Arvee International v. Addl. CIT

8 SOT 452Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#14488 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Judgments citing Arvee International v. Addl. CIT

SANJAY MAJUMDAR,ALLAHABAD vs. PR. CIT, ALLAHABAD

ITA 68/ALLD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad28 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Sanjay Majumdar, V. The Principal Commissioner Type Ii – 112, Devprayagam Of Income Tax, Sangam Vatika – Jhalwa, Aayakar Bhawan, Allahabad 211012 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad 211001 Pan: Adopm 2688P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Basudev Banerjee, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chanda, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 154Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Sanjay Majumdar, v. The Principal Commissioner Type II – 112, Devprayagam of Income Tax, Sangam Vatika – Jhalwa, Aayakar Bhawan, Allahabad 211012 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad 211001 PAN: ADOPM 2688P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Basudev Banerjee, CA Respondent by: Shri Debashish Chanda, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 12. 01. 2021 Date of pronouncement: 28.01. 2021 O R D E R PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHA…

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

…atural justice which is implicit in the requirement cast by the Section to give the assessee an opportunity of being heard." 8.8. There are certain decisions, which are in favour of the Revenue and one such decision is Arvee International vs Addl. CIT (2006) 8 SOT 452 (Mum. Trib.), wherein, the assessment was framed without application of mind. It was held that mere allegation that Assessing Officer has taken a view in the matter will not put the matter beyond the purview of section 263 of the Act unless the view so taken by the Assessing Officer is a judicial view based on proper enquiry considering all legal a…

GUMPRO DRILLING FLUIDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 15, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2868/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids Vs Pr. Cit-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5Th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, Lbs M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcg2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri L.K.S. Dahiya Cit-Dr

Section 120Section 144ASection 263Section 35

…d mainly on the ground of excessive expenses on labour payment, etc. In that situation, a particular view was taken. 2.9. There are certain decisions, which favour of the case of the Revenue and one such decision is Arvee International vs Addl. CIT (2006) 8 SOT 452 (Mum. Trib.), wherein, the assessment was framed without application of mind. It was held that mere allegation that Assessing Officer has taken a view in the matter will not put the matter beyond the purview of section 263 unless the view so taken by the Assessing Officer is a judicial view based on proper enquiry and legal aspect. 2.10. vs CIT (…

MANOIR PETRO INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 1, MUMBAI

ITA 2626/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manoir Petro India Limited, Pr. Cit-1 602, B-Wing, Universal Room No.387, बनाम/ Business Park, Chandivali 3Rd Floor, Vs. Farm Road, Off Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aafcm5210J

Section 263

…tract was taken over by the sub-contractor. Revisional jurisdiction was invoked mainly on the ground of excessive expenses on labour payment, etc. In that situation, a particular view was taken. 2.11. In the case of Arvee International vs Addl. CIT (2006) 8 SOT 452 (Mum. Trib.) , wherein, the assessment was framed without application of mind. It was held that mere allegation that Assessing Officer has taken a view in the matter will not put the matter beyond the purview of section 14 Manoir Petro India Limited ITA No.2626/Mum/2015 & C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 263 unless the view so taken by the Assessing Officer is…

SAIGAL SEA TRADE,MUMBAI vs. CIT -18, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2511/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

Section 142(1)Section 263

…The Ld. CIT-DR relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Horizon Investment Company Ltd. vs CIT (ITA No.1593/Mum/2013), order dated 27/06/2014 and another decision of the Tribunal in Arvee International vs Addl. CIT (2006) 101 ITD 495; (2006) 8 SOT 452 (Mum. Trib.) 2.3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Before adverting further, it is our bounded duty to examine section 263 of the 5 M/s Trancfex Studios Pvt Ltd. Act, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference and analysis:- “263. (1) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may ca…

SURAJDEV D. SHUKLA,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 24, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-

ITA 5340/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Surajdev D. Shukla, The Principal Commissioner Of – B/104, Raghunath Krupa Bldg, Income Tax – 31, Near Sabnis Hospital, Mumbai Goregaon (East), Vs. Mumbai – 400063 Pan: Alhps9881K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manjunatha Swamy (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2017

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (DR)

Section 143Section 263Section 68

…er afresh after hearing the assessee. The Ld. DR relied on the order rendered by the ITAT, Mumbai in ITA No. 1593/Mum/2013 in the case of Horizon Investment Company Ltd. vs. CIT, Arbee International 5 Assessment Year: 2010-11 vs. ACIT Range, Mumbai (2006) 8 SOT 452 (Mum) and the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court rendered in Rajmandir Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT, Kolkata – III 386 ITR 162 in support of the contention of the revenue. 6. We have carefully gone through the entire material on record including the cases relied upon by the Ld. DR. The Ld. PCIT has pointed out the material discrepancies in the a…

SUMITOMO CHEMICAL INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 3, MUMBAI

ITA 3381/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3381/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Sumitomo Chemical India The Commissioner Of बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax 3 Vs. 6Th Floor, Moti Mahal, 195, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, J. Tata Road, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs3750L

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain &For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 43B

…encashment. In the similar situation the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai has passed the order in case of Horizon Investment Co. Ltd. in ITA No.1593/Mum/2013 and in case of Arvee International Vs. Addl. CIT Rg 19(1) [2006] 101 ITD 495(Mum)[2006] 8 SOT 452 (Mum). It is categorically held in the above mentioned law that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer without due application of mind was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to interest of revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act. The facts and circumstances of the present case are quite similar with the above mention…