CIT v. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex

395 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2017#1174 most cited

What is CIT v. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex authority for?

An assessment order can be revised under Section 263 only if it is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. This revisionary power cannot be exercised when the Assessing Officer adopted a permissible view or where there was merely inadequate enquiry, as distinct from a complete lack of enquiry.

97

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex · Section 263 · revisionary power · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · lack of enquiry · inadequate enquiry · Assessing Officer permissible view · two views possible · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. · Max India Ltd. · scope of revision

Also reported as

250 Taxmann 23

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 139(1)Section 147Section 115BBESection 131Section 132

Issues it is cited on

national tax tribunalsection 108section 117section 116section 46section 54ecinadequate enquirymalabar industrialsection 131(1)section 54bsection 114lack of enquiry

Judgments citing CIT v. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex

AMAZON SMART COMMERCE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

ITA 3533/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

…erests of the Revenue. 15. Reliance, in this regard, is placed on the following decisions: Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1 (SC) 16. It is further settled law that if the assessing officer has adopted one of the courses permissible in law which has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the assessing officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the exercise of revisionary power under section 263 of the Act would be wit…

M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 434/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 263Section 43(1)

…d in the assessment, even if such enquiry is inadequate, the CIT was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act: :-8-: ITA. No:434/Chny/2025 Page No. in Name of the Case Forum Citation case law compilation Kwality Steel Suppliers SC 395 ITR 1 6 Complex Virtusa Consulting Services (P.) 35 HC – Madras 442 ITR 385 Ltd. 332 ITR 167 67 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. HC-Delhi Clix Finance India (P.) Ltd HC – Delhi 298 Taxman 217 78 Spectra Shares & Scrips (P) Ltd. HC-Andra Pradesh 354 ITR 35 89 113 Chemsworth (P.) Ltd. HC – Karnataka 119 taxmann.com 358 133 Shriram Properties Limited ITAT – Chennai 2023 (…

ALANG STEEL RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1605/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalalang Steel Recycling The Pr. Cit-1, Private Limited Vs. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ground Floor, Shop No.G-1 Sukun-1, Bhilwara Circle Bhavnagar – 364 001 [ Pan: Aamca 4837 A ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue Represented By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr 08.12.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026

Section 263Section 37Section 69C

…lausible views, the order cannot be branded as erroneous merely because the Principal Commissioner prefers another view. This principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) and Kwality Steel Suppliers v. CIT (395 ITR 1). Alang Steel Recycling Private Limited vs. Pr.CIT A.Y: 2018-19 10.10. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the Assessing Officer, after examining the issue of alleged bogus purchases during the reassessment proceedings, has taken a legally permissible and plausible view by disallowing the entire amount of ₹77,61,745/- under section 3…

DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT - 1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

…a Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC).” The same principle has also been reiterated in the following cases: 259 ITR 502 (Guj), CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers • 354 ITR 489 (Kar), CIT vs. Digital Global Soft Ltd. • 295 ITR 282 (SC), CIT vs. Max India Ltd. • 395 ITR 1 (SC), CIT vs. Quality Steel Suppliers Complex • 6.2 Keeping into consideration the principle as propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial (supra), it has been further held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. in 333 ITR 547 that where the AO adopts one of the…

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1158/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…ssible and the AO has taken one such view after enquiry, the order cannot be branded as erroneous merely because the Commissioner holds another opinion. The same principle has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (395 ITR 1, SC), and more recently by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in PCIT v. Asiatic Bearing Co. (Tax Appeal No. 331 of 2024, judgment dated 04.03.2025). 8.3 Applying this distinction to the facts before us, it is evident that the present case falls not in the category of “lack of enquiry” but in the category of “enquiry made, and view taken.” The assessm…

RAJESH BALVANTRAI BRAHMBHATT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT(CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1157/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…ssible and the AO has taken one such view after enquiry, the order cannot be branded as erroneous merely because the Commissioner holds another opinion. The same principle has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (395 ITR 1, SC), and more recently by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in PCIT v. Asiatic Bearing Co. (Tax Appeal No. 331 of 2024, judgment dated 04.03.2025). 8.3 Applying this distinction to the facts before us, it is evident that the present case falls not in the category of “lack of enquiry” but in the category of “enquiry made, and view taken.” The assessm…

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,KHANJI BHAVAN vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, AAYAKAR BHAWAN(VEJALPUR), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 651/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80GSection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ]BEFORE S/SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt.Year : 2020-21 Gujarat Mineral Development The Pr.Commissioner of Corporation Ltd. Vs. Income Tax-1 6th Floor, Khanji Bhavan Vejalpur 132 Ft. Ring Road Ahmedabad. B/h. Gandhi Labour Institute Ahmedabad 380 052. PAN : AAACG 7987 P (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri S.N. Sop…

CT. RAMANATHAN (HUF),PUDUKKOTTAI vs. PCIT 1, MADURAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 761/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.761/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 C.T.Ramanathan(Huf), Income Tax Officer, No.7/45, Ct.Rm.S.House, M.St.S. Street Ward-1, Kulipirai, Pudukottai Dist, Pudukottai. Tamil Nadu-622 402. [Pan: Aaahc0701L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.V.Subbarayan, Dcit(Retd.) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.M.K.Biju, Cir Dr By Virtual. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.V.Subbarayan, DCIT(Retd.)For Respondent: Mr.M.K.Biju, CIR DR by virtual
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3

…nd 'inadequate enquiry. It is only in cases of lack of inquiry that such a Page - 15 - of 26 ITA No.761 /Chny/2025 course of action under section 263 would be open. In this regard, we may refer the following judicial precedents: - Kwality Steel Suppliers SC 395 ITR 1 Complex Virtusa Consulting Services HC-Madras 442 ITR 385 (P.) Ltd. Globus Infocom Ltd. HC-Delhi 369 ITR 14 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. HC-Delhi 332 ITR 167 Mohak Real Estate (P.) Ltd HC-Delhi 161 taxmann.com 388 Clix Finance India (P.) Ltd HC-Delhi 298 Taxman 217 Spectra Shares & Scrips (P) HC-Andra 354 ITR 35 Ltd. Pradesh Chemsworth (P.) Ltd. HC-Karnataka…

BALUBHAI KIKABHAI PATEL,VALSAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 461/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.461/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Balubhhai Kikabhai Patel Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ Nahuli, Karmbele, Umbergon, Income-Tax, Valsad, Room No. Vs. Surat-396 105 301, 3Rd Floor, Palak Arcade, Shanti Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Akqpp 2563 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 13/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

…permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two view are possible and the AO has taken one view with which the Ld.PCIT did not agree. It has been so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex, 395 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC). Hence, the order of the AO cannot be said to be amenable for revision under the provisions of Section 263 of the Act. 7. The Ld. AR also submitted that the assessee had filed appeal before CIT(A) and the CIT(A) had passed order u/s 250 dismissing the appeal. Since the order was subject-matter of the…

VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3533/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

…erests of the Revenue. 15. Reliance, in this regard, is placed on the following decisions: Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1 (SC) 16. It is further settled law that if the assessing officer has adopted one of the courses permissible in law which has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the assessing officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the exercise of revisionary power under section 263 of the Act would be wit…

SHREE AURO IRON LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 263Section 48

…{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR\nडा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री गगन गोयल, लेखा सदस्य, के समक्ष\nBEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 788/JPR/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17\nShree Auro Iron Limited,\nबनाम Principal Commissioner of\n11, Dudu Bagh,\nVs. Income-tax-I,\nLoha Mandi S.C. Link Road,\nJaipur.\nJaipur.\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAECS 0826 R\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by\n: Shr…

SANKET JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 479/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…e Commissioner, viz. (i) an order passed by the Assessing Officer is considered to be erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC) the order of the A.O cannot be termed as prejudicial simply because he had adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it had resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the A.O had taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree. Accordingly, where two views are possible and the A.O had taken one view and…

SAMPAT LAL JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 478/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…e Commissioner, viz. (i) an order passed by the Assessing Officer is considered to be erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC) the order of the A.O cannot be termed as prejudicial simply because he had adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it had resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the A.O had taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree. Accordingly, where two views are possible and the A.O had taken one view and…

SMT. PUSHPA JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 237/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…e Commissioner, viz. (i) an order passed by the Assessing Officer is considered to be erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC) the order of the A.O cannot be termed as prejudicial simply because he had adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it had resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the A.O had taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree. Accordingly, where two views are possible and the A.O had taken one view and…

SMT. TILOTTAMA JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 236/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…e Commissioner, viz. (i) an order passed by the Assessing Officer is considered to be erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC) the order of the A.O cannot be termed as prejudicial simply because he had adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it had resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the A.O had taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree. Accordingly, where two views are possible and the A.O had taken one view and…

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 235/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…e Commissioner, viz. (i) an order passed by the Assessing Officer is considered to be erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC) the order of the A.O cannot be termed as prejudicial simply because he had adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it had resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the A.O had taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree. Accordingly, where two views are possible and the A.O had taken one view and…

SANJOG JHABAK L/H OF LATE GAUTAM CHAND JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 234/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…e Commissioner, viz. (i) an order passed by the Assessing Officer is considered to be erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC) the order of the A.O cannot be termed as prejudicial simply because he had adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it had resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the A.O had taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree. Accordingly, where two views are possible and the A.O had taken one view and…

SANJOG JHABAK, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 233/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate
Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…e Commissioner, viz. (i) an order passed by the Assessing Officer is considered to be erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC) the order of the A.O cannot be termed as prejudicial simply because he had adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it had resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the A.O had taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree. Accordingly, where two views are possible and the A.O had taken one view and…

MIKUNI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ALWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PCIT,

12. In view of the above discussion, we find merit in this appeal, when the assessment order dated 27

ITA 745/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: passing the impugned order, Learned PCIT issued notice to the assessee, as Learned PCIT found that the Assessing Officer, while framing the above said assessment and the making addition, did not initiate penalty proceedings 270A of the Act. Learned PCIT was of the view that penalty proceedings were to be initiated under the said provision on account of misreporting of income, which came to be added by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee company. It being a Transfer Pri

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Agarwal, C.A. (Through V.C.) &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 194C(5)Section 263Section 270ASection 92CSection 94C

…ourt in the case of CIT vs. Max India Limited [388 ITR 81].  Copy of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Limited [295 ITR 282].  Copy of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (395 ITR 1].  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. [343 ITR 329]. Herein, as noticed above, the Assessing Officer has nowhere observed, while passing the assessment order that it was a case of under reporting or 10 Mikuni India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT misreporting of income by the assessee company. That…

RIDHHI SIDDHI JWELLERS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.135/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S.Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers The Pr.Cit-3 बनाम/ Pvt.Ltd. Ahmedabad – 380 015 V/S. 41/42/2, Khodiar Chowk Opp: Panchmukhi Hanmanji Temple Paldigam, Ahmedabad-390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafcr 1736 C अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…AO’s acceptance of one view does not make the order erroneous. The PCIT cannot invoke Section 263 merely because he holds a different opinion from the AO. The placed reliance on some judicial precedent including in the case of CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers (395 ITR 1) [SC] and in the case of CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502) [Guj HC]. 4.7. The PCIT, in the show-cause notice, implied that the inquiry conducted by the AO was inadequate and that more detailed verification of the cash sales was required. The AR refuted this, arguing that inadequacy of inquiry does not make the order erroneous, and unless ther…

Showing 1–20 of 97 · Page 1 of 5

CIT v. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (395 ITR 1) — Cited in 97 Judgments | BharatTax