341 ITR 293 (Karnataka); S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi v. JCIT

275 ITR 43High Court#3008 most cited

What is 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka); S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi v. JCIT authority for?

The Commissioner of Income-tax's power under section 263 to revise an Assessing Officer's order requires a finding that the order was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Mere disagreement or the possibility of an alternative view is insufficient.

39

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. · 341 ITR 293 · S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India · A.A. Doshi v. JCIT · Hindusthan Tin Works Ltd. v. CIT · Section 263 · erroneous order · prejudicial to revenue · Commissioner's revisional power · Assessing Officer order

Judgments citing 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka); S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi v. JCIT

Shri Narayan Saraf, Kolkata vs. Pr.C.I.T.-12, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2214/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 2214/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Shri Narayan Saraf………………………….................……....……………..…..……...……………...…Appellant 56, N.S. Road 2Nd Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan: Akkps 6352 B] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -12, Kolkata………………………..........….....……......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate & Shri Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Dr. P.K. Srihari, Jcit, Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 13Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 29Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -12, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”), Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 14/03/2019, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. At The Outset We Find That There Is A Delay Of 131 (One Hundred Thirty One) Days In Filing Of This Appeal. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal On Time. Hence The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted.

Section 143(3)Section 263

….N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; Hindusthan Tin Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 275 ITR 43 (Del), distinguished. Hindusthan Tin Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 275 ITR 43 (Del), distinguished. (Paras 90-92, 102) 92, 102) 7.1. The propositions of law laid down in the above case The propositions of law laid down in the above case-law is that, it is the law is that, it is the duty of the Commissioner of Income Tax to conduct verification and enquiry…

Medicare Tpa Service (I) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Kol - 4, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1045/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1045/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Medicare Tpa Service (I) Pvt. Ltd………………………......…………………………………………Appellant 6B, Bishop Lefroy Road Ground Floor 10, 6B, Paul Mansion Bhowanipore Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aadcm 1682 L] Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -4..................................................…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22Nd, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 10Th , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata - 4, (Ld. Pr. Cit) Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 27/02/2018, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Outset We Find That There Is A Delay Of 13 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal On Time. Hence The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of, Health Insurance Claim Processing Etc. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30/09/2013, Declaring Income Of Rs.4,80,10,710/-. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.5,37,81,250/- Under The Normal Provisions & At Rs.2,72,98,018/- As Book Profit U/S 115Jb Of The Act. The Ld. Pr. Cit, Issued A Showcause Notice Dt. 04/2/2017 Proposing Revision Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 04/12/2015, By Invoking His Powers U/S 263 Of The Act,On The Following Points:-

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 244ASection 263

…ys Technologies Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka); S.N. Mukherjee vs. 10 I.T.A. No. 1045/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Medicare TPA Service (I) Pvt. Ltd Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; Hindusthan Tin Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 275 ITR 43 (Del), distinguished. (Paras 90-92, 102) 6.5. The propositions of law laid down in the above case-law is that, it is the duty of the Commissioner of Income Tax to conduct verification and enquiry into the factual position and then come to a conclusion that there is an error in the order passed by the Assessing Officer which has caused prejudice t…

Philips India Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-IV, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1142/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…nd. Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.I.T., ITA No. 116 /Coch/ 2012; CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka); S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; Hindusthan Tin Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 275 ITR 43 (Del), distinguished. (Paras 90-92, 102) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SOHANA WOOLLEN MILLS 296 ITR 238 (P&H HC) 30 I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited A reference to the provisions of s. 263 shows that jurisdiction thereunder can be exercised if the CIT finds that the order of the AO was erroneous and preju…

M/S. Castron Technologies Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Hqrs.-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 945/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judical Member] I.T.A. No. 945/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Castron Technologies Ltd……...……………………...………………………….......… Appellant 14, Bentinck Street Room No.8 1St Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aabcc 0646 G] A.C.I.T. Hqrs.- (1), Kolkata….…….………………………………………….……………....Respondent Ayakar Bhawan P-7, Chowringhee Square Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Siddharta Jhaharia, Fca & Shri Sujoy Sen, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 8Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 04Th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 263(1)

…nd. Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.I.T., ITA No. 116 /Coch/ 2012; CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka); S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; Hindusthan Tin Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 275 ITR 43 (Del), distinguished. (Paras 90-92, 102) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SOHANA WOOLLEN MILLS 296 ITR 238 (P&H HC) A reference to the provisions of s. 263 shows that jurisdiction thereunder can be exercised if the CIT finds that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Mere audit objection and merely because a d…