70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CIT(Mad)

Q: How many judgments cite 70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CIT(Mad)?

35 judgments on BharatTax cite 70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CIT(Mad) (101 ITD 495), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Q: Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CIT(Mad) come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 147, Section 148.

101 ITD 495Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#3327 most cited

What is 70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CIT(Mad) authority for?

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct necessary inquiries or investigate facts when circumstances warrant it, demonstrating a lack of complete scrutiny. This failure to act as an investigator and not just an adjudicator can trigger revision under Section 263.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Jain Bharat Tanners · CIT · 101 ITD 495 · 263 · revision · erroneous and prejudicial · lack of enquiry · Assessing Officer · investigator · complete scrutiny · Malabar Industrial · Ashok Leyland

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 147 Section 148 Section 37 Section 10

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenue revision under section 263 lack of enquiry malabar industrial erroneous and prejudicial section 119 complete scrutiny change of opinion section 263 section 26 section 28 section 36(1)

Judgments citing 70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CIT(Mad)

Narendra Kumar Makhija, Kota vs. PCIT, Udaipur

ITA 605/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Said Appeal Is Pending Before Learned Cit(A), As Claimed By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri B.L. Bhojwani, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT

Section 263Section 68

…ssue of cash deposits of Rs. 14,38,81,100/-, and issued directions to the Assessing Officer, as noticed above:-  Malabar Industrial Limited v/s CIT, 243 ITR ( S.C);  TTK LIG Ltd., v/s ACIT, (Mad) 51 DTR 228;  Arvee International v/s Addl. CIT, (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495.  CIT vs Raisons Industries ltd, 288 ITR 322 (SC); and  Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 ( Mad. H.C) 12. In para 7.4 of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer dealt with the issue of cash deposit and observed that the assessee had deposited cash to the tune of Rs. 2,98,62,000/- with HDFC Bank and sum of Rs. 11,39,49,000/-…

M/S.Mahogany Logistics Services Pvt. Ltd., Madurai vs. PCIT, Madurai-1

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1631/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mahogany Logistics Services Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax-1, 10, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. Madurai 625 002. [Pan:Aafcd8781R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Madurai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company [Earlier Known As M/S. Drsr Logistics Services Private Limited] Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2018-19 Claiming Loss Of ₹.31,28,98,436/- Under 2

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36Section 37Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एस.एस. िव"ने" रिव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s. Mahogany Logistics Services Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Private Limited, Income Tax-1, 10, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. Madurai 625 002. [PAN:AAFCD8781R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Re…

Shenhzhen Sdg Information Co. Ltd., Delhi vs. Circle Int. Taxation 3(1)(2), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 746/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shenhzhen Sdg Information Co. Ltd., International Taxation-3, C/O- Tass Advisors Llp, 62, New Delhi Lower Ground Floor, Pocket 2, Jasola, New Delhi Pan: Aavcs7426C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Divyanshu Agrawal, Adv. Sh. Anubhav Rastogi, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.06.2025 Order

Section 263Section 44B

…which should have been made. Even where facts are disclosed by the assessee, the order of assessment can be revised if the correct provisions of law are not examined. The 6 | P a g e Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Arvee International Vs. Addl. CIT reported in 101 ITD 495 held that an order is erroneous if it is based on an incorrect facts or an incorrect application of law or non- application of mind or based on no or insufficient material. 6.6 The second aspect is whether the order passed by the AO is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The issue had been decided by several courts In the case of Venkatakrish…

Alok Vijawat, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Udaipur

ITA 605/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…if it is based on an incorrect assumption of facts or an 7 SHRI ALOK VIJAWAT VS PCIT,UDAIPUR incorrect application of law or non-application of mind or based on no or insufficient materials. (iii) In the case of Arvee international vis. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495, it has been held that Unlike the Civil Court which is neutral to give a decision on the basis of evidence produced before it, an Assessing Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator He cannot remain passive on the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further enquiry- It is his duty to ascertain the truth o…

Baroda Rajasthan Khestriya Gramin Bank, Ajmer vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 253/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya The Principal Commissioner Vs. Gramin Bank, Vaishali Nagar, of Income Tax, Udaipur Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAJB 1164 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Shailesh Mantri, CA jktLo dh…

The Lake Palace Hotels & Motelsprivate Limited, Udaipur vs. PCIT, Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 52/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM The Lake Palace Hotels & Vs PCIT, Motels Private Ltd., City Circle-02, Palace, City Palace, Udaipur Udaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AAACT 7433 M Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari-C.A. Revenue By Shri S.M. Joshi, JCIT-DR Date of hearing 03/07/2023 Date of 27 /09/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur dated 29.03.2022 [here…

Smt. Satvir Kaur W/O Sh. Shinder Singh, Ferozepur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 102/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2023AY 2011-12

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…of enquiry and incorrect application of mind by the AO with the judgements in the cases of Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT(SC) 671TR 84; (CIT v. Jawahar Bhatiacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434 (Gauhati) HC FB and that Arvee International vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495. 5. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld. Pr. CIT has no valid and justified reason for initiating revisionary proceeding u/s 263 of the act and he challenged the revisionary order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act holding the assessment erroneous on lack of enquiries by the AO being passed without appreciating the facts of the case and that the…

Castamet Works Private Limited, Kharwa vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur

ITA 187/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)

…and examine and finalize the assessment in accordance with the prevailing late 7. Judgments relied upon by Ld. PCIT i. Malabar Industrial Limited V/S CIT2431TR ii. TTK LIG Ltd.. v/s. ACIT(Mad) 51 DTR 228 iii. Arvee international v/s. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495, iv. CIT v/s. Raisons Industries Ltd., 288 ITR 322 (SC v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 490 (Mad.) 44 Castamet Works Private Limited vs. PCIT SUBMISSION: 77. The submission on this ground is without prejudice to the fact that no basis has been provided in the impugned order as to how the order dated 14.12.2019 is erroneous in a…

Sun Stone Ingineering Induries P.Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pcti-2, Jaipur

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 50/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Avdhesh Kumar (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 263

…ial available on record ex-parte qua the assessee. The ld. PCIT derived the supports from the following judgments as under:- • Malabar Industrial Limited vs. CIT 243 ITR. • TTK LIG Ltd. vs. ACIT(Mad) 51 DTR 228. • ARvee International vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495. • CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. 345 ITR 135 (Delhi H.C.). • Gee Vee Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (1975) 99 ITR 375. • CIT vs. Raisons Industries Ltd. 288 ITR 322 (SC). • Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad H.C.). 7. The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted before us that the revisionary p…

Learning Curve Edutech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 832/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Learning Curve Edutech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. • Deniel Merchants (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO dated 29.11.2017 • CIT Vs. Ballarpur Indistries Ltd. (85 taxamnn.com 10)(Bom) • Sripan Land Development (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (46 SOT 447)(Mum) • Arvee International Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (101 ITD 495)(Mum) • CIT Vs.Deepak Garg (299 ITR 435)(MP) • CIT Vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (342 ITR 74)(Gau) • Toyota Motor Corporation Vs. CIT (306 ITR 52)(SC) 10. We find that in all the aforesaid cases relied by the learned DR, there was no application of mind by the Assessing Officer and requisite enquiries were not carried out by the learned Assessing Off…

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 57/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)

Section 263Section 5

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’A’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM deys’k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 56/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2016-17 cuke M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Principal Commissioner of Vs. Development Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Income Tax-2, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAGCR 4665 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 57/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :20…

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Developement Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 56/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)

Section 263Section 5

Essar Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Vajresh Consultants PrCIT 6, Ltd. (Earlier known as Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 PAN: AABCE 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue by : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The p…

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

…a matter is being remitted only for de novo examination. 8 Deutsche Investments India Private Limited • Supreme Court decision in Raj Mandir Estate Vs. Pr.CIT • Delhi High Court decision in Gee Vee Enterprises • Arvee International Vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum)101 ITD 495 10. In the rejoinder, learned senior counsel of the assessee submitted that in various case laws it has been held that Explanation (2) to section 263 is prospective. Moreover, he pleaded that the matter having been dealt with in computation of income and case laws also mentioned therein, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has not appli…

M/S K R Construction, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Central-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7615/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathak.R.Construction Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Basement, Hinal Residency Income Tax-Central-3 19Th Floor Datta Mandir Road Dahanukar Wadi Air India Building Kandivali(W) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 021

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

…ed by the Ld.PCIT. In this regard, he relied upon the following judicial precedents:- 1. Lalsingh Estate (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income tax [1994] 74 taxman 525(Gau.) 2. Arvee International vs. Additional Commissioner of Income tax , Range 19(1) [2006] 101 ITD 495 (Mum.) 3. Pr.CIT-II vs. Braham Dev Gupta in ITA No.907/Mum/2017, C.M.Appl. 38789/2017(Delhi High Court), dated 20.07.2018 4. Kushi Conbuild Pvt.Ltd. vs CIT in ITA No. 1611/kol/2013, dated 03/11/2015 5. Laxmi Management vs CIT in ITA No.1632/Kol/2013, dated 03/11/2015 6. Royal Moran Plant & Machinery Pvt.Ltd. vs CIT in ITA No.1635/Mum/2013, dated…

Dena Bank, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

ITA 2159/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddena Bank Vs. Pcit-2 Room No.344, 3Rd Floor Accounts Department Dena Bank Building Aaykar Bhawan 2Nd Floor M.K.Road 17/B, Horniman Circle Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aaacd4249B Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

…) Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal V.s CIT 263 - applicable for assessment in different hand > {2005)2 SOT 732 Mum.Trib) Recon Oil Industries Ltd vs. JCIT. Non application of mind on inclusion of trading Profit for deduction u/s 80IA warrants revision u/s 263 > (20O6) 101 ITD 495 (Mum Trib.) Arvee International V/s Addl. CIT. AO is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. These failure to investigate on the face of return of income make order erroneous and prejudicial > (2O13) 30 Taxman 332 (Chennai Trib) Cairn Energy Jfttfta (P) Ltd v/s DIT(IT), Chennai: Non application of mid on claim of deduction u/s 80IB/80IA…

Shree Swami Samartha Developers, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Ward - 21, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2969/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 263

…tted that the assessment order passed without causing due enquiry and also in a mechanical manner is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, the Ld D.R placed his reliance on the following case laws:- (a) Arvee International vs. Addl CIT (2006)(101 ITD 495)(Mum) (b) Adani Agro (P) Ltd vs. DCIT (2013)(32 taxmann.com 356)(Guj) (c) Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd vs. Pr. CIT (386 ITR 162)(Cal) (d) Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd vs, Pr. CIT (77 taxmann.com 285)(SC) The Ld D.R also submitted that the Explanation 2 to sec. 263 of the Act also deems the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests…

Shekhar S. Dadarkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5255/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Cit-24, Bandra Kurla Prop. M/S S.D. Construction Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Geetanjali Chs Ltd., Plot Mumbai-400050. No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. Pan No. Adapd8694G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Dcit-24 Bandra Kurla Prop. M/S S.D. Construction Vs. (E), Mumbai-400050. Geetanjali Chs Ltd., Plot No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. Pan No. Adapd8694G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil A. Desai, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 31 /05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil A. Desai, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263Section 271B

…DR relies on the decision in Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. CIT 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC), Pr. CIT-7 v. Bikram Singh [2017] 85 taxmann.com 104 (Del.), CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., [2017] 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bom.), Arvee International v. Addl. CIT [2006] 101 ITD 495 (Mum) and Horizon Investment Co. Ltd. v. CIT [ITA No. 1593/Mum/2013] by “H” Bench, Mumbai and Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (GA No. 509 of 2016) by Calcutta High Court. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below. We begin with the case-laws relied on…

The J.K. Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…n this count also, we find no merit in the assertion made on behalf of the Revenue. 2.5. Now, we shall deal with the cases relied upon by Ld. CIT-DR. One such case is ARVEE INTERNATIONAL v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE 19(1), MUMBAI [2006] 101 ITD 495 (ITAT[Mum]), order dated 13/01/2006. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereunder:- “The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the following grounds : "1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT under section 263 of the In…

Maharashtra Airport Development, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

…ted therein. The crux of the argument is that the assessment was made without making due enquiry. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in ARVEE INTERNATIONAL v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE 19(1), MUMBAI 101 ITD 495 (Mum. Trib.) Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (Supreme Court), COLORCRAFT KASHIMIRA CERAMIC COMPOUND v. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), THANE (2017) 105 ITD 599 (Mum.), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Amalgamations Ltd. [1999] 238 ITR 963 (MAD.), CIT v. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd 248 ITR 611 (Madras). 2.2. In reply, the ld.…