275 (Mum Trib) (27) Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO

173 ITD 130Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2018#3829 most cited

What is 275 (Mum Trib) (27) Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO authority for?

Revisionary power under Section 263 cannot be exercised arbitrarily; it has limits and does not apply to every inadequacy in the Assessing Officer's inquiry or verification.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO · 173 ITD 130 · Section 263 · revisionary power · inadequate enquiry · prejudicial to interest of revenue · assessment order erroneous · lack of enquiry · limits of revision · CIT revision

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing 275 (Mum Trib) (27) Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO

JUNIPER NETWORKS INTERNATIONAL B.V. ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-3, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 982/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 982/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2014-15) Juniper Networks International B.V, Boeing Avenue 240, 1119Pz Schipol-Rijk, Amsterdam,0 Netherlands Pan: Aadcj-0974-G ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It), Mumbai -3, Room No.1601, 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Prachi Mehta &Shri Sandeep Bhalla ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Surabhi Sharma & Shri Milind Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Prachi Mehta &Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma &
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

…ings. The CIT should have pointed the defects in the enquiry and also what more Assessing Officer should enquire. To support this argument the ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. DCIT, 173 ITD 130(Ahd-Trib) (ii) JRD Tata Trust vs. DCIT 85 ITR 431(Mum-Trib). (iii) Narayan Tatu Rane vs. ITO, 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum) 5. Per contra, Ms. Surabhi Sharma representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee. The ld. Departmental Representative submits that the 6 Assessing Officer migh…

Showing 120 of 31 · Page 1 of 2