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.

Deutsche Investments India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3665/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2020AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 263

…on account of failure of the AO to carry out relevant and meaningful inquiries. This inference is also supported by ratio of various decisions of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282(SC) CIT Vs Mangal Castings 303 ITR 23(P&H), CIT v. Kohinoor Tobacco Products(P)Ltd.[1998] 234 ITR 557, CIT v. Mahavar Traders[1996] 220 ITR 167(MP), Duggal & Co.v. CIT[1996] 220 ITR 456, CIT vs MEPCO Industries Ltd 294 ITR 121 (Mad.), Meerut Roller Flour Mills Ltd vs C1T[2013] 3S Taxman.com 183(AH.), Bharti Hexacom Ltd v CIT [2013] 33 Taxman.com.153(Cat.), M.I. Overseas Ltd v DIT (Int…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3136/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…j) b. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) c. CIT vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta (2007) 165 TAXMAN 225 (P&H) d. CIT vs. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. ITA NOS. 3132-3136/Del/2014 (2010) 323 ITR 632 e. CIT vs. Munjal Castings (2008) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) f. CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. Ranka Jewellers vs. Add CIT (2010) 328 ITR 148 h. CIT vs. Mahendra umar Bansal (2008) 297 ITR 99 (All) 6.5 It was further stated by the Ld. AR that stand of the Ld. CIT for AY 2004-05 and next five years is contradictory and is against principles of consistency and for this contention…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3135/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…j) b. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) c. CIT vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta (2007) 165 TAXMAN 225 (P&H) d. CIT vs. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. ITA NOS. 3132-3136/Del/2014 (2010) 323 ITR 632 e. CIT vs. Munjal Castings (2008) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) f. CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. Ranka Jewellers vs. Add CIT (2010) 328 ITR 148 h. CIT vs. Mahendra umar Bansal (2008) 297 ITR 99 (All) 6.5 It was further stated by the Ld. AR that stand of the Ld. CIT for AY 2004-05 and next five years is contradictory and is against principles of consistency and for this contention…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3134/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…j) b. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) c. CIT vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta (2007) 165 TAXMAN 225 (P&H) d. CIT vs. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. ITA NOS. 3132-3136/Del/2014 (2010) 323 ITR 632 e. CIT vs. Munjal Castings (2008) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) f. CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. Ranka Jewellers vs. Add CIT (2010) 328 ITR 148 h. CIT vs. Mahendra umar Bansal (2008) 297 ITR 99 (All) 6.5 It was further stated by the Ld. AR that stand of the Ld. CIT for AY 2004-05 and next five years is contradictory and is against principles of consistency and for this contention…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3133/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…j) b. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) c. CIT vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta (2007) 165 TAXMAN 225 (P&H) d. CIT vs. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. ITA NOS. 3132-3136/Del/2014 (2010) 323 ITR 632 e. CIT vs. Munjal Castings (2008) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) f. CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. Ranka Jewellers vs. Add CIT (2010) 328 ITR 148 h. CIT vs. Mahendra umar Bansal (2008) 297 ITR 99 (All) 6.5 It was further stated by the Ld. AR that stand of the Ld. CIT for AY 2004-05 and next five years is contradictory and is against principles of consistency and for this contention…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3132/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…j) b. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) c. CIT vs. Vinod Kumar Gupta (2007) 165 TAXMAN 225 (P&H) d. CIT vs. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. ITA NOS. 3132-3136/Del/2014 (2010) 323 ITR 632 e. CIT vs. Munjal Castings (2008) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) f. CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. Ranka Jewellers vs. Add CIT (2010) 328 ITR 148 h. CIT vs. Mahendra umar Bansal (2008) 297 ITR 99 (All) 6.5 It was further stated by the Ld. AR that stand of the Ld. CIT for AY 2004-05 and next five years is contradictory and is against principles of consistency and for this contention…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6786/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA NOS. 6785&6786/DEL/2015 (AYRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12) KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED VS. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 6785 & 6786/Del/2015 A.Yrs. : 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s Krishak Bharati Cooperative VS. ACIT, Circle 30(1), Ltd., New Delhi A-60, Kailash Colony, New Delhi – 110 048 (PAN: AAAAK0203G) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. Vartik Choksi, CA & Sh. KVR Krishna, CA De…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6785/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA NOS. 6785&6786/DEL/2015 (AYRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12) KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED VS. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 6785 & 6786/Del/2015 A.Yrs. : 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s Krishak Bharati Cooperative VS. ACIT, Circle 30(1), Ltd., New Delhi A-60, Kailash Colony, New Delhi – 110 048 (PAN: AAAAK0203G) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. Vartik Choksi, CA & Sh. KVR Krishna, CA De…

Crompton Greaves Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT -6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

ITA 2836/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

For Respondent: Shri C.W. Angolkar
Section 143(3)Section 263

…assessment order which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue by relying on the decisions in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC), in the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC), CIT v. Mangal Castings, 303 ITR 23 (P&H) and CIT v. MEPCO Industries Ltd., 294 ITR 121 (Mad.). In reply to the notice dated 06.12.2012 u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee company submitted that both on merits as well as on technical grounds the assessment order dated 28.12.2010 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue…

M/S Fazal Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2837/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36

…ous since one of the possible views has been adopted and the matter has become final. Reliance in this regard is placed on Bagaria Vegetable Products Ltd Vs JCIT 303 ITR (AT) 278 (Pun e) Ahalya Trading Pvt Ltd Vs CIT 22 SOT 68( Mumbai) CIT Vs Munjal Castings 303 ITR 23 ( P&H) CIT V s RK Construction Co. 313 ITR 65( Guj) Reliance for this proposition is placed on:- CIT V s Valliammal D. 230 ITR 695 Madras Dhruv N Shah Vs DCIT 273 ITR (AT) 59 Bombay Various courts have held that under the revisionary powers, it is not open for the CIT to prescribe the nature and level of enquiries, if the AO has already conside…