Which sections of the Income Tax Act does (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 263, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 147.

(1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd.

Q: How many judgments cite (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd.?

52 judgments on BharatTax cite (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (242 ITR 490), spanning 2010 to 2026.

242 ITR 490High Court2000#2210 most cited

What is (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. authority for?

A valid order for revision under Section 263 requires the Commissioner to expressly find that the Assessing Officer's order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. An assessment order becomes erroneous if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct proper or meaningful inquiry.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. · Section 263 · revision under Section 263 · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry by AO · Commissioner revisionary powers · valid order Section 263 · short levy of tax · AO's failure to make addition

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 263 Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 147 Section 10 Section 11

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenue revision u/s 263 faceless assessment scheme inadequate enquiry malabar industrial revision under section 263 lack of enquiry section 263(1)erroneous and prejudicial section 119 faceless assessment complete scrutiny

Judgments citing (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd.

Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1357/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…us because such an inquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct." 9. This principle was reiterated in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd., 242 ITR 490 in the following manner:- "It is no doubt true that for making a valid order under section 263 of the Act, it is essential for the Commissioner to record an express finding that the order sought to be revised was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In the instant case, the Commissioner had recorded such a finding and…

Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota vs. PCIT, Udaipur

ITA 605/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Said Appeal Is Pending Before Learned Cit(A), As Claimed By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri B.L. Bhojwani, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 263Section 68

…e:-  Malabar Industrial Limited v/s CIT, 243 ITR ( S.C);  TTK LIG Ltd., v/s ACIT, (Mad) 51 DTR 228;  Arvee International v/s Addl. CIT, (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495.  CIT vs Raisons Industries ltd, 288 ITR 322 (SC); and  Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 ( Mad. H.C) 12. In para 7.4 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer dealt with the issue of cash deposit and observed that the assessee had deposited cash to the tune of Rs. 2,98,62,000/- with HDFC Bank and sum of Rs. 11,39,49,000/- with ICICI Bank. 8 Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota. As regards the reply submitted by the assessee relating…

Wind Financial Services LLP, Daman & Diu vs. PCIT, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 502/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.501 & 502/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Wind Financial Services Llp, Vs. The Pcit, [Formerly Known Wind Financial Valsad Services Pvt. Ltd.] Shop No.102/A, 436 Sq Feet Built Up, Dabhel, Daman & Diu, Valsad – 396215 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfw6369H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri S. N. Divetia, Ar Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From The Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad [In Short, ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 16.03.2024 For Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since Facts Of The Cases & The Grounds Taken Up In The Appeals Are Similar Except Variation In The Amount, These Appeals Were Heard Together & A Common Order Is Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. Ita No. 501/Srt/2024 Is Taken As The ‘Lead Case’.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…s.47,44,000/-, which resulted in short levy of tax of Rs.15,65,520/-; hence, the order is also prejudicial to the interests of revenue. He has relied on the decision in cases of CIT vs. Puspa Devi, 29 Taxman 377 (Pat.), CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd., 242 ITR 490 (Mad.), CIT vs. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation, 186 Taxman 105 (HP) and CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 240 Taxman 221 (SC). As a result, he set aside the order of AO dated 25.03.2022 with a direction to AO to frame fresh assessment as per the discussion made in the 263 order. He also directed AO to make proper and meaningful enquiry on the iss…

Wind Financial Services LLP, Daman & Diu vs. PCIT, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 501/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Alok Vijawat, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Udaipur

ITA 605/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…1 आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 605/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2019-20 Shri Alok Vijawat cuke The PCIT Vs. Udaipur Station Road, Masjid Ke Samne Bhawani Mandi, Jhalawar 326 502 LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AERPV0538 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Devang Gargieya, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: M…

Baroda Rajasthan Khestriya Gramin Bank, Ajmer vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ng, he may not only pass an appropriate order in exercise of the said jurisdiction but in order to enable him to do it, he may make such inquiry as he deems necessary in this behalf." (v) Madras High Court in the case of Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 490 (Mad.) has held that the powers of the Commissioner are very wide in exercising the powers of revision u/s 263. It is no doubt true that for making a valid order u/s 263, it is essential for the Commissioner to record an express finding that the order sought to be revised was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Howeve…

Sourabh Sharma, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

…ustrial Co. Ltd., v. CIT (SC) 243 ITR 83 Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd., v. ITO (ITAT, SB-Chennai), 121 ITD 343: 313 ITR (AT) 182 SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT 2010-TIOL-646-HC-MAD-IT Madras High Court in the case of Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 490 (Mad.) wherein it is held that the powers of the Commissioner are very wide in exercising the powers of revision u/s 263. It is no doubt true that for making a valid order u/s 263, it is essential for the Commissioner to record an express finding that the order sought to be revised was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the reven…

The Lake Palace Hotels & Motelsprivate Limited, Udaipur vs. PCIT, Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 52/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

…ing, he may not only pass an appropriate order in exercise of the said jurisdiction but in order to enable him to do it, he may make such inquiry as he deems necessary in this behalf." (v) Madras High Court in the case of Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 490 (Mad.) has held that the powers of the Commissioner are very wide in exercising the powers of revision u/s 263. It is no doubt true that for making a valid order u/s 263, it is essential for the Commissioner to record an express finding that the order sought to be revised was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Howeve…

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

…ital reserves much more than the investment in MF/Equities. The ld PCIT without pointing out defect in the reply of the assessee and by assuming the wrong facts and figures, passed revisionary order u/s 263 of the Act. e) Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd [2000] 242 ITR 490 Mad This case is also not applicable to the case of assessee in hand. As stated earlier that the ld FAO passed the order u/s 143(3) after making the proper inquiries. The assessee’s claim that its non interest bearing funds i.e. share capital and reserves are 42 Career Point Limited, Kota. much more than investment which may result exempt income…

Shri Madhopur Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti, Shrimadhopur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agarwal (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…The order becomes erroneous because such an inquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct.” 1. Madras High Court in the case of Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 490 (Mad.)has held that the powers of the Commissioner are very wide in exercising the powers of revision u/s 263. It is no doubt true that for making a valid order u/s 263, it is essential for the Commissioner to record an express finding that the order sought to be revised was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. However…

Trivitron Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 1340/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1340/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 V. M/S.Trivitron Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner- “Sapthagiri Bhavan”, Of Income Tax, New No.15, Old No.25, Corporate Circle-3(1), Trivitron Sapthagiri Bhawan, Chennai. 4Th Street, Abhiramapuram, Chennai. [Pan: Aaact 9378 H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Mr.M.Rajan, CIT

Section 119Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…ot mean that there is lack of application of mind on the part of AO. The order must be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, that is both conditions have to be concurrently satisfied in order to invoke section 263 (CIT Vs Seshasayee Paper Boards Ltd (2000 242 ITR 490, 500 -Madras). The CIT Appeals has set aside all the 3 issues namely Depreciation on goodwill, Provision for warranty and Disallowance under 14A read with Rule 8D to the Assessing Officer for verification. The Appellant submits: a) There is no ground to revise the order passed earlier under section 143(3) by the AO under section 263 of the IT…

Castamet Works Private Limited, Kharwa vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur

ITA 187/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)

…Ld. PCIT i. Malabar Industrial Limited V/S CIT2431TR ii. TTK LIG Ltd.. v/s. ACIT(Mad) 51 DTR 228 iii. Arvee international v/s. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495, iv. CIT v/s. Raisons Industries Ltd., 288 ITR 322 (SC v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 490 (Mad.) 44 Castamet Works Private Limited vs. PCIT SUBMISSION: 77. The submission on this ground is without prejudice to the fact that no basis has been provided in the impugned order as to how the order dated 14.12.2019 is erroneous in as much is prejudicial to the interest of revenue as duly contended in ground no 1 and 2 above. 78. The submis…

M/S. Jai Maa Hiral Enterprise, Khambhaliya vs. The Pr. CIT, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 128/RJT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…isions wherein the action u/s. 263 were upheld in the circumstances when the assessments were completed without conducting proper inquiries. a. CJT v. Pushpa Devi [1987] 164 ITR 639 [l988] 29 Taxman 377 (Pat). b. CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 490/108 Taxman 464 (Mad.). c. CIT, Patiala v. Hirnachal Pradesh Financial Corpn. [2010] 186 Taxman 186(HP). d. CIT. Dehradun v. Sunil Goyal [2005)] 176 Taxman 184 (Uttarakhand). e. CJT v. Modi Brother [2007] 164 Taxman 331 (MP). f Mammlal Matadeen v. C!T[2006] 152 Taxman 125 (all.). I.T.A No. 128/Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 6 M/s. Jai Maa Hira…

M/S Kinnor Kinnoree, Kolkata vs. CIT-X, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/KOL/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…r is fully empowered to adopt any one of the three courses indicated by the provisions of Sec. 263 and the Commissioner’s power cannot be faulted because he cancelled the assessment and directed a fresh assessment. CIT V. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490, 496 (Mad). It would be sufficient if he comes to the conclusion on materials that the order of the Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and if such a conclusion is arrived at on materials on record, it is not necessary for him it record his final conclusion on the merits of the case and it is open to the Commissioner…

Sun Stone Ingineering Induries P.Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pcti-2, Jaipur

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 50/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Avdhesh Kumar (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 263

…TAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495. • CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. 345 ITR 135 (Delhi H.C.). • Gee Vee Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (1975) 99 ITR 375. • CIT vs. Raisons Industries Ltd. 288 ITR 322 (SC). • Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad H.C.). 7. The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted before us that the revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act could be exercised within two years from 5 Sun Stone Engineering Industries P. Ltd. the end of the financial year in which the assessment was completed in terms of section 263(2). Accordingly, in the presence case, the revisi…

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 57/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)

Section 263Section 5

…rvee International Vs. Addl CIT (ITAT-Mum) 101 ITD 495 (iv) CIT Vs. Nagesh Knitwears P. Ltd. 345 ITR 135 (Del- HC) (v) Gee Vee Enterprise Vs. Additional CIT 99 ITR 375 (vi) CIT Vs. Raisions Industries Ltd. 288 ITR 322 (SC) (vii) Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. 242 ITR 490 (Mad) In view of the above, I hold that the order passed by the AO on 20.12.2018 was passed without conducting necessary inquires and without verifying necessary details which AO ought to have done considering the issues involved and the facts of the case as mentioned in Para's above. The order passed by the AO on 20.12.2018 is therefore, held t…

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Developement Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 56/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)

Section 263Section 5

Hill Queen Investment Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 643/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Hill Queen Investment (P) Ltd...……………………....................................……………..…….............Appellant Surobala Apartments Flat No. 202 3Rd Floor Block-B Rekhjuani, Bhatinda Rajarhat Kolkata – 700 135 [Pan : Aaacj 2324 P] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata..................…………...............................…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Devi Sharan Singh, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 6Th, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 21St, 2021 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 20/03/2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 223 (Two Hundred Twenty Three) Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation For Delay, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause In Filing The Appeal In Time. Hence, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.20,40,470/- On 28/09/2015. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny For The Following Reasons:- “(I) Mismatch In Sales Turnover Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Ii) Mismatch In Amount Paid To Related Persons U/S 40A(2)(B) Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Iii) Suspicious Sale Transaction In Shares (Penny Stock Tab In Its)”

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

…CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Addl. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Addl. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad), CWT vs. Prithvi Raj & Co. (1991) 98 CTR Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad), CWT vs. Prithvi Raj & Co. (1991) 98 CTR Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad), CWT vs. Prithvi Raj & Co. (1991) 98 CTR (Del) 216 : (1993) 199 (Del) 216 : (1993) 199 ITR 424 (Del) and J.P. Srivastava& Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. vs. ITR 424 (Del) and J.P. Srivastava& Sons (…

Satish Kumar Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 260/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…I.T.A No. 260/Kol/2019 Satish Kumar Lakhmani, AY 2014-15 आयकर अपीलीय अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")Before "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/and "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 260/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Satish Kumar Lakhmani Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income- (PAN: ABYPL4427B) tax-10, Kolkata. Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (Virtual) 08.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement 21.04.2021 For the Appellant Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent John Vincent Donkupar…

Smt. Usha Devi Modi, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-10(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 874/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S. S.Godara)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…CIT, the order should be written more elaborately.—Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1 : (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad), CWT vs. Prithvi Raj & Co. (1991) 98 CTR (Del) 216 : (1993) 199 ITR 424 (Del) and J.P. Srivastava& Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 326 (All) relied on. (Paras 6 & 7) In the entire order emphasis laid by the CIT is that in respect of four issues mentioned by him, no queries were raised by the AO. On this premise, though it is obse…