Aryan Arcade Ltd. v. PCIT

412 ITR 277High Court2019#2794 most cited

What is Aryan Arcade Ltd. v. PCIT authority for?

An assessment order cannot be revised under Section 263 merely because the Commissioner holds a different belief or view, especially when the Assessing Officer has made full inquiry and taken a plausible view not unsustainable in law.

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Aryan Arcade Ltd. v. PCIT · section 263 · revision of assessment · erroneous and prejudicial · AO's full inquiry · plausible view of AO · Commissioner's different view · Malabar Industrial · Gujarat High Court 2019 · 412 ITR 277

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 133(6)Section 144BSection 155BBESection 69CSection 115BBE
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 80(p)section 80(p)(2)section 80(p)(2)(d)section 80p(1)section 2(1)section 194a(3)(v)section 194a(3)section 145(2)section 263(1)malabar industrialsection 254(1)section 80p(2)(d)

Judgments citing Aryan Arcade Ltd. v. PCIT

Vapi Merchant Saving & Credit Co. Op. Society Ltd., Vapi vs. The PCIT, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 107/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.107/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Vapi Merchant Saving & Credit Co. Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Op. Society, 130, 1St Floor Varun Complex, Opp. Reliance Super Market, Gidc, Vapi – 396195. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaav3925E

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…r disallowances/issues was subject matter in the appeal filed by the revenue before Tribunal in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 and the assessee was allowed similar deductions. 13. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2019] 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. [200…

Vapi Merchant Saving & Credit Co. Op. Society Ltd., Vapi vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Surat30 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Vapi Marchant Saving & Credit I.T.O., Cooperative Society Limited, E-Assessment Centre, Vs. Office No. 130, First Floor, Varun Delhi. Complex, Opp. Reliance Super Market Gide, Vapi (Gujarat). Pan No. Aaaav 3925 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

…r disallowances/issues was subject matter in the appeal filed by the revenue before Tribunal in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 and the assessee was allowed similar deductions. 13. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2019] 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. [200…

Atul Kumar Anchalia, Jaora vs. PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 63/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Dafaria, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263

…sment order cannot be treated as an order passed without conducting proper enquiry by the Assessing Officer and therefore requested to drop the Revision proceedings and relied upon Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Aryan Arcade Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT [2019] 412 ITR 277 (Guj.), the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Krishna Capbox (P) 8 I.TA No. 63/IND/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No Atul Kumar Anchalia. vs. PCIT Ltd. [2015] 60 taxmann.com 243, the Jurisdictional Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ratlam Coal Ash Co. [1987] 34 taxmann.com 443 and Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas Polymers [2010] 1…

Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd., Na

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 106/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

…10% of such ITA Nos.104 & 106/SRT/2022 (A.Y 17-18) K.N.Diamond & Labdhi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd deposits to tax the profitability as if such transaction was a result of inflated sales. 19. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd., Vs PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. In CIT Vs Nirma Chemical Works (P) Ltd (supra), the Hon’ble High Court also held that when asse…

K. N. Diamond, Na

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

…10% of such ITA Nos.104 & 106/SRT/2022 (A.Y 17-18) K.N.Diamond & Labdhi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd deposits to tax the profitability as if such transaction was a result of inflated sales. 19. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd., Vs PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. In CIT Vs Nirma Chemical Works (P) Ltd (supra), the Hon’ble High Court also held that when asse…

Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh, Na

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 102/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh. The Pr.Cit, Alka Society, Chhapara Road, Valsad. Vs. Dist.-Navsari-396445, Gujarat. Pan No. Abgpp 6727 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

…and hearing the assessee, could not say that the allowance of the claim of the assessee was erroneous, he simply asked the ITO to re-examine the matter, which was not permissible. 17. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd., Vs PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. 18. In CIT Vs Nirma Chemical Works (P) Ltd (supra), the Hon’ble High Court also held that when…

The Thanjavur District Co Op Milk Producers Union Limited, Thanjavur vs. ACIT, Circle2(1), Trichy

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

ITA 404/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.404/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Thanjavur District Co Op The Principal Milk Producers Union Limited, Vs Commissioner Of Income No.1, Nanjikottai Road, Tax-1, Madurai. Thanjavur – 613006. Pan: Aaaat 0224 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By K.Meenakshisundaram - Itp Revenue By Shri M.Rajan – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Against The Order U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Act) Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Madurai-1, Dated 26/03/2022 For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 26/3/2022 Received By The Appellant On 1/4/2022 Is Objected To On The Following Grounds Of Appeal. 1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Madurai Erred In Setting Aside The Valid Order Passed By The Assisstant Commissioner Of Income Tax Circle-2(1) Trichy Dated 5/11/2019 For The Assessment Year 2017- 2018 Under Section 263 On Mere Assumptions & Presumptions That The Order Had Been Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Misdirected Himself That The Valid Order Passed By The Assisstant Commissioner Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue Simply For The Reason That The

Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(e)

…r disallowances/issues was subject matter in the appeal filed by the revenue before Tribunal in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 and the assessee was allowed similar deductions. 13. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2019] 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit ITA No.404/RPR/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18 The Thanjavur District Co. Op Milk Producers Union Ltd.,[A] him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not val…

Shree Madhi Surag Staff Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 220/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat19 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.220/Srt/2021 Assessment Years: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shree Madhi Sugar Staff Co-Op Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Credit Society Ltd. Madhi Ta: Vs. Central Processing Centre (Cpc), Bardoli, Surat-394340. Bengaluru-560500 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaas 3360 C अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

…ilar disallowances/issues was subject matter in the appeal filed by the revenue before Tribunal in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 and the assessee was allo1 similar deductions. 13. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court m Aryan Arcade Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2019] 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order revision, it if further held that 220/SRT/2021 AY 17-18 Shree Madhi Sugar Staff Co-Op Credit Society Ltd. when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice revision is not valid, (emphasis added by us). Furt…

Abrama Seva Sahakari Mandli Limited, Na

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 178/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.178/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) Abrama Seva Sahakari Mandli Ltd., At V Income Tax Department, Navsari & Po. Abrama, Tal. Jalalpore, Dist. Circle, Navsari S. Navsari-396 445 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaaa 1075 G (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh Suratwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Chandnani, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…r disallowances/issues was subject matter in the appeal filed by the revenue before Tribunal in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 and the assessee was allowed similar deductions. 13. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2019] 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Mepco Industries Ltd. [200…

Sach Electro Mech Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 392/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 145ASection 14ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 40A

…ance of the claim of the assessee was erroneous, he simply asked the ITO to re-examine the matter, which was not permissible. ITA 392/SRT/2018 Sach Electro Mech P Ltd. Vs PR.CIT 22. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd., Vs PR.CIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. 23. In CIT Vs Nirma Chemical Works (P) Ltd (2009) 309 ITR 67, the Hon’ble High Court also held…

M/S Althan Bhatar Urban Co.Op Credit Society Ltd/, Surat vs. Pr.CIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.151/Srt/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S Althan Bhatar Urban Co-Op. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat-1, 123, 1St Floor, Aayakar Credit Society Ltd., Shop No. 5, Anand Apartment Nr. Jariwala Stores, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Bhatar Road, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaaaa 7721 R (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.P. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…lar disallowances /issues was subject matter in the appeal filed by the revenue before Tribunal in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 and the assessee was allowed similar deductions. 13.The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd., vs PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs Mepco Industries Ltd., (20…

Joynet Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-27, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 868/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 868/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Joynet Developers Llp बिधम/ Pr. Cit Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, 101/B, Bellona, Pant Nagar, Vs. 90 Feet Road, Ghatkopar Tower No.6, Vashi Station East, Mumbai-400075. Complex, Vashi-400703. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfk0186D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hemant Shah Revenue By: Shri Achal Sharma (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(“Pcit”)- 27, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “(Pcit)”] In View Of The Provisions U/S 263 Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “The Following Grounds Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-27 Has Erred In Setting Aside The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Learned

For Appellant: Shri Hemant ShahFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…s under: - (i) The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 91 Taxman 585/203 ITR 108 ITA. No.868/Mum/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 (ii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 109 Taxman 66/243 ITR 83 (iii) Aryan Arcade Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Guj) 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21/02/2022 (AMARJIT SINGH) (AMARJIT SINGH लेखध सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यधनिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; ददनांक Dated : 21/02/2022 Vijay Pal Singh (Sr. PS) आदेश की प्रनिनलनि अग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.…

Bardoli Janta Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Bardoli vs. Pr.CIT-2, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed on the primary submissions of the ld AR for the assessee

ITA 302/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Bardoli Janta Cooperative Credit The Principal Commissioner Of Society Ltd., Income Tax-2, Surat. Vs 94, Mudit Palace, Nr. Janta Society, Station Road, Bardoli, Surat – 394 601. Pan: Aaaab 1355 J Email Id; Srshethtax@Gmail.Com Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…ar disallowances /issues was subject matter in the appeal filed by the revenue before Tribunal in A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 and the assessee was allowed similar deductions. 13. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd., vs PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of 7 ITA No’s.302/SRT/2019 (AY 2014-15) Bardoli Janta Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., revision is not valid. (emphasis…

Satyam Textile Park, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 91/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263Section 271DSection 40

…treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. for A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Satyam Textile Park 22. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd., vs PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs Mepco Industries Ltd., (20…

Satyam Textile Park, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 90/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263Section 271DSection 40

…treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. for A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Satyam Textile Park 22. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd., vs PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs Mepco Industries Ltd., (20…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 94/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…ch the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. 33. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd., vs PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if (AY 2014-15 to 2016-17) M/s.Amrut Sarovar further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 93/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…ch the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. 33. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd., vs PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if (AY 2014-15 to 2016-17) M/s.Amrut Sarovar further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 92/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…ch the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. 33. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd., vs PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if (AY 2014-15 to 2016-17) M/s.Amrut Sarovar further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High…

Shree Madhi Surali Vibhag Nagrik Sahakari Dhiran Mandali Ltd, Surat vs. Pr.CIT-2, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 305/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) Shree Madhi Surali Vibhag The Principal Nagriksahakari Dhiran Mandali Commissioner Of Income- Vs. Ltd., Tax-2, Surat. At & Po Madhi, Tal. Bardoli, Surat – 394340. Pan: Aadas 5644 L Applicant Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 80Section 80P

…ed by the AO is not at all erroneous. The order passed by AO is in accordance with the decision of various Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunals. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that in the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd., vs. PCIT [2019] 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner had a different belief, that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it is further held that when AO made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the revision of notice is not valid. To 4 Shree Madhi Surali Vibhag nagrikSahakari Dhiran Mandali Ltd., (AY 2014-15) strengthen his submission, the…

M/S Nilkanth Stone Industries, Valsad vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 386/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.386/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Nilkanth Stone Industries, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Shop No.A-1/2/3, Nilkanth Of Income Tax, Valsad. Residency, B/H Old Jakarta Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad. [Pan: Aajfn 5653 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Surji Chheda - Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 27.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (Act) By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Pcit” Passed Under Section 263 Of Income-Tax Act (Act) Dated 27.03.2018, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Vide His Application Dated 16.08.2018 Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit Has Erred In Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Which Was Without Jurisdiction & The Cit Erred In Holding That The Assessment Order Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue On All Issues Discussed In Revision Order & Has Erred In Setting It Aside For Fresh

Section 253Section 263

…15 the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. 15. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Aryan Arcade Ltd., vs PCIT (2019) 412 ITR 277 (Gujarat) held that merely because Commissioner held a different belief that would not permit him to take the order in revision, it if further held that when Assessing Officer made full enquiry, he made up his mind, the notice of revision is not valid. (emphasis added by us). Further, Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs Mepco Industries Ltd., (20…