171 ITR 698 (All) CIT v. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust

171 ITR 141High Court1988#1560 most cited
73

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Goyal Private Family Specific Trust · CIT v Goyal Private Family Specific Trust · 171 ITR 698 · Section 263 · revisionary jurisdiction · erroneous assessment · prejudicial to revenue · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · power of revision

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 10(37)Section 145A(b)Section 151Section 56(2)(viii)

Issues it is cited on

section 141section 282a(1)section 194lasection 145a(b)section 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 145binadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263section 10(37)lack of enquiry

Judgments citing 171 ITR 698 (All) CIT v. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust

Career Point Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…e firm has furnished the requisite information and the NFAC has completed the assessment after considering all the facts, the order cannot be termed as erroneous. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. CIT v Ratlam Coal Ash Co (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 2. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) 3. CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 4. CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) . 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7. CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v Goal (J…

Nimita Soni Prop. Swaranlata Traders, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 41/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 263

…he issue in exercise of the jurisdiction Nimita Soni Prop. Swaranlata Traders under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions : 1. CIT v. Valliammal (D) 230 ITR 695 (Mad); 2. CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co., 171 ITR 141 (MP); 3. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v. ACIT, 65 ITD 1 (Cal); 4. CIT v. Mehrotra Brothers, 270 ITR 157 (MP); 5. CIT v. Parameshwar Bohra, 267 ITR 698 (Raj.); 6. Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT, 263 ITR 101 (Ker.); 7. CIT v. Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502 (Guj); 8. CIT v. Hastings Properties, 253 ITR 124 (Cal); 9. CIT v. Goal (J.P.) (HUF), 247 ITR 555 (Col…

Pratap Technocrats Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 225/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

…ished the requisite information and the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment after considering all the facts, the order cannot be termed as erroneous. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 4.8.i CIT v Ratlam Coal Ash Co (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 4.8.ii Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) 4.8.iii CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 4.8.iv CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) 4.8.v Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 4.8.vi CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 4.8.vii CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal)…

Kgk Homes, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

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

ITA 223/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

…sessee firm has furnished the requisite information and the NFAC completed the assessment after considering all the facts, the order cannot be termed as erroneous. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. CIT v Ratlam Coal Ash Co (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 2. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) 3. CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 4. CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7. CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF)…

Kaur Kookies (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-4, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1119/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263Section 36

…7ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. C/T [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC).” i) 437 IR 285 (Del) Pr. CIT v. Brahma Centre Development (P) Ltd. ii) 171 ITR 698 (All) CIT v. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust iii) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT v. KashniNath& Company iv) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT v. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. v) 430 ITR 55 (Kar) CIT vs. Cyber Park Development & Construction Ltd. vi) ITA No. 2519/Kol/2017 dated 18.4.2018 Garg Brothers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT vi) ITA Nos. 3281-3284/D/2015 dated 11.10.2019 Smt. ShumanaSen vs. DCIT vii) ITA No. 5239/D/2019 dated 21.2.2020 M/s Sunrays Cotspin (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT viii) ITA No. 320…

Sh. Gurjinder Singh, Amritsar vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT DR
Section 194CSection 263

…onclusion after considering those material and explanation—Mere fact that a different view could be taken cannot be a basis for an action under s. 263—Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order passed by the CIT under s. 263” CIT V Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 171 ITR 141 (1988) 17 Gurjinder Singh v. Pr.CIT “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Lack of proper enquiry by ITO— Assessment made by ITO after proper enquiry—Where the ITO makes assessment in undue hurry without making any enquiries, the CIT can hold the order to be erroneous—However, in the present case, Tribunal has found that assessee had furnis…

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

…ational Travel House: 344 ITR 554 (Del.)  CIT vs. Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.)  Fab India Overseas vs. CIT: 244 CTR 380 (Del.)  CIT vs. Vodafone Essar : 212 Taxman 184 (Del.)  CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj.)  CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 171 ITR 141 (MP)  CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP)  CIT vs. Associated Food Products (P) Ltd. 280 ITR 377 (MP)  CIT vs. Girdhari Lai: 258 ITR 331 (Raj.)  CIT vs. Raman Singh: 73 DTR 297 (MP.)  CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Bom.)  CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd.: 262 CTR 604 (Del.) 19. On merits the ld counsel submitted…

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

…ational Travel House: 344 ITR 554 (Del.)  CIT vs. Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.)  Fab India Overseas vs. CIT: 244 CTR 380 (Del.)  CIT vs. Vodafone Essar : 212 Taxman 184 (Del.)  CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj.)  CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 171 ITR 141 (MP)  CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP)  CIT vs. Associated Food Products (P) Ltd. 280 ITR 377 (MP)  CIT vs. Girdhari Lai: 258 ITR 331 (Raj.)  CIT vs. Raman Singh: 73 DTR 297 (MP.)  CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Bom.)  CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd.: 262 CTR 604 (Del.) 19. On merits the ld counsel submitted…

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

…ational Travel House: 344 ITR 554 (Del.)  CIT vs. Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.)  Fab India Overseas vs. CIT: 244 CTR 380 (Del.)  CIT vs. Vodafone Essar : 212 Taxman 184 (Del.)  CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj.)  CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 171 ITR 141 (MP)  CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP)  CIT vs. Associated Food Products (P) Ltd. 280 ITR 377 (MP)  CIT vs. Girdhari Lai: 258 ITR 331 (Raj.)  CIT vs. Raman Singh: 73 DTR 297 (MP.)  CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Bom.)  CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd.: 262 CTR 604 (Del.) 19. On merits the ld counsel submitted…

Mukesh Kumar Saraogi, Churu vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 186/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Smt. Shivangi Samdhani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. R. Meena (CIT)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…rnished the requisite information and the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment after considering all the facts, the order cannot be termed as erroneous. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. CIT v Ratlam Coal Ash Co (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 2. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) 3. CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 4. CIT v ParameshwarBohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7. CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (…

Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

ITA 126/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Prathviraj Meena (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 6(3)(ii)

…urnished the requisite information and the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment after considering all the facts, the order cannot be termed as erroneous. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i. CIT v Ratlam Coal Ash Co (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) ii. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) iii. CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) iv. CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) v. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) vi. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) vii. CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) viii. CIT v Goal (…

M/S. Leopard Vitrified Pvt. Ltd., Village Matel, Dist. Morbi vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 83/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: 12/05/2022
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ct and it cannot be held to be justified." 4.8 In CTT v. Mehrotra Brothers [2004] 270 1TR 157 (MP), the Hon'ble High Court gave the stamp of approval to the order of the Tribunal which, after relying on CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. [1987] 65 CTR (MP) 305/M9881 171 ITR 141 (MP), had held that when the AO considered the records before him and completed the assessment after considering the evidence filed and after his satisfaction about the genuineness of cash credits, the order of revision under s. 263 on the vague ground that the AO did not make proper enquiry was not valid. 4.9 Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court…

Nivedita Mahila Gramin Bigar Shetaki Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Navargaon vs. Pr. CIT -3, Nagpur

The appeals of the appellant are allowed in terms of aforesaid observation

ITA 123/NAG/2018[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Apr 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 123/Nag/2018 & 107/Nag/2019 आयकर िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 M/S Nivedita Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat Sanstha, Maryadit Dr Hedgewar Chowk, Navargaon, Shindewahi, Chandrapur – 441 223(Mh) Pan : Aaaan 3421 D . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3, Aayakar Bhavan, Nagpur – 440 001 (Mh) . . . . . . . ""यथ" / Respondent }Kjk / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Loya Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Headoo सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 15/02/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull, Am; Against The Revisionary Orders Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Nagpur [For Short “Pcit”] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Sprung Out Of Regular Orders Of Assessments Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, By The Income Tax Officer-Ward-3, Nagpur [For Shot “Ao”], The Appellant Assessee Filed These Appeals Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [For Short “Tribunal”] U/S 253 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Headoo
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263Section 80P

…eaving no air in assessments. 9.6 In this context it is apt to quote the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of “CIT vs Mehrotra Brothers” reported at 270 ITR 157 (MP), the Lordship relying on “CIT Vs Ratlam Coal Ash Co.” reported in 171 ITR 141, had held that when the AO considered the records before him and completed the assessment after considering the evidence filed and after his satisfaction about the genuineness of claim, the order of revision under Section 263 on the vague ground that the AO did not make proper enquiry was not valid. 9.7 In a similar occasion, the Hon’ble Delhi H…

M/S Radhishwari Devlopers P Ltd, Indore vs. Pr CIT -2 Indore, Indore

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

ITA 493/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jul 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…hmedabad Bench) 13-22 03 Pr Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs Narayan Balmukand 23-35 Dubey [2017 30 ITJ 335 (M.P)] 04 Director of Income Tax Vs Jyoti Foundation 36-41 [(2013) 357 ITR 355 (Delhi)] 05 Commissioner of Income Tax VS Ratlam Coal Ash. Co 42-43 [(1988) 171 ITR 141 (M.P)] 06 Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Mehrotra Brothers 43-44 [(2004) 270 ITR 157 (M.P)] 07 Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs International Travel 45-51 House Ltd [(2012 ITR 554 (Delhi)] 44 M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. 08 Income Tax Officer Vs D.G Housing Projects Ltd. 52-59 [(2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi)] 09 M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt…

M/S Ruchi J Oil Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT(A)Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 92C

…r further, on facts and law, view taken by Assessing Officer was one of possible views and, therefore, assessment order passed by Assessing Officer could not be held to be prejudicial to interest of revenue - Held, yes ii) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. - [1987] 171 ITR 141 (MP) HELD-“In the instant case, the Tribunal had found that the assessee had furnished all the requisite information and that the ITO considering all the facts had completed the assessment. It was further held that in the 14 M/s Ruchi J Oil Pvt. Ltd circumstances of the case,it could not be held that the ITO had made assessment without making pr…

M/S. Itt Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 344/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 344/Ahd/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.R
Section 142Section 144Section 263Section 263(1)Section 44A

…ndia) Ltd. (55 taxmann.com 514) (Mum HC) 7. CIT v. Jain Construction Co. (34 taxmann.com 84) (Raj HC) 8. Merrut Roller Flour Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1 10 taxmann.com 170) (Allahabad HC) 9. Munjal Casting Limited (303 ITR 23) (P&H HC) 10. CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. (171 ITR 141) (MP HC) 11. Ravi K Mody v. ITO (151 Taxmann 11) (Ahmedabad ITAT) 12. Cadila Healthcare Limited vs. CIT (51 Taxmann.com 255) (Ahmedabad ITAT) 13. Zaveri & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (48 taxmann.com 153) (Ahmedabad ITAT) 14. M/s. Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT (ITA No. 2211/Mum/2019forA.Y.2014-15) (Mumbai ITAT) 15. Antala Sanjayku…

Dhirendra International (P) Ltd., Neemuch vs. Pr. CIT Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

ITA 750/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…st co-exit for proceedings under section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 Tara Devi Aggarwal (Smt.) vs. CIT 88 ITR 323 (SC). CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 171 ITR 141 (MP). CIT vs.'Shri Govindram Seksariya Charity Trust 166 ITR 580 (MP) CIT vs. Gabrial India Ltd. 203 ITR 109 (Bom). CIT vs. Smt. Minalben S.Parikh 215 ITR 81 (Guj). CIT vs. Sohana Woollen Mills 296 ITR 238 (P& H). It is therefore prayed your honour that the proceedings may please be dropped. 23. The submissions made by the assessee could…

Shri Manoj Mundra, Indore vs. PCIT Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

ITA 637/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…st co-exit for proceedings under section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 Tara Devi Aggarwal (Smt.) vs. CIT 88 ITR 323 (SC). CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 171 ITR 141 (MP). CIT vs.'Shri Govindram Seksariya Charity Trust 166 ITR 580 (MP) CIT vs. Gabrial India Ltd. 203 ITR 109 (Bom). CIT vs. Smt. Minalben S.Parikh 215 ITR 81 (Guj). CIT vs. Sohana Woollen Mills 296 ITR 238 (P& H). It is therefore prayed your honour that the proceedings may please be dropped. 23. The submissions made by the assessee could…

Shri Manish Mundra, Indore vs. PCIT Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

ITA 635/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…st co-exit for proceedings under section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 Tara Devi Aggarwal (Smt.) vs. CIT 88 ITR 323 (SC). CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 171 ITR 141 (MP). CIT vs.'Shri Govindram Seksariya Charity Trust 166 ITR 580 (MP) CIT vs. Gabrial India Ltd. 203 ITR 109 (Bom). CIT vs. Smt. Minalben S.Parikh 215 ITR 81 (Guj). CIT vs. Sohana Woollen Mills 296 ITR 238 (P& H). It is therefore prayed your honour that the proceedings may please be dropped. 23. The submissions made by the assessee could…

Shri Govind Das Mundra, Indore vs. PCIT Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

ITA 634/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…st co-exit for proceedings under section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Aditya Mundra &Others ITA No.632, 634,635 & 637, 517 & 750/Ind/2019 Tara Devi Aggarwal (Smt.) vs. CIT 88 ITR 323 (SC). CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 171 ITR 141 (MP). CIT vs.'Shri Govindram Seksariya Charity Trust 166 ITR 580 (MP) CIT vs. Gabrial India Ltd. 203 ITR 109 (Bom). CIT vs. Smt. Minalben S.Parikh 215 ITR 81 (Guj). CIT vs. Sohana Woollen Mills 296 ITR 238 (P& H). It is therefore prayed your honour that the proceedings may please be dropped. 23. The submissions made by the assessee could…