MODERN BIRI SUPPLIERS,KOLKATA vs. CIT - 14, KOLKATA, KOLKATA
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner rightly exercised revisionary jurisdiction because the Assessing Officer failed to conduct necessary inquiries into the specified domestic transactions. The CASS scrutiny reasons also indicated these transactions were part of the assessment.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer framed a regular assessment without making any inquiry into the assessee's specified domestic transactions or referring them to the Transfer Pricing Officer. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax invoked revisionary powers under Section 263, deeming the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.
What were the issues?
Whether the Principal Commissioner was justified in revising the assessment order due to the Assessing Officer's failure to inquire into specified domestic transactions and refer them to the TPO.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT2,943 citing243 ITR 83 · 2000 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA
Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini
आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-14, Kolkata’s order dated 22.06.2017 directing the Assessing Officer to frame a fresh assessment after holding that its earlier regular assessment framed on 07.12.2016 had not made any inquiry by not making reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer, in proceedings u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Cases file perused.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026