256 ITR 603 (P&H); CIT v. Arunaben Sumankumar

272 ITR 309High Court2005#6617 most cited

What is 256 ITR 603 (P&H); CIT v. Arunaben Sumankumar authority for?

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct adequate enquiry into the facts and circumstances of the case, indicating a non-application of mind. Such an order can be revised under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Arunaben Sumankumar · 256 ITR 603 · 272 ITR 309 · section 263 · revision · erroneous and prejudicial · lack of enquiry · non-application of mind · assessment order

Sections most often in play

Section 54BSection 10BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 48

Issues it is cited on

assessment order erroneousmalabar industrialsection 129lack of enquiryerroneous and prejudicialnon-application of mindlimited scrutinysection 119share application moneycomplete scrutinysection 263section 26

Judgments citing 256 ITR 603 (P&H); CIT v. Arunaben Sumankumar

Avinash Dattatray Muley, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune

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

ITA 624/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 48Section 54B

…ion in the present proceedings falls within the ambit of the provisions of section 263 is supported by many judicial precedents. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhagvandas [(2005) 272 ITR 367(ALL)] and also in the case of P.T. Lashkari Ram [(2005) 272 ITR 309(ALL)] and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. [(2003) (260 ITR 599(MAD)] have held that action under section 263 is valid where the assessment order is passed without application of 5 mind and without conducting proper inquiry. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Indu…

Sonal Sandeep Satav, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune-2, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 945/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ation in the present proceedings falls within the ambit of the provisions of section 263 is supported by many judicial precedents. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhagvandas[(2005) 272 ITR 367(ALL)] and also in the case of P.T.Lashkari Ram [(2005) 272 ITR 309(ALL)] and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd.((2003) (260 ITR 599(MAD)] have held that action under section 263 is valid where the assessment order is passed without application of mind and without conducting proper inquiry. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industr…

Nihilent Limited, Pune vs. PCIT-2, Pune

ITA 929/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Prakash
Section 139Section 263Section 90

…ion in the present proceedings falls within the ambit of the provisions of section 263 is supported by many judicial precedents. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhagvandas [(2005) 272 ITR 367(ALL)) and also in the case of P.T. Lashkari Ram [(2005) 272 ITR 309(ALL)] and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd.((2003) 260 ITR 599(MAD)] have held that action under section 263 is valid where the assessment order is passed without application of mind and without conducting proper inquiry. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industri…

Nihilent Limited, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune

ITA 928/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Prakash
Section 139Section 263Section 90

…ion in the present proceedings falls within the ambit of the provisions of section 263 is supported by many judicial precedents. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhagvandas [(2005) 272 ITR 367(ALL)) and also in the case of P.T. Lashkari Ram [(2005) 272 ITR 309(ALL)] and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd.((2003) 260 ITR 599(MAD)] have held that action under section 263 is valid where the assessment order is passed without application of mind and without conducting proper inquiry. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industri…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Nagpur vs. M/S. Suflam Infra Project Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 46/NAG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CTI DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…the assessment order erroneous in so far that it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The view taken by the AO is an erroneous and not a possible or plausible view. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhagavandas (272 ITR 267) and P.T. Lakshar Ram (272 ITR 309) and the Madras High Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. (260 ITR 599) have held that action u/s 263 is valid where the assessment order is passed without conducting proper ITA NO.97/NAG/2019 & ITA NO. 46/NAG/2021 & CO NO.6/NAG/2023 Sufalam Infra Projects Ltd vrs Pr.CIT (Central) enquiry. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Suprem…

Sufalam Infra Projects Ltd, Nagpur vs. Pr. CIT (Central ), Nagpur

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 97/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CTI DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…the assessment order erroneous in so far that it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The view taken by the AO is an erroneous and not a possible or plausible view. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhagavandas (272 ITR 267) and P.T. Lakshar Ram (272 ITR 309) and the Madras High Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. (260 ITR 599) have held that action u/s 263 is valid where the assessment order is passed without conducting proper ITA NO.97/NAG/2019 & ITA NO. 46/NAG/2021 & CO NO.6/NAG/2023 Sufalam Infra Projects Ltd vrs Pr.CIT (Central) enquiry. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Suprem…

Barclays Bank Plc, Mumbai vs. CIT (International Taxation)-Range-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 827/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 37

…d by the AO must be erroneous. Second is that the error must be such that it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue These two pre-requisite conditions were fulfilled in this case 11.5. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Pt. Lashkari Ram 272 ITR 309(Al1), wherein it has been held that failure to make sufficient enquiry with regard to the revised income justified revision u/s 263. In the case of Ramapyari Devi Saraogi 67 ITR 84(SC), it was held that where Assessment completed in undue haste and without making proper enquiry, the CIT can invoke revisional power under sec. 263. 11.6. In the cas…

Shri Krishna Mohan Chuorsiya, Rajgarh vs. The Pr. CIT Ujjain, Ujjain

ITA 626/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Krishna Mohan Pr. Cit Choursiya(Prop. Of M/S Laxmi Ujjain Mp बनाम/ Auto Parts) Vs. Ward No.14, Bus Stand, Kurawar Rajgarh(M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aempc3634G

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

…me-tax v.Deepak Kumar Garg 299 ITR 435 (Madhya 7. Pradesh) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahavar Traders 220 ITR 167 (Madhya 8. Pradesh) 9. Smt. Renu Gupta v. Commissioner oflncome-tax 301 ITR 45 (Rajasthan) 10. PT. Lashkari Ram v. Commissioner of Income-tax 272 ITR 309 (Allahabad) Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala v. Himachal Pradesh 186 Taxman 105 (Himachal 11. Financial Corpn. Pradesh) Commissioner of income tax V/s Prafulla C.Pant And 176 Taxman 184 12 Dharam Veer JJ (Uttrakhand) Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co.Ltd.V/s Commissioner 238 ITR 867 (Madras) 13 Of Income tax Durgalal & Co. Vis Commissioner Oflnc…

Shri Shaligram Barod, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 625/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 54Section 54BSection 54FSection 54F(1)

…299 ITR 435 (Madhya Garg 7. Pradesh) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahavar Traders 220 ITR 167 (Madhya 8. Pradesh) 9. Smt. Renu Gupta v. Commissioner oflncome-tax 301 ITR 45 (Rajasthan) 21 Shaligram Borad 10. PT. Lashkari Ram v. Commissioner of Income-tax 272 ITR 309 (Allahabad) Commissioner of Income-tax, Patia1a v. Himachal 186 Taxman 105 Pradesh Financial Corpn. (Himachal 11. Pradesh) Commissioner of income tax Vis Prafulla C.Pant 176 Taxman 184 And 12 Dharam Veer JJ (Uttrakhand) Mofussi1 Warehouse & Trading Co.Ltd.V/s 238 ITR 867 (Madras) Commissioner 13 Of Income tax 14 Durga1a1 & Co. Vis Commissioner Of…

M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. The Pr CIT, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 742/IND/2018[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jun 2020

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pr.Cit-2, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Bhopal D-1, Machna Colony, 6 No Bus Stop, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aagcs8307M Appellant By Shri Arun Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit Date Of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01.06.2020 O R D E R

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

…V/s Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (DelhiHC) (xi) Bhushan Steel Ltd V/s ACIT ITAT A Bench Delhi (xii) CIT V Deepak Kumar Garg 299 ITR 435 (M.P) (xiii) CIT V Mahavar Traders 220 ITR 167 (M.P) (xiv) Smt. Renu Gupta v CIT 301 ITR 45 (Rajasthan) (xv) PT Lashkari Ram V CIT 272 ITR 309 (Allahabad) (xvi) CIT V Himachal Pradesh Financial Corpn. 186 Taxman 105 (Himachal Pradesh) (xvii) CIT v/s Prafulla C Pant and Dharam Veer JJ 176 ITANo.742/Ind/2018 Taxman 184 (Uttrakhand) (xviii) Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd V CIT 238 ITR 867(Madras) (xix) Durgalal & Co. V CIT 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) (xx) CIT V Active Traders (P) Ltd 24ITR…

M/S. Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 355/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 35A

…me-tax v.Deepak Kumar Garg 299 ITR 435 (Madhya 7. Pradesh) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahavar Traders 220 ITR 167 (Madhya 8. Pradesh) 9. Smt. Renu Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax 301 ITR 45 (Rajasthan) 10. PT. Lashkari Ram v. Commissioner of Income-tax 272 ITR 309 (Allahabad) 11 Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala v. Himachal Pradesh 186 Taxman 105 (Himachal . Financial Corpn. Pradesh) Commissioner of income tax V/s Prafulla C.Pant And Dharam 176 Taxman 184 12 Veer JJ (Uttrakhand) Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd.V/s Commissioner Of 238 ITR 867 (Madras) 13 Income tax 14 Durgalal & Co. Vis Commissioner…

Sh. Nittan Aneja, Sbs Nagar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, both the assessee’s appeal and the Revenue’s C

ITA 288/ASR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 288/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Joshi (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…or Tobacco Products (P.) Ltd. [1998] 234 ITR 557 (MP); Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 867 (Mad); CIT vs. Export House [2002] 256 ITR 603 (P&H); CIT vs. Arunaben Sumankumar [2003] 259 ITR 386 (Guj); Pt. Lashkari Ram vs. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 309 (All); CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT vs. Toyota Motor Corpn. [2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del) (affirmed by the apex court vide its judgment at [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC)), on some of which reliance stands placed by the ld. Pr. CIT as well (refer para 6, pgs. 12-13 of his order) (also refer: Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 121 ITD…

Lally Motors India Pvt. Ltd, Jalandhar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 218/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 218(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Sameer Bhatia (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D. R.)
Section 119Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 218(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Lally Motors India (P.) Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Civil Lines, Income Tax-2, Jalandhar. Jalandhar. [PAN: AABCL4446M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Sameer Bhatia (Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D. R.) Date of Hearing: 15.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 12.04.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the Order by the Pr. Commissioner of In…

Lakshmiwadi Mines & Minerals P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 21, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3587/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3587/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Lakshmiwadi Mines & Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Minerals Private Ltd., Tax – 2, V. Yusuf Building, 3 Rd Floor, R. No. 344, Room No. 20, Aayakar Bhavan, 43-45, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl 1756 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “A” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3587/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Lakshmiwadi Mines & Commissioner of Income बनाम/ Minerals Private Ltd., Tax – 2, v. Yusuf Building, 3 rd floor, R. No. 344, Room No. 20, Aayakar Bhavan, 43-45, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAACL 1756 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vipul Joshi Revenue by : Shri A. Ramachandran स…

Kolon Investment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 8, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2870/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2870/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Kolon Investment Pvt. Ltd. Cit-8, बनाम/ 417-419, 4Th Floor, Room No. 259, Aayakar Bhavan, M. V. Road, Andheri (E), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaack 9118 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Girish Dave & Ms. Kadambari Dave ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri H. N. Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 16.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 23.8.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: The Instant Appeal By The Assessee Agitates The Revision U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 31.3.2014 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8, Mumbai (‘Cit’ For Short) Qua Its Assessment U/S. 143(3) Dated 01.12.2011 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10. 2. The Basis Of The Revision In The Present Case Is The Acceptance By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Of The Assessee’S Claim For Short Term Capital Gain (Stcg) On The Non- Exercise Of The Option To Subscribe To The (Equity) Share Capital In Sintex Industries

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave &For Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 263

…The law in the matter is well-settled and the case law, legion, and toward which the ld. CIT has himself referred to some decisions, viz. CIT vs. Bhagwan Das [2005] 272 ITR 367 (All) and P. T. Lashkari Ram vs. CIT 7 Kolon Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 309 (All); and Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. CIT [2003] 260 ITR 599 (Mad). No wonder, the thrust of the assessee’s arguments before us, as afore-stated, was on the merits of the case. We are also conscious that while we have held the impugned loss to be a capital loss, the ld. CIT has regarded it as a speculative loss. We disapprove of the same in-as-much a…

Ayyazuddin J, Khan, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT- 22

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2881/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2881/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ayyazuddin J. Khan Ito-22(3)-1, Block No. 103, Aggarwal Upavan, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway बनाम/ Plot No. 11, Sector – 19, Nerul, Station, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 706 Navi Mumbai-400 073 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Atxpk 4365 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kishore K. Poddar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri H. N. Singh

For Appellant: Shri Kishore K. PoddarFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 263

…Mahavar Traders[1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar vs. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 657 (Mad); Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 867 (Mad.); CIT vs. Export House, Amritsar [2002] 256 ITR 603 (P&H); PT. Lashkari Ram vs. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 309 (All.); CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT vs. Toyota Motor Corpn. [2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del) (affirmed by the apex court, vide its judgment at [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC)); CIT vs. Arunaben Sumankumar [2003] 259 ITR 386 (Guj); besides by the larger bench of the tribunal in Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. vs. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 343 (Chen) (SB)…

Estrela Batteries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 2, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2122/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2010-11
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…with a direction to examine the details and after conducting an appropriate enquiry finalize the assessment. Reliance was placed upon the decision in Malabar Industrial Corporation ltd. (243 ITR 83) (SC), Pt. 3 M/s Estrela Batteries Ltd Lashkari Ram vs CIT 272 ITR 309 (All.) and Ashok Leyland vs CIT 260 ITR 599. 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have also perused the assessment order, which is a subject matter of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 and the impugned order passed by the ld. Commissioner. Admittedly, an incorrect assumption of fact or an in…

256 ITR 603 (P&H); CIT v. Arunaben Sumankumar (272 ITR 309) — Cited in 17 Judgments | BharatTax