2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 9. CIT v. Amalgamations Ltd.

232 ITR 945High Court1998#13797 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

malabar industrial amalgamation non-application of mind erroneous and prejudicial faceless assessment section 263 section 26 scrutiny assessment section 143(2)section 142(1)section 143 total income

Judgments citing 2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 9. CIT v. Amalgamations Ltd.

Naresh Kumar Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 221/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan SoganiFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka, CIT

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7.3.vii CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 7.3.viii CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 7.3.ix CIT v Amalgamations Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 963 (Mad) 7.3.x CIT v Macneill Magore Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 945 (Cal) 7.4. Where the NFAC has exercised the quasi-judicial power vested in it in accordance with law and arrived at a conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be considered erroneous simply because the Commissioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. 7.5. Provision of Section 263 no-where allows to challenge the judicial wisdom of NFAC…

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

…ons 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); 10. CIT v. Amalgamations Ltd., 238 ITR 963 (Mad); 11. ClT v. Macneill Magore Ltd., 232 ITR 945 (Col.) (b) Simply because the Commissioner of Income Tax felt that the assessment order is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue by itself would not be enough to vest the Commissioner with the power of suo moto revision because the first requirement of Section, namely, the order is "erroneous" is lacking. Reliance is placed on the following dec…

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

…CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 4.8.vii CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 4.8.viii CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 4.8.ix CIT v Amalgamations Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 963 (Mad) 4.8.x CIT v MacneillMagore Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 945 (Cal) 4.9 Moreover, assessment order dated 29.03.2021, was passed under E-Assessment Scheme, 2019. Under E-Assessment Scheme, 2019, the assessments are completed through the following units: 4.9.i Assessment Unit 4.9.ii Verification Unit 4.9.iii Technical Unit 4.9.iv Review Unit 15 Pratap Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. Thus, after introduction of E-As…

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

…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) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 9. CIT v Amalgamations Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 963 (Mad) 10. CIT v Macneill Magore Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 945 (Cal) 7. Where the NFAC has exercised the quasi-judicial power vested in it in accordance with law and arrived at a conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be considered erroneous simply because the Commissioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. 8. Provision of section 263 no-where allows to challenge the judicial wisdom of Id. AO/NFAC…

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

…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) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 9. CIT v Amalgamations Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 963 (Mad) 10. CIT v MacneillMagore Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 945 (Cal) 1. Without prejudice to aboveand without agreeing it is submitted that if the provisions of section 115BBE are made applicable then also rate of 60% cannot be applied because of the following reasoning: 1. The provisions of Section 115BBE were inserted in the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Finance Act, 2012, with effect from 1.04.2013 and the rat…

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)

…1 (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 (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) ix. CIT v Amalgamations Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 963 (Mad) x. CIT v Macneill Magore Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 945 (Cal) 14. Where the Assessing Officer has exercised the quasi-judicial power vested in him in accordance with law and arrived at a conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be considered erroneous simply because the Commissioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. 15. Provision of section 263 no where allows to challenge the judicial wisdo…

Ultratech Cement Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Central - 1, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2999/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhita No. 3000/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ita No. 3001/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, D.R

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(2)Section 80I

…nd various other decisions as under: • CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers (270 ITR 157) (MP) • CIT vs. Parameshwar Bohra (267 ITR 698) (Raj) • CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502) (Guj) • CIT vs. J.P Goal (HUE) (247 ITR 555) (Cal) • CIT vs. Macneill Magore Limited (232 ITR 945) (Cal) • CIT vs. Amalgamations Limited (238 ITR 963) (Mad) • Lark Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT[2011] (16 taxmann.com 13) (Mum) • Ashok Kumar Parasramka vs. ACIT (65 lTD 1) (Kol) Finally, the ld. A.R contended that by no stretch of imagination the order passed by the A.O be treated as erroneous even if it is considered to be prejudicial to the interest…