld. PCIT in the impugned order and also the directions given in the impugned order are mainly focussed o…

BHARGAB ENGINEERING WORKS,HOWRAH vs. PCIT, CENTRAL KOLKATA 2, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1161/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…l. CCIT reported in 99 ITR 375, 386 (Delhi High Court), Thalibal F. Jain v. ITO reported in 101 ITR 1, 6, (Karnakata High Court), Malabar Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83, 87-88 (Supreme Court), Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (Supreme Court), Gee Ve Enterprise v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 and CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53/96 Taxman 1 (Supreme Court) and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble…

GHANSHYAM LAL, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 241/RPR/2025[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Raipur14 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K Panda & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.241/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Ghanshyam Lal Ward No.06, Chhatauna Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 222 Pan: Ajupl0084A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Manisha Kinnu, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 234ASection 263Section 405(1)Section 68

…d also considering the deeming nature in Explanation-2, the assessment order, therefore, is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the cases of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. Commissioner of 11. Income-Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta, 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. Commissioner of Income tax, West Bengal, 88 ITR 323 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the Commissioners (CIT)’s revisional orders passed u/s. 263 of the Act where the A.O accepted the returned income without making any proper inquiry. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the assessment order passed without any e…

Showing 1–20 of 616 · Page 1 of 31

...