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

173 ITD 130Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2018#3779 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 366,314 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

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

Issues it is cited on

section 44aeprejudicial to interest of revenueinadequate enquirykelvinatorassessment order erroneouslack of enquiryrevision u/s 263section 44arevision under section 263section 254(1)malabar industrialerroneous and prejudicial

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

Alliance Nirmaan Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ade detailed enquiries while allowing assessee's claim for deduction of business expenditure and, thus, revisional order passed by Commissioner was not sustainable, SLP filed against High Court's order dismissed In Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.s. DCIT(2018) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd) (Trib)(ITA No. 165/Ahd/2018 dt 8.8.18), the Tribunal has held that although Section 263 is very wide, the revisional power cannot be exercised arbitrarily. That Section 263 has its limits and cannot apply to each and every inadequacy in inquiries or verification by the AO. The scope of CBDT Circular was explained in the order and the Circul…

Shree Auro Iron Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Pravin Saraswant, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 263Section 48

…tive enquiries and detailed submissions filed by the assessee firm and even otherwise Explanation 2 to Section 263, inserted vide Finance Act, 2015,cannot override the basic requirements of sub- section (1) of Section 263 1.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2018) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd.- Trib) 2. Eveready Industries India Ltd. [2020] 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata Trib) 3. M/s. Smira Pune Food Pvt. Ltd(ITA No.3205/DEL/2017, ITAT Delhi Bench. 4. Shri Narayan TatuRane, ITA No2690/Mum/2016, ITAT Mumbai Bench Case was selected for scrutiny for specific purpose for verification of capital gain and therefore, there cannot be any presumpti…

Horizon Dwellings Private Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 77/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Horizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd v. PCIT, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (UP)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. PAN:AACCH6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. CIT(DR) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A) This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Incom…

Shree Alekh, Bhavnagar vs. PCIT Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…TR 1 (SC) Mehsana Dist. Co-op. Milk Producers Union – 263 ITR 645 (Guj) CIT vs. D. P. Karia – 266 ITR 113 (Guj) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers – 259 ITR 502 (Guj) Sir Dorabji Tata Trust vs. DCII(E) – (2021) 188 ITD 38 (Mum) Torrent Pharmaceuticals vs. DCIT – (2021) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd.)” 5.2 The Ld. AR further submitted that inadequacy of inquiry by the Assessing Officer also cannot be ground for proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:- “CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited – 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma – 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers – 341 ITR 537…

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

…rm and even otherwise Explanation 2 to Section 263 inserted vide Finance Act, 2015 cannot override the basic requirements of Sub-section (1) of Section 263. In this regard, we draw strength from the following case laws. 1. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2018) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd.-Trib) 2. Eveready Industries India Ltd.[2020] 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata Trib) 3. M/s. Smira Pune Food Pvt. Ltd (ITA No.3205/DEL/2017, ITAT Delhi Bench. 4. Shri Narayan Tatu Rane, ITA No2690/Mum/2016, ITAT Mumbai Bench In the present case, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny for specific purpose for verification of refund claim…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 70/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…m 231 (Delhi –Trib) (25) Shanti Krupa Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA 1252/Ahd/2015 (Ahd Trib) (26) JRD Tata Trust Vs DCIT 122 taxmann.com 275 (Mum Trib) (27) Narayan Tatu Rane Vs ITO 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum-Trib) (28) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs DCIT (2018) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd Trib). 11. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of ld. Pr.CIT. The ld. CIT-DR submits that in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 05/10/2019. The Assessing Officer initiated assessment proceedings. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Office…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 69/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…m 231 (Delhi –Trib) (25) Shanti Krupa Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA 1252/Ahd/2015 (Ahd Trib) (26) JRD Tata Trust Vs DCIT 122 taxmann.com 275 (Mum Trib) (27) Narayan Tatu Rane Vs ITO 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum-Trib) (28) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs DCIT (2018) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd Trib). 11. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of ld. Pr.CIT. The ld. CIT-DR submits that in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 05/10/2019. The Assessing Officer initiated assessment proceedings. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Office…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 68/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…m 231 (Delhi –Trib) (25) Shanti Krupa Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA 1252/Ahd/2015 (Ahd Trib) (26) JRD Tata Trust Vs DCIT 122 taxmann.com 275 (Mum Trib) (27) Narayan Tatu Rane Vs ITO 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum-Trib) (28) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs DCIT (2018) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd Trib). 11. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of ld. Pr.CIT. The ld. CIT-DR submits that in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 05/10/2019. The Assessing Officer initiated assessment proceedings. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Office…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 67/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…m 231 (Delhi –Trib) (25) Shanti Krupa Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA 1252/Ahd/2015 (Ahd Trib) (26) JRD Tata Trust Vs DCIT 122 taxmann.com 275 (Mum Trib) (27) Narayan Tatu Rane Vs ITO 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum-Trib) (28) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs DCIT (2018) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd Trib). 11. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of ld. Pr.CIT. The ld. CIT-DR submits that in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 05/10/2019. The Assessing Officer initiated assessment proceedings. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Office…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 66/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…m 231 (Delhi –Trib) (25) Shanti Krupa Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA 1252/Ahd/2015 (Ahd Trib) (26) JRD Tata Trust Vs DCIT 122 taxmann.com 275 (Mum Trib) (27) Narayan Tatu Rane Vs ITO 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum-Trib) (28) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs DCIT (2018) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd Trib). 11. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of ld. Pr.CIT. The ld. CIT-DR submits that in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 05/10/2019. The Assessing Officer initiated assessment proceedings. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Office…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 65/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…m 231 (Delhi –Trib) (25) Shanti Krupa Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA 1252/Ahd/2015 (Ahd Trib) (26) JRD Tata Trust Vs DCIT 122 taxmann.com 275 (Mum Trib) (27) Narayan Tatu Rane Vs ITO 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum-Trib) (28) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs DCIT (2018) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd Trib). 11. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of ld. Pr.CIT. The ld. CIT-DR submits that in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 05/10/2019. The Assessing Officer initiated assessment proceedings. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Office…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 64/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…m 231 (Delhi –Trib) (25) Shanti Krupa Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA 1252/Ahd/2015 (Ahd Trib) (26) JRD Tata Trust Vs DCIT 122 taxmann.com 275 (Mum Trib) (27) Narayan Tatu Rane Vs ITO 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum-Trib) (28) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs DCIT (2018) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd Trib). 11. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of ld. Pr.CIT. The ld. CIT-DR submits that in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 05/10/2019. The Assessing Officer initiated assessment proceedings. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Office…

Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd., Na

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 106/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

…vs. Mehsana District Co-Op.Milk Producers Union Ltd. 263 ITR 645 (Guj)  CIT vs. D.P.Karia 266 ITR 113 (Guj)  CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj)  Sir Dorabji Tata Trust vs. DCIT€ (2921) 188 ITD 38 (Mum-Trib)  Torrent Pharmaceuticals vs. DCIT (2921) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd)  Minal Shah vs. PCIT 57 CCH 140) (Ahd) 10. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that though the assessing officer made adequate inquiry, yet inadequacy of inquiry by Assessing Officer cannot be ground for proceedings under section 263 of the Act. To support of his submission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon following decision:  CIT vs.…

K. N. Diamond, Na

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

…vs. Mehsana District Co-Op.Milk Producers Union Ltd. 263 ITR 645 (Guj)  CIT vs. D.P.Karia 266 ITR 113 (Guj)  CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj)  Sir Dorabji Tata Trust vs. DCIT€ (2921) 188 ITD 38 (Mum-Trib)  Torrent Pharmaceuticals vs. DCIT (2921) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd)  Minal Shah vs. PCIT 57 CCH 140) (Ahd) 10. The Ld. AR of the assessee submits that though the assessing officer made adequate inquiry, yet inadequacy of inquiry by Assessing Officer cannot be ground for proceedings under section 263 of the Act. To support of his submission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon following decision:  CIT vs.…

Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh, Na

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 102/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh. The Pr.Cit, Alka Society, Chhapara Road, Valsad. Vs. Dist.-Navsari-396445, Gujarat. Pan No. Abgpp 6727 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

…ehsana District Co-Op Milk Producers Union Ltd. 263 ITR 645 (Guj) (iv) CIT Vs D.P. Karia 266 ITR 113 (Guj) (v) CIT Vs Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj) (vi) Sir Dorabji Tata Trust Vs DCIT(E) (2021) 188 ITD 38 (Mum) (vii)Torrent Pharmaceuticals Vs DCIT (2021) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd.) 10. The ld. Senior Counsel submits that inadequacy of enquiry cannot be a ground for proceedings under Section 263 of the Act, otherwise it will be an endless process. To support his view, the ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following case laws: (i) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (ii) CIT Vs Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Delh…

Veer Plastics Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT -4, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/AHD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: ShriA. P. Singh, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 263Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…District Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. - 263 ITR 645 (Guj) " CIT vs. D. P. Karia - 266 ITR 113 (Guj); " CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers - 259 ITR 502 (Guj); " Sir Dorabji Tata Trust vs. DCIT(E) - (2021) 188 ITD 38 (Mum); " Torrent Pharmaceutical. vs DCIT -(2021) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd); The Ld. AR submitted that "Inadequacy" of inquiry by Assessing Officer also cannot be ground for proceedings under section 263 of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the followings decisions: " CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. - 332 ITR 167 (Delhi); " CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma - 335 ITR 83 (Delhi); " CIT vs. Vikas Polymers - 341 ITR 537 (Delhi); The…

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)

…Explanation 2 to Section 263, inserted vide Finance Act, 2015, cannot override the basic requirements of Sub-Section (1) of Section 263. In this regard, reliance is placed on the below mentioned judicial pronouncements: i. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2018] 173 ITD 130 (Ahmedabad- Trib.) ii. Eveready Industries India Ltd [2020] 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata -Trib.) iii. M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd, ITA No. 3205/DEL/2017, ITAT Delhi Bench. iv. Shri Narayan Tatu Rane, I.T.A. No. 2690/Mum/2016, ITAT Mumbai Bench. 6. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of “Share Premium”. The case was not converte…

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…

Sh. Surender Meena, 36, Pratap Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…of the Revenue. Since none of the four clauses of the Expln. 2 to sec. 263(1) applies to the case under consideration, revisionary power even under the enlarged scope of the Expln. 2 was not legally exercisable. • Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd.) (Trib.) Even after the insertion of Explanation 2, the Revisional Commissioner is expected show that the view taken by the AO is wholly unsustainable in law before embarking upon exercise of revisionary powers. The revisional powers cannot be exercised for directing a fuller inquiry to merely find out if the earlier view taken is erroneous…

Sh. Narendar Kumar Agarwal, Jawali Bhawan, Station Road, Alwar vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271FSection 50CSection 54F

…rendar Kumar Agarwal v. PCIT, Jaipur-1 clauses of the Expln. 2 to sec. 263(1) applies to the case under consideration, revisionary power even under the enlarged scope of the Expln. 2 was not legally exercisable. • Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd.) (Trib.) Even after the insertion of Explanation 2, the Revisional Commissioner is expected show that the view taken by the AO is wholly unsustainable in law before embarking upon exercise of revisionary powers. The revisional powers cannot be exercised for directing a fuller inquiry to merely find out if the earlier view taken is erroneou…

275 (Mum Trib) (27) Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO (173 ITD 130) — Cited in 31 Judgments | BharatTax