Antala Sanjaykumar Ravjibhai v. CIT

135 ITD 506Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#8930 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquirymalabar industriallack of enquiryerroneous and prejudicialnon-application of mindincome-tax officersection 263section 26section 142scrutiny assessmentassistant commissionersection 142(1)

Judgments citing Antala Sanjaykumar Ravjibhai v. CIT

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

ITA 100/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 263

…\nACIT v. Technip Italy Spa (2006) 150 Taxman 13 (Delhi) (Trib)\nThe error envisaged by Section 263 is not one that depends on possibility\nor guess work, but it should actually be an error either of fact or of law.\nAntala Sanjaykumar Ravjibhai v. CIT (2012) 135 ITD 506 (Rajkot) (Trib)\nSection 263 does not visualize a case of of judgment of substitution\nCommissioner for that of the Assessing Officer, unless the decision is held\nto be erroneous.\nVijay Kumar Megotia v. CIT (2010) 3 ITR (T) 760 (Pat.) (Trib)\nWhen the Assessing Officer has specifically mentioned in the order that\nbooks of accounts along with p…

ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 263

…SOT 368 (Lucknow ITAT)\n12.\nSalora International vs. ACIT 02 SOT 705 (Delhi Tribunal)\n13.\nCIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj)\n14.\nACIT vs. Technip Italy Spa [2006] 150 Taxman 13 (Delhi\nTribunal)\n15.\nAntala Sanjaykumar Rasvjibhai vs. CIT [2012] 135 ITD 506\n(Rajkot Tribunal)\n16.\nVijay Kumar Megotia vs. CIT [2010] 3 ITR (T) 760 (Patna\nTribunal)\n17.\nRoshan Lal Vegetable Products (P) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer,\nAppeal No. 6(ASR) of 2010, assessment year 2006-07\n18. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2012] 19 ITR (Trib.) 746\n(Mumbai)\n19. Amrit Singh vs. Income Tax Officer [2003] 127 Taxman…

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

ITA 200/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Ravi Shankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 45(5)Section 54

…143 (3). We wish to rely on the following case laws; i. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. v. ACIT [2012] 19 ITR 746 (Mum.)CTrib). ii. Roshan Lal Vegetable Products (P) Ltd. v. ITO [2012] 51 SOT 1 (URO) (Asr.) (Trib.) iii. Antala Sanjaykumar Ravjibhai v. CIT [2012] 135 ITD 506 (Rajkot) (Trib.) 6. The Hon'ble Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in stating that the assessing officer passed the assessment order without causing inquiry or verification on the exemption claimed of Rs. 11,98,36,958/- under the head Capital Gain. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax, failed to appreciate that the assessing officer had…

ROOP KUMAR CHOPRA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT JAIPUR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Him By The Assessee In Compliance To The Notice Notices Issued To Him U/S 142(1) As Well As U/S 143(2) Of The Act By The Ao As Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue For The Purpose Of Section 263 Of The Act & Consequently Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed Dated 01-01-2021 To Be Made Afresh Made Is Most Arbitrarily, Unjust, Untenable & Liable To Be Vacated.’’

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…ng Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. Antala Sanjay kumarRavjibhai v. CIT [2012] 135 ITD 506 (Rajkot) (Trib.), Manish Kumar v. CIT [2012] 134 ITD 27 (Indore) (Trib.) held that section 263 does not visualize a case of substitution of judgment of Commissioner for that of the Assessing Officer, unless the decision is held to be erroneous. Allied Engineers v. CIT [2009] 180 Taxman 70 (Mag.) (Delhi) (Trib.) held that order passed by the Asse…

R V DESHPANDE HUF,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-1, BANGALORE

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

ITA 340/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2017-18 R V Deshpande HUF, Vs. The Principal Commissioner No.372, Nilay, R.T. Nagar of Income Tax, Main Road, R.T. Nagar, Bangalore – 1, Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. PAN: AABHR 8684Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S V Ravishankar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 30.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : .09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal is against the or…

CHAMBAL ALUMS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX-UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 147/JPR/2022[/2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3

…e Assessing Officer made proper enquiry and examined accounts, it could not be said that there was non- application of mind by him. Hence, the action u/s 263 was held invalid. Few cases are also reproduced as below. Antala Sanjay Kumar Ravjibhai vs CIT (2012) 135 ITD 506 (Rajkot – Trib) Roshan Lal Vegetable Products (P) Ltd. vs ITC (2012) 51 SOT 1 (URO) (Asr- Trib) Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. vs ACIT (2012) 19 ITR 746 (Mum-Trib) From above it has been clarified the assessment order was not erroneous and also not prejudicial to the interest of revenue. All the details was filed before the AO at the time of assessm…

M/S N.R.COMPANY,INDORE vs. PR . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal i

ITA 101/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore17 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. N.R. Company, Indore Pan – Aagfn 6169 F … Appellant Vs. Pcit-I, Indore … Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…to Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi). 4. Malabar Industrial Co. Limited v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT v. Vikash Polymers [2010] 194 Taxman 57 (Delhi) (HC) 5. CIT v. Escorts Ltd. [2011] 338 ITR 435 (Delhi) (HC) 6. Antala Sanjaykumar Ravjibhai v. CIT [2012] 135 ITD 506 (Rajkot) (Trib.) 7. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. v. ACIT [2012] 19 ITR 746 (Mum.)(Trib.) 9. On consideration of above facts in the light of the judicial pronouncements (supra) and the fact that since the assessee firm has offered income u/s 44AD at much higher profit rate then prescribed, the Ld. AO passed the order after discussing the same issu…

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

ITA 493/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jul 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…v. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC); d. Since the Assessing Officer made proper enquiry and examined accounts, it could not be said that there was non-application of mind by him. Hence, the action under section 263 was held invalid. Antala Sanjay Kumar Raviji Bhai V. CIT 135 ITD 506 (Rajkot) (Trib.), Roshan Lal Vegetable Products (P) Ltd. v. ITO 51 SOT 1 (URO) (Asr.)(Trib.), Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. v. ACIT 19 ITR 746 (Mum.) (Trib.); e. In case, where the High Court found that the Assessing Officer examined all the details with respect to assessee’s claim of deduction, the order could not be said to be erroneous or was pa…

M/S. ITT CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 344/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 344/Ahd/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.R
Section 142Section 144Section 263Section 263(1)Section 44A

…xmann.com 255) (Ahmedabad ITAT) 13. Zaveri & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (48 taxmann.com 153) (Ahmedabad ITAT) 14. M/s. Direct Media Distribution Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT (ITA No. 2211/Mum/2019forA.Y.2014-15) (Mumbai ITAT) 15. Antala Sanjaykumar Ravjibhai v. CIT (135 ITD 506) (Rajkot ITAT) 16. Indo Enterprise Limited vs. The PCIT (ITA No. 751 /PUN/201 9) (Pune ITAT)” 4.3 On the strength of these judgments, he contended that proceedings under s.263 of the Act can be initiated by the learned CIT if the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. According to him, if AO had made enquiry…

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs. THE D CIT, CIR-1(1), TVM, TVM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 462/COCH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin26 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 3Section 3(1)Section 40

…ven below: 1) CIT vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. (Calcutta High Court) Judgment delivered on June 18, 2014. ii) PCIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Limited (Bombay High Court) judgment delivered on October 13, 2016. iii) Antala Sanjaykumar Ravjibhai vs. CIT (2012) 135 ITD 506 (Rajkot Trib.) iv) Manish Kumar vs. CIT (2012) 134 ITD 27 (Indore Trib.) v) Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT (ITAT Delhi) (order dated 29th November, 2017) I.T.A. No.462 /Coch/2018 3. The facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 30/11/2014 declaring a loss of Rs.4,44,61,46,376/- as assessment u/s. 143(3) was compl…

JITINDER SINGH CHADHA,NEW DELHI vs. PRCIT-18, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. Cit-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpc6181D Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit-18, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble Vice President and Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Judicial Member ITA No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. CIT-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABPC6181D Assessee by : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CA Revenue by : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31.03.2018 of ld. Pr. CIT-18, New De…

SMT. PREETHI PRASAD,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 472/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazsmt. Preethi Prasad, 423, 19Th Cross, 1St & 3Rd Block (East), Jayanagar, Bangalore. . Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore-Ii, Bangalore. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Gr Reddy, Cit Date Of Hearing : 09-9-2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-9-2015 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri GR Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…Held in the following cases. ITA No.472/B/14 4 i. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd., Vs. ACIT [2012] 19 ITR 746 (Mum.) (Trib). ii. Roshan Lal Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO [2012] 51 SOT 1 (URO) (Asr) (Trib) iii. Antala Sanjaykumar Ravjibhai Vs. CIT [2012] 135 ITD 506 (Rajkot) (Trib) 4. Further, the learned CIT not justified in denying the claim of exemption u/s 54F of the IT Act, 1961 which the investment in house property outside India and that funds invested are not out of the funds realized out of the sale of property and considering the cost of acquisition of the property Rs.6,23,260/- as against the cor…