263 by Commissioner-CIT v. Gokuldas Exports

33 ITR 214High Court2011#14028 most cited
7

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2022.

Judgments citing 263 by Commissioner-CIT v. Gokuldas Exports

Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 62/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…111(SC). If in given facts and circumstances of a case, two views are possible and one view has been adopted by assessing officer, then that view alone would not be sufficient to exercise powers under section 263 by Commissioner-CIT v. Gokuldas Exports (2011) 33 ITR 214 (Kar.). Assessment Order, in any case, cannot be revised on the ground that the deeper enquiry ought to have been made or proper exercise was not done while making the assessment [Sunil Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT, 406 ITR 306].An order cannot be said to be erroneous only because A.O. has written a brief order without details - CIT v. Goyal171 ITR 698,…

Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 61/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…111(SC). If in given facts and circumstances of a case, two views are possible and one view has been adopted by assessing officer, then that view alone would not be sufficient to exercise powers under section 263 by Commissioner-CIT v. Gokuldas Exports (2011) 33 ITR 214 (Kar.). Assessment Order, in any case, cannot be revised on the ground that the deeper enquiry ought to have been made or proper exercise was not done while making the assessment [Sunil Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT, 406 ITR 306].An order cannot be said to be erroneous only because A.O. has written a brief order without details - CIT v. Goyal171 ITR 698,…

Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 60/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…111(SC). If in given facts and circumstances of a case, two views are possible and one view has been adopted by assessing officer, then that view alone would not be sufficient to exercise powers under section 263 by Commissioner-CIT v. Gokuldas Exports (2011) 33 ITR 214 (Kar.). Assessment Order, in any case, cannot be revised on the ground that the deeper enquiry ought to have been made or proper exercise was not done while making the assessment [Sunil Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT, 406 ITR 306].An order cannot be said to be erroneous only because A.O. has written a brief order without details - CIT v. Goyal171 ITR 698,…

Hilton Group, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 59/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…111(SC). If in given facts and circumstances of a case, two views are possible and one view has been adopted by assessing officer, then that view alone would not be sufficient to exercise powers under section 263 by Commissioner-CIT v. Gokuldas Exports (2011) 33 ITR 214 (Kar.). Assessment Order, in any case, cannot be revised on the ground that the deeper enquiry ought to have been made or proper exercise was not done while making the assessment [Sunil Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT, 406 ITR 306].An order cannot be said to be erroneous only because A.O. has written a brief order without details - CIT v. Goyal171 ITR 698,…

Hilton Group, Surat vs. PCIT, (Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 58/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…111(SC). If in given facts and circumstances of a case, two views are possible and one view has been adopted by assessing officer, then that view alone would not be sufficient to exercise powers under section 263 by Commissioner-CIT v. Gokuldas Exports (2011) 33 ITR 214 (Kar.). Assessment Order, in any case, cannot be revised on the ground that the deeper enquiry ought to have been made or proper exercise was not done while making the assessment [Sunil Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT, 406 ITR 306].An order cannot be said to be erroneous only because A.O. has written a brief order without details - CIT v. Goyal171 ITR 698,…

Ramesh Kumar Gordhan Kathiriya, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 192/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…111(SC). If in given facts and circumstances of a case, two views are possible and one view has been adopted by assessing officer, then that view alone would not be sufficient to exercise powers under section 263 by Commissioner-CIT v. Gokuldas Exports (2011) 33 ITR 214 (Kar.). Assessment Order, in any case, cannot be revised on the ground that the deeper enquiry ought to have been made or proper exercise was not done while making the assessment [Sunil Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT, 406 ITR 306].An order cannot be said to be erroneous only because A.O. has written a brief order without details - CIT v. Goyal171 ITR 698,…

Ramesh Kumar Gordhan Kathiriya, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 191/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…111(SC). If in given facts and circumstances of a case, two views are possible and one view has been adopted by assessing officer, then that view alone would not be sufficient to exercise powers under section 263 by Commissioner-CIT v. Gokuldas Exports (2011) 33 ITR 214 (Kar.). Assessment Order, in any case, cannot be revised on the ground that the deeper enquiry ought to have been made or proper exercise was not done while making the assessment [Sunil Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT, 406 ITR 306].An order cannot be said to be erroneous only because A.O. has written a brief order without details - CIT v. Goyal171 ITR 698,…