580/296 Taxman 205/463 ITR 89 (Calcutta), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Venkatesa Spinners (P.) Ltd.

296 ITR 205High Court2008#17551 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 144A Section 250 Section 32 Section 68 Section 115BBE Section 132(4)Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

section 144a complete scrutiny limited scrutiny escapement of income scrutiny assessment section 68 section 144 section 143(2)prescribed section 143 section 250 section 14

Judgments citing 580/296 Taxman 205/463 ITR 89 (Calcutta), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Venkatesa Spinners (P.) Ltd.

Anmol Himanshu Patel Legal Heir of Late Himanshu Raojibhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4) Now Present Jurisdiction the Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1479/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1479/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anmol Himanshu Patel The Ito बनाम/ (Legal Heir Of Late Himanshu Ward-1(1)(4) V/S. Raojibhai Patel) Now Present Jurisdiction Bs/B-7, Indraprasth Complex The Dy.Cit, Circle-1(1)(1) Nr. Inox Race Course Circle Vadodara – 390 007 Vadodara – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acqpp 6460 P (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 10/06/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Anmol Himanshu Patel (Legal Heir Of Late Himanshu Raojibhai Patel) Vs. Dcit Asst.Year 2015-16. “1. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Of The Appellant, The Order Passed By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

…e said proprietorship concern in the proceedings, therefore, assessment order is not sustainable. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-vs.- Weilburger Coatings (India) (P.) Limited reported in 155 taxman.com 580, 296 ITR 205, [2024] 463 ITR 89, wherein the hon’ble High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal holding that the Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction in enquiring into those issues which were beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. Similar view has been taken by the co-ordinate Visakhapatnam Bench in the case of "Vudatha Vani Rao vs. Income Tax Officer"…

Sagarlaxmi Agriseeds Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1918/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2017-18 Sagarlaxmi Agriseeds Pvt Ltd Acit, Cir.4(1)(1) 206, Ashwamegh Avenue Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Mithakhali Garden Navrangpura Ahmedabad. Pan : Aawcs 7561 F (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee By : Shri Deepak R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Dharnidas V.S., Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharnidas V.S., Sr.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

…said proprietorship concern in the proceedings, therefore, assessment order is not sustainable. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -vs.- Weilburger Coatings (India) (P.) Limited reported in 155 taxman.com 580, 296 ITR 205, [2024] 463 ITR 89 , wherein the hon’ble High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal holding that the Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction in enquiring into those issues which were beyond the scope of limited scrutiny. Similar view has been taken by the co-ordinate Visakhapatnam Bench in the case of “ Vudatha Vani Rao vs. Income Tax Office…

Kogod Basavaraju Jayachandra, Hassan vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result the ITA No

ITA 1618/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

…e Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Weilburger Coatings (India) (P.) Ltd. [2023] 155 taxmann.com 580/296 Taxman 205/463 ITR 89 (Calcutta), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Venkatesa Spinners (P.) Ltd. [2008] 296 ITR 205 (Madras). 10. On the other hand, ld. D.R. relied upon the order of ld. Assessing Officer and submitted that perusal of page no. 9 of the paper book, wherein copy of the notice under section 143(2) has been placed, would reveal that no expression exhibiting the limited scrutiny is being used by the ld. Assessing Officer. The notice would indicate…

Srimanta Kumar Shit, Purba Medinapore vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 27(2), Haldia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1911/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1911/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Srimanta Kumar Shit,………………...…………Appellant Rangamalaput, Junput-Contai, Purba Medinapore-721450, West Bengal [Pan:Bffps3635Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax..…Respondent Circle-27(2), Haldia, Basudebpur, Talpukur, Khanjan Chak, Haldia, Midnapore-721101, W.B. Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 19, 2024 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

…t order is not sustainable. For buttressing his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -vs.- Weilburger Coatings (India) (P.) Limited reported in 155 taxman.com 580, 296 ITR 205, [2024] 463 ITR 89. 10. On the other hand, ld. D.R. relied upon the order of ld. Assessing Officer and submitted that perusal of page no. 9 of the paper book, wherein copy of the notice under section 143(2) has been placed, would reveal that no expression exhibiting the limited scrutiny is being used by the ld. Assessing Officer. The notice would…

Loot India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 3025/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R. P. Meena & Shri Sridhar E

Section 1Section 139(5)Section 147

…appeal before us. 9. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. The ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. 5 M/s. Loot (India) Private Limited Venkatesa Spinners (P.) Ltd. [2008] 296 ITR 205 (Mad.) for the proposition that where the change in method of valuation was for genuine reason and the method was based upon the accepted principle of accounting, it cannot be rejected. He further referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Indo Rama Synthetic Ltd. [2009] 180 taxman 35 (Del) for the proposi…