ACTT (174 T, Mum-TM) 61 ITD 57 6. Rampyari Devi Saroogi Vs. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 CIT v. McMillan& Co. (SC)

226 ITR 527High Court1997#11342 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 43BSection 69CSection 110Section 11U (IT Rules)

Issues it is cited on

section 263(1)malabar industrialerroneous and prejudicialsection 263section 26section 68section 142(1)transfersection 143(3)indiabusinessperson

Judgments citing ACTT (174 T, Mum-TM) 61 ITD 57 6. Rampyari Devi Saroogi Vs. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 CIT v. McMillan& Co. (SC)

SH. BALJIT SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR. CIT, LUDHIANA -1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 416/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Kaushal &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68Section 92C

…IT v. Pushpa Devi (1987) 164 ITR 639 (Pat), held that if the procedure adopted by the A.O. brings in lesser revenue than some other procedure, the order would be prejudicial to the revenue. It has been held in the case of LajjaWati Singhal, Smt. V. CIT (1997) 226 ITR 527 (All) that on failure of Assessing Officer to make enquiry as expected, Commissioner was justified in invoking provisions of section 263 because order passed as such by Assessing Officer was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of K.A. RamswamyChe…

SIMBHAOLI POWER PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT CENTRAL, KANPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 505/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Anshul Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Gupta, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Commercial Bank (1993) 201 ITR 162 (Gal.) Jubilant Organosys Vs. CIT (2004) 2651TR 4201137 Taxman 515 (All.) . Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 109 Taxman 6612431TR 83 (SC) CIT Vs. McMilon and Company (SC) 33 ITR 182 Lajjawati Singhal Vs. CIT (All.) 226 ITR 527 12. In .view of the aforesaid discussion, it is found that the order passed by the A.O. is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the issues discussed in aforesaid paragraphs. Hence, the assessment order passed by the ACIT, Circle-3, Bulandshahr, u/s143(3) of I.T. Act, 1961. on 22.12.2016 is hereby set-aside on the is…

SIMBHAOLI POWER PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT GHAZIABAD, NEW DELHI

ITA 4620/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: \nShri Anshul Kumar, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Sanjay Gupta, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 69C

…ercial Bank (1993) 201 ITR 162 (Gal.)\nJubilant Organosys Vs. CIT (2004) 2651TR 4201137 Taxman 515 (All.) .\nMalabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 109 Taxman 6612431TR 83 (SC)\nCIT Vs. McMilon and Company (SC) 33 ITR 182\nLajjawati Singhal Vs. CIT (All.) 226 ITR 527\n\n12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is found that the order passed by the A.O. is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the issues discussed in aforesaid paragraphs. Hence, the assessment order passed by the ACIT, Circle-3, Bulandshahr, u/s143(3) of I.T. Act, 1961. on 22.12.2016 is hereby set-aside on the i…

GIRAFFE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 9 , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2663/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegiraffe Developers Pvt Vs. Pr. Cit – 9, Ltd Room No. 214, 2Nd 111, G Wing, Akruti Floor, Aayakar Commercial Complex, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Next To Akruti Centre Churchgate, Point, Central Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn2778D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Madhur Agrawal & Shri.Fenil Bhatt.Ar Respondent By : Shri.S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri.S.Anbuselvam.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 271BSection 40Section 40A(2)Section 92D

…rried on any business from the address declared in return and that AO accepted initial capital, gift received and sale of jewellery, income from business etc without any enquiry and evidence whatsoever, was upheld. In the case of Smt. LajjaWatiSingal Vs. CIT 226 ITR 527 (All.) the Hon'ble High Court has held that it is the duty of the assessing authority to make full enquiry and satisfy himself that the income surrendered was, in fact, earned M/s Giraffe Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. by the assessee. It was held that an assessment made on income surrendered by assessee without making an enquiry whether the same w…

M/S VENKATESH TECHNOKRAFT PVT. LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-1(5), LUDHIANA

ITA 1464/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Him Which Is Arbitrary & Unjustified. 3. That The Assessment Order Having Been Passed By The Assessing Officer After Due Application Of Mind & Taking Into Consideration The Various Replies, Material On Record & Books Of Account, The Action Resorted To By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Unwarranted & Uncalled For.

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Dahiya, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 263

…P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 137 (Mad) • Desai Brothers Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (1998) 66 ITD 203 (Pune-Trib) • Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT & Ors. (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del) • CIT Vs. Pushpa Devi (1987) 164 ITR 639 (Pat) • Lajja Wati Singhal, Smt. Vs CIT (1997) 226 ITR 527(All) • P.K. Fabrics Vs. Asstt. CIT(1998) 67 ITD 326 (Asr-Trib) • V. Narayanan Vs. Dy. CIT (2004) 88 ITD 43 (Chennai Trib) • Ambika Agro Suppliers Vs. ITO(2005) 95 ITD 326(Pune Trib) 4.9 Ld. CIT(A) held that the A.O. completed the assessment without making proper enquiry and that not only the A.O. had not made proper enquiry and had not verified t…

NIPHA EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 873/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…be correct. 10. Following the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi (supra) and in the case of Tara Devi Aggarwal (supra), it was held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Lajja Wati Singhal –vs.- CIT (226 ITR 527) that an assessment made on income surrendered by the assessee without making any inquiry whether the same was, in fact, taxable in the hands of the assessee, was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. A useful reference can also be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Addl. CIT –vs.- Mukul Corp…

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4752/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…CIT (All) 187 ITR 412 4. Thallbal Jain & Others Vs. ITO & Anr (Kar) 101 ITR 1 5. Tejinder Singh Makker Vs. ACTT (174 T, Mum-TM) 61 ITD 57 6. Rampyari Devi Saroogi Vs. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 CIT Vs. McMillan& Co. (SC) 33 ITR 182. 8. LaSa Vat/ SInghal Vs. C1T (All) 226 ITR 527 9. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. C1T & Ors(Del) 99 ITR 375 10. D&H Secheron Electonles Ltd. Vs. DOT (ITAT, Indore) 70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. CIT(Mad) 260 ITR 599 13. Arvee International Vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495 Color craft Kashmlra Ceramic Compound Vs. ITO (ITAT, Mum) 105…

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4751/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…CIT (All) 187 ITR 412 4. Thallbal Jain & Others Vs. ITO & Anr (Kar) 101 ITR 1 5. Tejinder Singh Makker Vs. ACTT (174 T, Mum-TM) 61 ITD 57 6. Rampyari Devi Saroogi Vs. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 CIT Vs. McMillan& Co. (SC) 33 ITR 182. 8. LaSa Vat/ SInghal Vs. C1T (All) 226 ITR 527 9. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. C1T & Ors(Del) 99 ITR 375 10. D&H Secheron Electonles Ltd. Vs. DOT (ITAT, Indore) 70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. CIT(Mad) 260 ITR 599 13. Arvee International Vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495 Color craft Kashmlra Ceramic Compound Vs. ITO (ITAT, Mum) 105…

SARAH FAISAL HAWA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 17(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4749/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…CIT (All) 187 ITR 412 4. Thallbal Jain & Others Vs. ITO & Anr (Kar) 101 ITR 1 5. Tejinder Singh Makker Vs. ACTT (174 T, Mum-TM) 61 ITD 57 6. Rampyari Devi Saroogi Vs. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 CIT Vs. McMillan& Co. (SC) 33 ITR 182. 8. LaSa Vat/ SInghal Vs. C1T (All) 226 ITR 527 9. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. C1T & Ors(Del) 99 ITR 375 10. D&H Secheron Electonles Ltd. Vs. DOT (ITAT, Indore) 70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. CIT(Mad) 260 ITR 599 13. Arvee International Vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495 Color craft Kashmlra Ceramic Compound Vs. ITO (ITAT, Mum) 105…

ACTT (174 T, Mum-TM) 61 ITD 57 6. Rampyari Devi Saroogi Vs. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 CIT v. McMillan& Co. (SC) (226 ITR 527) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax