(supra), CIT v. Sudershan Talkies

201 ITR 289High Court1993#3348 most cited

What is (supra), CIT v. Sudershan Talkies authority for?

Revisionary powers under section 263 cannot be invoked solely to direct the initiation of penalty proceedings.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sudershan Talkies · section 263 · revisionary powers · initiation of penalty proceedings · assessment order erroneous · prejudicial to revenue

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(a)section 271aab(1a)revision under section 263assessment order erroneousunder-reporting of incomepenalty under section 270apenalty u/s 270asection 271aacsection 271aasection 271aerroneous and prejudicialconcealment of income

Judgments citing (supra), CIT v. Sudershan Talkies

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 220/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…Section 153A of the Act. 6. It may be noticed that the said issue is no longer res integra. This Court in Subhash Kumar Jain case (supra) agreeing with the view of High Courts of Delhi in Additional J.K.D.'s Costa case (supra), CIT v. Sudershan Talkies [1993] 201 ITR 289 (Delhi) and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45/[2002] 123 Taxman 353 (Delhi), Rajasthan in CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal [1986] 157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.), Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Circle), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 219/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…Section 153A of the Act. 6. It may be noticed that the said issue is no longer res integra. This Court in Subhash Kumar Jain case (supra) agreeing with the view of High Courts of Delhi in Additional J.K.D.'s Costa case (supra), CIT v. Sudershan Talkies [1993] 201 ITR 289 (Delhi) and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45/[2002] 123 Taxman 353 (Delhi), Rajasthan in CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal [1986] 157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.), Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 218/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…Section 153A of the Act. 6. It may be noticed that the said issue is no longer res integra. This Court in Subhash Kumar Jain case (supra) agreeing with the view of High Courts of Delhi in Additional J.K.D.'s Costa case (supra), CIT v. Sudershan Talkies [1993] 201 ITR 289 (Delhi) and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45/[2002] 123 Taxman 353 (Delhi), Rajasthan in CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal [1986] 157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.), Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the…

Ram Kishan Verma, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 217/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…Section 153A of the Act. 6. It may be noticed that the said issue is no longer res integra. This Court in Subhash Kumar Jain case (supra) agreeing with the view of High Courts of Delhi in Additional J.K.D.'s Costa case (supra), CIT v. Sudershan Talkies [1993] 201 ITR 289 (Delhi) and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45/[2002] 123 Taxman 353 (Delhi), Rajasthan in CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal [1986] 157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.), Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the…

Harish Jain, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 216/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…Section 153A of the Act. 6. It may be noticed that the said issue is no longer res integra. This Court in Subhash Kumar Jain case (supra) agreeing with the view of High Courts of Delhi in Additional J.K.D.'s Costa case (supra), CIT v. Sudershan Talkies [1993] 201 ITR 289 (Delhi) and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45/[2002] 123 Taxman 353 (Delhi), Rajasthan in CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal [1986] 157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.), Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the…

Harish Jain, Jaipur vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 215/JPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…Section 153A of the Act. 6. It may be noticed that the said issue is no longer res integra. This Court in Subhash Kumar Jain case (supra) agreeing with the view of High Courts of Delhi in Additional J.K.D.'s Costa case (supra), CIT v. Sudershan Talkies [1993] 201 ITR 289 (Delhi) and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45/[2002] 123 Taxman 353 (Delhi), Rajasthan in CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal [1986] 157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.), Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the…

Harish Jain, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in the ITA No

ITA 214/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: ShriMahendraGargieya (Adv.)&For Respondent: ShriJames Kurian (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…Section 153A of the Act. 6. It may be noticed that the said issue is no longer res integra. This Court in Subhash Kumar Jain case (supra) agreeing with the view of High Courts of Delhi in Additional J.K.D.'s Costa case (supra), CIT v. Sudershan Talkies [1993] 201 ITR 289 (Delhi) and CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan [2000] 242 ITR 45/[2002] 123 Taxman 353 (Delhi), Rajasthan in CIT v. KeshrimalParasmal [1986] 157 ITR 484/27 Taxman 447 (Raj.), Calcutta in CIT v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 337 (Cal.) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 510/40 Taxman 346 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the…

Sh. Dheeraj Singh Sisodiya, 005, Village Beedmandi, Nayagaon, Ramganjmandi, Kota vs. PCIT (Central), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 132/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Aug 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A..)For Respondent: Shri Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…. It may be noticed that the said issue is no longer res integra. This Court in CIT vs. Subhash Kumar Jain (supra) agreeing with the view of High Courts of Delhi in Addl. CIT vs. J.K. D'Costa (supra), CIT vs. Sudershan Talkies (1993) 112 CTR (Del) 165: (1993) 201 ITR 289 (Del) and CIT vs. Nihal Chand Rekyan (1999) 156 CTR (Del) 59 : (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del), Rajasthan in CIT vs. KeshrimalParasmal (1985) 48 CTR (Raj) 61 : (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Calcutta in CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh &Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125 : (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Ga…

Sh. Narendar Kumar Agarwal, Jawali Bhawan, Station Road, Alwar vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271FSection 50CSection 54F

…. It may be noticed that the said issue is no longer res integra. This Court in CIT vs. Subhash Kumar Jain (supra) agreeing with the view of High Courts of Delhi in Addl. CIT vs. J.K. D'Costa (supra), CIT vs. Sudershan Talkies (1993) 112 CTR (Del) 165: (1993) 201 ITR 289 (Del) and CIT vs. Nihal Chand Rekyan (1999) 156 CTR (Del) 59 : (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del), Rajasthan in CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1985) 48 CTR (Raj) 61 : (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Calcutta in CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125 : (1988) 173 ITR 510 (…

Anushakti Chemicals & Drugs Ltd. (Formerly Known As Aarti Healthcare Ltd. Now Merged Into Aarti Industries Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - Range-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 639/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.639/Mum/2021 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2010-11) Anushakti Chemicals & Pr. Cit, Range-2 Drugs Ltd. Room No.1920, 19Th Floor, Air (Formerly Known As Aarti India Building, Nariman बनाम/ Health Care Ltd. Now Point, Mumbai-400 021, Vs. Merged Into Aarti Industries Maharashtra Ltd.) Mumbai (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aabca2787L अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Ms. Shailja Rai, Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15.11.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2021

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 254Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…viability of penalty in the case." 10. Special leave petition against the said decision was dismissed by the Apex Court ((1984) 147 ITR (St) 1. The same view was reiterated by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sudershan Talkies (1993) 112 CTR (Del) 165 : (1993) 201 ITR 289 (Del) and followed in CIT vs. Nihal Chand Rekyan (1999) 156 CTR (Del) 59 : (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del). The Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal [1985] 48 CTR (Raj) 61 : [1986] 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Gauhati High Court in Surendra Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125 : (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau) and Calcutta High Court in CIT v…

Sunila Awasthi, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-12, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 496/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamblea N D Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 496/Del/2021 (A.Y. 2015-16) (Through Video Conferencing) Ms. Sunila Awasthi, Principal Cit – 12, E–802, Uniworld City East, Vs. New Delhi. Sector : 30, Gurugram, Haryana. Pan : Aaepa9591J (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv.; & Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate; Department By : Shri H. K. Chaudhary [Cit] – Dr; Date Of Hearing 01.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07.07.2021

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaudhary
Section 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…eviability of penalty in the case." 13. Special leave petition against the said decision was dismissed by the apex Court (1984) 147 ITR (St) 1. The same view was reiterated by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sudershan Talkies (1993) 112 CTR (Del) 165 : (1993) 201 ITR 289 (Del) and followed in CIT vs. Nihal Chand Rekyan (1999) 156 CTR (Del) 59 : (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del). The Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1985) 48 CTR (Raj) 61 : (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Gauhati High Court in Surendra Prasad Singh &Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125 : (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau) and Calcutta High Court in CIT vs…

Jayesh V. Sheth, Mumbai vs. CIT 16, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3922/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh, C.A Department byFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…. It may be noticed that the said issue is no longer res integra. This Court in CIT vs. Subhosli Kumar Jam (supra) agreeing with the view of High Courts of Delhi in Addl. CIT vs. J.K. D'Costa (supra), CIT vs. Sudershan Talkies (1993) 112 CTR (Del) 165: (1993) 201 ITR 289 (Del) and CIT vs. Nihal Chartd Rekyan (1999) 156 CTR (Del) 59: (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del), Rajasthan in CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1985) 48 CTR (Raj) 61 (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Calcutta in CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) and Gauhati in Sureridra Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125: (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Ga…

Jayesh V. Sheth, Mumbai vs. CIT 16, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3921/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh, C.A Department byFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…. It may be noticed that the said issue is no longer res integra. This Court in CIT vs. Subhosli Kumar Jam (supra) agreeing with the view of High Courts of Delhi in Addl. CIT vs. J.K. D'Costa (supra), CIT vs. Sudershan Talkies (1993) 112 CTR (Del) 165: (1993) 201 ITR 289 (Del) and CIT vs. Nihal Chartd Rekyan (1999) 156 CTR (Del) 59: (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del), Rajasthan in CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1985) 48 CTR (Raj) 61 (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Calcutta in CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) and Gauhati in Sureridra Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125: (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Ga…

Jayesh V. Sheth, Mumbai vs. CIT 16, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3920/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R.Parikh, C.A Department byFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…. It may be noticed that the said issue is no longer res integra. This Court in CIT vs. Subhosli Kumar Jam (supra) agreeing with the view of High Courts of Delhi in Addl. CIT vs. J.K. D'Costa (supra), CIT vs. Sudershan Talkies (1993) 112 CTR (Del) 165: (1993) 201 ITR 289 (Del) and CIT vs. Nihal Chartd Rekyan (1999) 156 CTR (Del) 59: (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del), Rajasthan in CIT vs. Keshrimal Parasmal (1985) 48 CTR (Raj) 61 (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Calcutta in CIT vs. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) and Gauhati in Sureridra Prasad Singh & Ors. vs. CIT (1988) 71 CTR (Gau) 125: (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Ga…

Asst CIT CC 43, Mumbai vs. Roha Dyechem Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 933/MUM/2014[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2016AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Taneja

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 80Section 80HSection 80I

…gh Court has been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court and reference in this regard was made to M/s Roha Dyechem Ltd. (1984) 147 ITR (St.) 1. He also relied upon the following decisions in which similar proposition has been laid down: CIT v. Sudershan Talkies (201 ITR 289 (Delhi) CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan (242 ITR 45(Delhi) CiT v. Keshrimal Parsmal (157 ITR 484 (Rajasthan) Surendra Prasad Singh v. CIT (173 ITR 510 (Gauhati) CIT v. Linotype and Machinery Ltd. (192 ITR 337(Calcutta). CIT v. Subhash kumar Jain (335 ITR 364(Punjab & Haryana) 4.1 Ld. AR further referred to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in t…