How many judgments cite Addl. CIT v. Mukur Corporation?

49 judgments on BharatTax cite Addl. CIT v. Mukur Corporation (111 ITR 312), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Addl. CIT v. Mukur Corporation come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 263, Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 37, Section 10(23EE).

Addl. CIT v. Mukur Corporation

111 ITR 312High Court1978#2321 most cited

What is Addl. CIT v. Mukur Corporation authority for?

When setting aside an assessment under Section 263(1) and directing a fresh assessment, the Commissioner need not record final conclusions or express final opinions on controversial points. It also interprets 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' as meaning the assessment order is not in accordance with law, leading to the non-realization of lawful revenue.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Addl CIT v. Mukur Corporation · Mukur Corporation · Section 263 · Section 263(1) · revision · prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue · Commissioner's powers · directing fresh assessment · no final opinion · erroneous and prejudicial · inadequate enquiry · Gujarat High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263 Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 37 Section 10(23EE)Section 11 Section 12

Issues it is cited on

revision u/s 263 inadequate enquiry malabar industrial section 263(1)lack of enquiry enduring benefit erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 26 revenue expenditure income-tax officer limited scrutiny

Judgments citing Addl. CIT v. Mukur Corporation

Shri Krishna Mohan Chuorsiya, Rajgarh vs. The Pr. CIT Ujjain, Ujjain

ITA 626/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Krishna Mohan Pr. Cit Choursiya(Prop. Of M/S Laxmi Ujjain Mp बनाम/ Auto Parts) Vs. Ward No.14, Bus Stand, Kurawar Rajgarh(M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aempc3634G

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…& Trading Co.Ltd.V/s Commissioner 238 ITR 867 (Madras) 13 Of Income tax Durgalal & Co. Vis Commissioner Oflncome tax 14 220 ITR 456(Delhi) Commissioner Oflncome tax Vis Active Traders (P) Ltd. 15 214 ITR583 (Calcutta) Addl.Commissioner Of Income tax Vis Mukur 111 ITR 312 (Gujarat) 16 Corporation 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through submissions made by both the sides and the decisions referred and relied by both the parties. Through this appeal assessee has challenged the action of Ld. Pr. CIT invoking the provisions Krishna Mohan Choursiya of se…

Shri Shaligram Barod, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 625/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 54Section 54BSection 54FSection 54F(1)

…ouse & Trading Co.Ltd.V/s 238 ITR 867 (Madras) Commissioner 13 Of Income tax 14 Durga1a1 & Co. Vis Commissioner Oflncome tax 220 ITR 456(De1hi) 15 Commissioner Oflncome tax Vis Active Traders (P) 214 ITR583 (Calcutta) Add1.Commissioner Of Income tax Vis Mukur 111 ITR 312 (Gujarat) 16 Corporation 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully perused with the assistance of the ld. Counsel, we have considered the documentary evidences brought on record in the form of Paper Book in light of Rule 18(6) of ITAT Rules and have also perused the judicial decisions relied upon…

M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village Post-Patan, Tehsil-Kishangarh, District-Ajmer, Kishangarh vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 861/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)

Section 115BSection 263Section 3Section 69A

…etics (India), Udaipur, (2017) 81 taxmann.com 478 (Rajasthan) • Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 109 taxmann 66 (SC) • Kirtidevi S. Tejwani vs. Pr. CIT-22, Mumbai, (2020) 116 taxmann.com 965 (Mumbai-Trib) • Addl.CIT vs. Mukur Corporation, (1978) 111 ITR 312, Gujrat • CIT vs. Assam Tea House (2012) 25 taxmann.com 93 (Punjab & Haryana) 11 M/s Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer Vs. PCIT, Jaipur • Nagal Garment Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2020) 113 taxmann.com 4 (Madhya Pradesh) • Pr. CIT, Ludhiana vs. Venus Woolen Mills, Ludhiana (2019) 105 taxmann.com 287 (Punjab & Haryana) 12. We have heard the rival…

Swami Keshwanand Shikshan Sansthan, Sikar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 273/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 273/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Swami Keshwanand Sikshan Cuke C.I.T. (Exemption), Vs. Sansthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan). N.H.11, Bhadhadhar, Sikar-332315 (Raj) Pan No.: Aafts 2816 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shafi Mohammed Chouhan (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Exemption), Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur Is Illegal & Against The Law Because The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Examined & Considered The Matter Involved In This Order. 2. That The Donation So Received Was Received For A Specific Purpose & Use, Hence It Was Corpus Donation. The Corpus Donation Cannot Be Treated As Part Of Income & Expenditure Account.

For Appellant: Shri Shafi Mohammed Chouhan (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 148Section 263

…awal Synthetics (India), Udaipur (2017) 81 taxmann.com 478 (Rajasthan) 5. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs CIT (2000) 109 taxman 66 (SC) 6. Kirtidevi s Tejwani Vs Pr.CIT-22, Mumbai (2020) 116 taxmann.com 965 (Mum-Trib) 7. Add.CIT Vs Mukur Corporation (1978) 111 ITR 312, Gujrat 8. CIT Vs Assam Tea House (2012) 25 taxmann.com 93 (P&H) 11 ITA 273/JP/2020_ Swami Keshwanand Sikshan Sansthan Vs CIT(E) 9. Nagal Garment Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (2020) 113 taxmann.com 4 (MP) 10. Pr.CIT, Ludhiana Vs Venus Woolen Mills, Ludhiana (2019) 105 taxmann.com 287 (P&H) 11. Apollo Tyers Ltd. Vs ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 263 (Delhi)…

M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. The Pr CIT, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 742/IND/2018[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jun 2020

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pr.Cit-2, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Bhopal D-1, Machna Colony, 6 No Bus Stop, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aagcs8307M Appellant By Shri Arun Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit Date Of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01.06.2020 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…JJ 176 ITANo.742/Ind/2018 Taxman 184 (Uttrakhand) (xviii) Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd V CIT 238 ITR 867(Madras) (xix) Durgalal & Co. V CIT 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) (xx) CIT V Active Traders (P) Ltd 24ITR 583 (Calcutta) (xxi) Addl.CIT V Mukur Corporation 111 ITR 312 (Gujarat) 7. Per contra Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supported the orders of Ld. PCIT contending that no proper enquiry was conducted for the reasons on the basis of which limited scrutiny was taken up. 8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through the judgments and d…

M/S. Maa Tarini Industries Ltd., Sundargarh vs. Pr. CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 292/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sahu, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR

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

…dering these aspects would be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax and the order passed by the Tribunal sustaining the same as a whole were valid.” 36. In the case of Addl. CIT vs. Mukur Corporation [111 ITR 312], Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held as under :- “that the words “prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ in section 263 have not been defined but they must mean that the orders of assessment challenged are such as are not in accordance with law, in consequence whereof the lawful revenue due to the State has not been realized or cannot be real…

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

…hinery Pvt.Ltd. vs CIT in ITA No.1635/Mum/2013, dated 03/11/2015 7. Swarnsathi Academy Pvt.Ltd. vs CIT in ITA No.1638/Mum/2013, dated 03/11/2015 8. Bhabisya Rice Mill Ltd. vs CIT in ITA No.1920/Mum/2013, dated 03/11/2015 9. Adl.CIT vs Mukur Corporation [1978] 111 ITR 312 (Guj.) 10. Rising Tracom Pvt.Ltd. vs CIT in ITA No.1436/Kol/2013, dated 03/11/2015. 11. Garud Credit & holdings vs ITO,Ward-9(2) in ITA No.1270/Kol/2013,dated 03/11/2015 12. Guinea Dealcom Pvt.Ltd. vs ITO,Ward 6(1) in ITA No.1273/Kol/2013 dated 03/11/2015 12 K.R.Construction 13. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs Prl.CIT, Kolkatta-III, Kolkatta [20…

M/S. Kalinga Mining Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. Principal CIT, Cuttack Charge, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 168/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Jesthi, ARFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…idering these aspects would be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax and the order passed by the Tribunal sustaining the same as a whole were valid.” 9. In the case of Addl. CIT vs. Mukur Corporation [111 ITR 312], Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held as under :- “that the words “prejudicial to the interests of the revenue’ in section 263 have not been defined but they must mean that the orders of assessment challenged are such as are not in accordance with law, in consequence whereof the lawful revenue due to the State has not been realized or cannot be real…

Nipha Exports Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 1, 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

…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 Corporation (111 ITR 312), wherein it was held that an order of assessment passed by the ITO without making necessary inquiry on certain important points connected with the assessment could be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. To the similar effect is the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax –vs.- R…

M/S. P.K. Cotton Mills (P) Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2504/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263

…atter to the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, he relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mukur Corporation reported in 111 ITR 312 (Guj). Page 24 of 35 ITA No.- 2504/Del/2016. P.K. Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. 4.3 We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record including the paper book containing 32 pages filed by the assessee. The mandate of section 263 of the Act is attracted only when the assessment order is found to be erroneous…

Bse Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1790/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 1790/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2015-16) Bse Ltd. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Phiroze Jeejeebhoy Towers, Tax-2, 25Th Floor, Room No. 344, बनाम/ Dalal Street, Fort, 3Rd Floor, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Vs. Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaccb6672L अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Rajesh Shah, Ars प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri M Dayasagar, Cit Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10.07.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2019

For Appellant: S/shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri M Dayasagar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “B” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री राजेश कुमार लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM आयकर अपील सुं./ ITA No. 1790/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2015-16) BSE Ltd. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Phiroze Jeejeebhoy Towers, Tax-2, 25th Floor, Room No. 344, बनाम/ Dalal Street, Fort, 3rd Floor, M.K. road, Churchgate, Vs. Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./PAN No. AACCB6672L अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant by :…

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

…ke such an enquiry. The order becomes erroneous because such an inquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct.'' (b) In the case of Addl. CIT v. Mukur Corpn. [1978] 111 ITR 312 (Guj.) the Assessing Officer had allowed two deductions of a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and a sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- without proper enquiry. The question arose whether exercise of power by the Commissioner under Section 263 in the circumstances was proper which was answered in the affirmative. The Division Bench held as follows :— "that the words "pr…

Sh. Nittan Aneja, Sbs Nagar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, both the assessee’s appeal and the Revenue’s C

ITA 288/ASR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 288/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Joshi (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…uiry renders an order erroneous in- so-far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Case law in the matter is legion, rendered in different fact situations: Thalibhai F. Jain v. ITO [1975] 101 ITR 1 (Kar); CIT (Addl.) vs. Mukur Corporation [1978] 111 ITR 312 (Guj); Nittan Aneja v. Pr. CIT (AY 2011-12) Swarup Vegetable Products vs. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 412 (All); Tarajan Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [1994] 205 ITR 45 (Gau); CIT vs. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal); CIT vs. Mahavar Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); CIT v. Everest Cold Storage [1996] 220 ITR 241 (MP); K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar…

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

…rdance with law, in consequence whereof the lawful revenue due to the State has not been realised or cannot be realised. It can mean nothing else". The aforesaid observations were also applied by the Gujarat High Court in Addl. CIT v. Mukur Corporation [1978] 111 ITR 312. We are of the opinion that the aforesaid interpretation given by the Calcutta High Court to the expression "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" is the correct interpretation. 14. We, therefore, hold that in order to exercise power under sub-section (1) of section 263 of the Act there must be material before the Commissioner to consider…

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

Lally Motors India Pvt. Ltd, Jalandhar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 218/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 218(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Sameer Bhatia (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D. R.)

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…The principle is well-established, and lack of inquiry renders an order erroneous in- so-far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Case law in the matter is legion, rendered in different fact situations: CIT (Addl.) vs. Mukur Corporation [1978] 111 ITR 312 (Guj); Swarup Vegetable Products vs. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 412 (All); Tarajan Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [1994] 205 ITR 45 (Gau); CIT vs. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal); CIT vs. Mahavar Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar vs. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 657 6 ITA No.218 (Asr)/2017(AY 2012-13) Lally Motors India P. Lt…

M/S. P.K. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

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

ITA 2055/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. P.K. Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., 202, New Mohan Puri, Meerut. Meerut Pan : Aadcp4270D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vinod Kr. Goel, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Ankur Garg, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 18.11.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 18/03/2013 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, Meerut Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961(In Short “The Act”) Revising The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2008-09. The Assessee Revised Its Grounds Of Appeal Vide Letter Dated 07/07/2015, Which Are Reproduced As Under: “1. That Notice U/S 263 Issued By Cit, Meerut Was Vague & Is Based Upon Incorrect Facts & Law & No Reasonable & Proper Opportunity Being Heard Was Allowed. Hence, Entire Proceeding Is Against The Principle Of Natural Justice. 2. That Ld. Cit, Meerut Has Not Justified In Making Addition Of Rs. 49,46,196/- Claimed By The Assessee As Loss On Account Of Machinery, Which Is After Due Consideration Accepted By The Ld. A.O.. This Addition Is Against Law & Facts Of The Case.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 43B

…atter to the Assessing Officer to make fresh assessment after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee, he relied on the judgement of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mukur Corporation reported in 111 ITR 312 (Guj). 4.3 We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant material on record including the paper book containing 32 pages filed by the assessee. The mandate of section 263 of the Act is attracted only when the assessment order is found to be erroneous insofar as to be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. These…

Sh. Surinder Kumar Jain, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2481/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. AshishFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT(DR)

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

…in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. ADDL. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi). Further, failure to make enquiries making the order without evidence or enquiry renders the order erroneous and prejudicial held in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Mukur Corporn. (1978) 111 ITR 312 (Guj) and Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC). In this regard, the following observations of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CWT Vs. NT Rama Rao [2003] 261 ITR 611 made after applying the 'decisions of the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 TTR 83, are relevant: What is an error? "A mistaken judgem…

Ayyazuddin J, Khan, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT- 22

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2881/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2881/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ayyazuddin J. Khan Ito-22(3)-1, Block No. 103, Aggarwal Upavan, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway बनाम/ Plot No. 11, Sector – 19, Nerul, Station, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 706 Navi Mumbai-400 073 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Atxpk 4365 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kishore K. Poddar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri H. N. Singh

For Appellant: Shri Kishore K. PoddarFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh

Section 143(3)Section 263

…neous in-so-far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, liable for revision u/s. 263, is legion, and for which we make reference to the following decisions: Thalibai F. Jain v. ITO [1975] 101 ITR 1 (Kar); CIT (Addl.) vs. Mukur Corporation [1978] 111 ITR 312 (Guj.); Swarup Vegetable Products vs. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 412 (All); Tarajan Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [1994] 205 ITR 45 (Gau); CIT vs. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal); CIT vs. Mahavar Traders[1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar vs. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 657 (Mad); Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1999] 238…

People Infocom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. C.I.T. Cir.7, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 People Infocom Private Ltd. Cit-7, C/O- Samria & Co. Room No.611, बनाम/ Chartered Accountants, 6Th Floor, Vs. 2E, Court Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, 35, New Marine Lines, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aadcp5658H (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 263Section 51