294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd.

303 ITR 23High Court2008#3905 most cited

What is 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. authority for?

For the Commissioner to revise an assessment under Section 263, they must demonstrate how the Assessing Officer's order is prejudicial to the revenue, supported by material on record. This includes establishing that the AO failed to conduct relevant inquiries.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd · 294 ITR 121 · section 263 · revision · Commissioner of Income Tax · prejudicial to the interest of revenue · Assessing Officer · inquiries

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 10(37)Section 145A(b)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(viii)

Issues it is cited on

section 141section 282a(1)section 194lasection 145a(b)section 145bsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 10(37)doctrine of mergerenhanced compensationrevision u/s 263

Judgments citing 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd.

Sh. Randhir Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT Rohtak, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…l) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. xii) 263 ITR 255 (SC) CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Ltd. PROPOSITION IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON R…

Surjeet Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…l) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. xii) 263 ITR 255 (SC) CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Ltd. PROPOSITION IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON R…

Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…l) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. xii) 263 ITR 255 (SC) CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Ltd. PROPOSITION IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON R…

Dhuni Chand HUF, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…l) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. xii) 263 ITR 255 (SC) CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Ltd. PROPOSITION IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON R…

Sh. Kashmir Singh Sandha, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…l) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. xii) 263 ITR 255 (SC) CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Ltd. PROPOSITION IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON R…

M/S Ganesh Dass HUF, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…l) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. xii) 263 ITR 255 (SC) CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Ltd. PROPOSITION IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON R…

Sh. Arvail Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…l) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. xii) 263 ITR 255 (SC) CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Ltd. PROPOSITION IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON R…

The Dhanashree Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Limited, Belgaum vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 119/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2020-21 The Dhanashree Multipurpose Co-Operative Society, Ltd. 722/1, Angol Road, Vidya Nagar, Belgaum-590006 Pan:Aaaad0350R . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2020-21 The Dhanashree Multipurpose Co-operative Society, Ltd. 722/1, Angol Road, Vidya Nagar, Belgaum-590006 PAN:AAAAD0350R . . . . . . . Appellant V/s Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 11/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; The pre…

The Khanapur vs. S Sangh Ltd, Belgaum

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 62/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Y VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…the original order u/s 143(3) on a debatable issue or when two legal views are possible as held by Supreme Court in the case of Max India reported in 295 ITR 283.Reference can also be made to CIT v Gokuldas Exports 333 ITR 214 (Kar) and CIT v Munjal Castings 303 ITR 23 (P&H). 4. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rena Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd v Pr.CIT reported in 138 taxmann.com 532since Assessing Officer white framing assessment had taken a possible view and allowed assessee's claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned on its deposits with a co-operative bank, Pr.CIT wa…

Sh. Gurjinder Singh, Amritsar vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT DR
Section 194CSection 263

…ating to investments—Observation of the CIT that the AO had arrived at his finding without conducting an enquiry was erroneous—Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that recourse to the powers under s. 263 was not warranted” CIT V Munjal Casting 303 ITR 23(2008) (P&H) “Revision—Validity—AO taking a possible view—AO having taken a possible view, CIT cannot acquire revisional jurisdiction under s. 263 merely because another view is also possible—No substantial question of law arises warranting admission of appeals” CIT V Sohana Woollen Mills 296 ITR 238 (2008) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial ord…

Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 68/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

Shri Sukhjit Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 67/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

Smt Harneet Kaur Juneja, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 66/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

Shri. Tarsem Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 157/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT v. DLF Ltd. ii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT v. Munjal Casting 5.5 It was further submitted that an order u/s 263 of the Act based on highly vague and cryptic observations does not satisfy the statutory pre-conditions contained in section 263 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 112 taxmann.com 321 (Del) ETT Ltd. v. CIT ii) 120 taxmann.co…

Sh. Parshotam Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT v. DLF Ltd. ii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT v. Munjal Casting 5.5 It was further submitted that an order u/s 263 of the Act based on highly vague and cryptic observations does not satisfy the statutory pre-conditions contained in section 263 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 112 taxmann.com 321 (Del) ETT Ltd. v. CIT ii) 120 taxmann.co…

Priyanka, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 152/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT v. DLF Ltd. ii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT v. Munjal Casting 5.5 It was further submitted that an order u/s 263 of the Act based on highly vague and cryptic observations does not satisfy the statutory pre-conditions contained in section 263 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 112 taxmann.com 321 (Del) ETT Ltd. v. CIT ii) 120 taxmann.co…

Priya Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT v. DLF Ltd. ii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT v. Munjal Casting 5.5 It was further submitted that an order u/s 263 of the Act based on highly vague and cryptic observations does not satisfy the statutory pre-conditions contained in section 263 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 112 taxmann.com 321 (Del) ETT Ltd. v. CIT ii) 120 taxmann.co…

M/S Pardeep Ispat(P) Ltd., Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT v. DLF Ltd. ii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT v. Munjal Casting 5.5 It was further submitted that an order u/s 263 of the Act based on highly vague and cryptic observations does not satisfy the statutory pre-conditions contained in section 263 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 112 taxmann.com 321 (Del) ETT Ltd. v. CIT ii) 120 taxmann.co…

Shri Rajeev Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT v. DLF Ltd. ii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT v. Munjal Casting 5.5 It was further submitted that an order u/s 263 of the Act based on highly vague and cryptic observations does not satisfy the statutory pre-conditions contained in section 263 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 112 taxmann.com 321 (Del) ETT Ltd. v. CIT ii) 120 taxmann.co…

M/S. Itt Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 344/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 344/Ahd/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.R
Section 142Section 144Section 263Section 263(1)Section 44A

…ion (313 ITR 65) (Guj HC) 6. CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (55 taxmann.com 514) (Mum HC) 7. CIT v. Jain Construction Co. (34 taxmann.com 84) (Raj HC) 8. Merrut Roller Flour Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1 10 taxmann.com 170) (Allahabad HC) 9. Munjal Casting Limited (303 ITR 23) (P&H HC) 10. CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. (171 ITR 141) (MP HC) 11. Ravi K Mody v. ITO (151 Taxmann 11) (Ahmedabad ITAT) 12. Cadila Healthcare Limited vs. CIT (51 Taxmann.com 255) (Ahmedabad ITAT) 13. Zaveri & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (48 taxmann.com 153) (Ahmedabad ITAT) 14. M/s. Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT (ITA No. 2211/Mum/…

294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. (303 ITR 23) — Cited in 30 Judgments | BharatTax