1. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. v. CIT

332 ITR 231High Court2011#5047 most cited

What is 1. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An assessment order cannot be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue simply because the Commissioner disagrees with one of two possible views taken by the Assessing Officer, provided the Assessing Officer's view is legally sustainable.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. v. CIT · CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. · 332 ITR 231 · assessment order erroneous · prejudicial to revenue · two possible views · Assessing Officer · Commissioner disagreement · section 263

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 148B

Issues it is cited on

section 8d(2)(ii)ready for usesection 35(1)(i)section 35(1)(iv)section 35(1)(ii)section 45(5)(b)r&d expendituresection 35(1)section 23(2)section 244section 145a(b)inadequate enquiry

Judgments citing 1. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. v. CIT

ZARI SILK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 600/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 148BSection 263Section 69A

…ercises such powers in accordance with law, arrives at a just conclusion such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous only because the CIT does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. The Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 231 (Delhi) it has held that Assessing officer taking one of two possible views with which commissioner not agreeing the assessment order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Karnataka High Court after considering various judicial pronouncement in the case of CIT Vs. Gokul Das Exports (2011) 333 ITR 214…

ARUN PALAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL),, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 599/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 148BSection 263Section 69A

…ercises such powers in accordance with law, arrives at a just conclusion such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous only because the CIT does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. The Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 231 (Delhi) it has held that Assessing officer taking one of two possible views with which commissioner not agreeing the assessment order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Karnataka High Court after considering various judicial pronouncement in the case of CIT Vs. Gokul Das Exports (2011) 333 ITR 214…

ARUN KUMAR PALAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PR CIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Bhatra (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT D/R
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…th law, arrives at a just conclusion such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous only because the 14 Shri Arun Kumar Palawat, Jaipur. CIT does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. The Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 231 (Delhi) it has held that Assessing officer taking one of two possible views with which commissioner not agreeing the assessment order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Karnataka High Court after considering various judicial pronouncement in the case of CIT Vs. Gokul Das Exports (2011) 333 ITR 214…

SUBHASH CHAND DHINGRA ,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1063/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…ise when the two view are possible and datable that cannot be basis for holding an order to be erroneous. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following judgments:-  CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd: 332 ITR 231 (Del)  CIT v. DLF Limited: 350 ITR 555 (Del.)  CIT v. Ansal Properties & India (P.) Ltd.: 315 ITR 225 (Del.) 24. Relying the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Cartier Leaflin Pvt Ltd: [2020] 286 Taxman 222 it was submitted that when records suggest that assessing officer has made due enquiry during assessment proceedings before a…

ASHOK KUMAR DHINGRA ,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1061/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…ise when the two view are possible and datable that cannot be basis for holding an order to be erroneous. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following judgments:-  CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd: 332 ITR 231 (Del)  CIT v. DLF Limited: 350 ITR 555 (Del.)  CIT v. Ansal Properties & India (P.) Ltd.: 315 ITR 225 (Del.) 24. Relying the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Cartier Leaflin Pvt Ltd: [2020] 286 Taxman 222 it was submitted that when records suggest that assessing officer has made due enquiry during assessment proceedings before a…

SATISH KUMAR DHINGRA ,HARYANA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1060/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…ise when the two view are possible and datable that cannot be basis for holding an order to be erroneous. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following judgments:-  CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd: 332 ITR 231 (Del)  CIT v. DLF Limited: 350 ITR 555 (Del.)  CIT v. Ansal Properties & India (P.) Ltd.: 315 ITR 225 (Del.) 24. Relying the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Cartier Leaflin Pvt Ltd: [2020] 286 Taxman 222 it was submitted that when records suggest that assessing officer has made due enquiry during assessment proceedings before a…

HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 94/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…evenue. The AO is a quasi-judicial authority and his order cannot be held as erroneous only for the reason that the ld. Pr. CIT does not feel satisfied with his conclusions. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 231 held that the AO taking one of two plausible views with which the CIT is not agreeing, the assessment order cannot be termed as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Further the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court after considering various judicial pronouncements in the case of CIT vs. Gokul Das Exports (2011) 333 ITR 214 (Ka…

SHRI RADHA GOVIND LASHKARI,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Savita Bundas, (CIT D/R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ch powers in accordance with law, arrives at a just conclusion such conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous only because the CIT does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 231 (Delhi) it has held that Assessing officer taking one of two possible views with which Commissioner not agreeing the assessment order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court after considering various judicial pronouncements, in the case of CIT Vs. Gokul Das Exports (2011)…

M/S. TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 582/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

…s prejudicial to the interest of revenue so as to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. He relied on the following judgements:- 1. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83, 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282, 3. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231, IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 30 of 34 4. CIT Vs. Arvinda Jewellers 259 ITR 502 5. CIT Vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 34. Further, he submitted that the Principal CIT cannot substitute his own views on the issues whether AO has taken conscious de…

M/S TEJATS NETWORKS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1674/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

…s prejudicial to the interest of revenue so as to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. He relied on the following judgements:- 1. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83, 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282, 3. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231, IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 30 of 34 4. CIT Vs. Arvinda Jewellers 259 ITR 502 5. CIT Vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 34. Further, he submitted that the Principal CIT cannot substitute his own views on the issues whether AO has taken conscious de…

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 694/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

…s prejudicial to the interest of revenue so as to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. He relied on the following judgements:- 1. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83, 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282, 3. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231, IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 30 of 34 4. CIT Vs. Arvinda Jewellers 259 ITR 502 5. CIT Vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 34. Further, he submitted that the Principal CIT cannot substitute his own views on the issues whether AO has taken conscious de…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 621/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

…s prejudicial to the interest of revenue so as to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. He relied on the following judgements:- 1. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83, 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282, 3. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231, IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 30 of 34 4. CIT Vs. Arvinda Jewellers 259 ITR 502 5. CIT Vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 34. Further, he submitted that the Principal CIT cannot substitute his own views on the issues whether AO has taken conscious de…

TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 468/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

…s prejudicial to the interest of revenue so as to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. He relied on the following judgements:- 1. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83, 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282, 3. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231, IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 30 of 34 4. CIT Vs. Arvinda Jewellers 259 ITR 502 5. CIT Vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 34. Further, he submitted that the Principal CIT cannot substitute his own views on the issues whether AO has taken conscious de…

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 296/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

…s prejudicial to the interest of revenue so as to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. He relied on the following judgements:- 1. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83, 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282, 3. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231, IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 30 of 34 4. CIT Vs. Arvinda Jewellers 259 ITR 502 5. CIT Vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 34. Further, he submitted that the Principal CIT cannot substitute his own views on the issues whether AO has taken conscious de…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1119/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs
Section 154

…s prejudicial to the interest of revenue so as to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. He relied on the following judgements:- 1. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83, 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282, 3. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231, IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 30 of 34 4. CIT Vs. Arvinda Jewellers 259 ITR 502 5. CIT Vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 34. Further, he submitted that the Principal CIT cannot substitute his own views on the issues whether AO has taken conscious de…

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. PR.CIT, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Desai (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…aking enquiries or verification which a reasonable and prudent officer should have carried out in such cases. Under these facts and ratio decided by the Hon’ble Courts in case of CIT Vs. Green World Corporation 314 ITR 81 (SC), CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231 (Delhi), CIT-8, Bombay v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. 372 ITR 303 (Bombay) and CIT v. Reliance Communication Ltd (2017) 396 ITR 217, we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case of invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Therefore, we set aside the order of the ld. Pr. CIT and restore the assessment order on this issue in th…

M/S. GURU KRIPA CAREER INSTITUTE PVT. LTD.,SIKAR vs. PR.CIT-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 283/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Sept 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 68

…uld have carried out in such 15 ITA 283/JP/2020_ M/s Guru Kripa Career Institute P Ltd. Vs PCIT cases. Under these facts and ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Courts in case of CIT Vs Green World Corporation 314 ITR 81 (SC), CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231 (Delhi), CIT-8 Bombay Vs Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. 372 ITR 217, we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case of invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Therefore, we set aside the order of Ld. Pr CIT and restore the assessment order on this issue in the light of above deliberations. It is thus submitted that impugned order…

RAMESH KUMAR GOYAL HUF,HISAR vs. ITO, WARD-3, , HISAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1983/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaidr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar Ito, H.No.467, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar ITO, H.No.467, Urban Estate-II, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005 PAN: ACGPK7006A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar(HUF) ITO, H.No.467, Urban Estate-II, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K. Sampat, Advocate Shri V. Raja Kumar, Advocate Department by : Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 02-01-2019 Da…

RAMESH KUMAR,HISAR vs. ITO, WARD-3, HISAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaidr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar Ito, H.No.467, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar ITO, H.No.467, Urban Estate-II, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005 PAN: ACGPK7006A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar(HUF) ITO, H.No.467, Urban Estate-II, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K. Sampat, Advocate Shri V. Raja Kumar, Advocate Department by : Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 02-01-2019 Da…

VIJAY KUNDU,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 808/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 808/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Vijay Kundu, Vs Pr. Cit, C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Delhi-21, Cas, L-7A (Lgf), South Ext., New Delhi Part-2, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajnpk7914P Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2016 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-21, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 263

…e of the possible view after making the proper enquiries and the ld. CIT in his order passed u/s 263 of the Act directed the AO to make more enquiries. 21. On a similar issue, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 231 (supra) held as under: “that if the Assessing Officer had adopted one of the courses permissible in law, which resulted in loss of revenue or where two views were possible the Assessing Officer had taken one view with which the Commissioner did not agree, it could not be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue unl…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

1. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. v. CIT (332 ITR 231) — Cited in 23 Judgments | BharatTax