Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CIT

260 ITR 599High Court2003#4724 most cited

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 54B Section 10B Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 263 Section 48

Issues it is cited on

assessment order erroneous malabar industrial inadequate enquiry lack of enquiry erroneous and prejudicial non-application of mind section 119 section 263 chief commissioner section 26 share application money limited scrutiny

Judgments citing Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CIT

AVINASH DATTATRAY MULEY,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 624/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 48Section 54B

…rted by many judicial precedents. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhagvandas [(2005) 272 ITR 367(ALL)] and also in the case of P.T. Lashkari Ram [(2005) 272 ITR 309(ALL)] and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. [(2003) (260 ITR 599(MAD)] have held that action under section 263 is valid where the assessment order is passed without application of 5 mind and without conducting proper inquiry. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. [(2000) (243 ITR 83(SC)], wherein it was clearly held that the Commissioner of I…

RAJENDRA RAMESHLAL GUGALE,PUNE vs. PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1676/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT

Section 1Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 269SSection 69C

…pport of his contention : 1. Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., vs. CIT reported in [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC); 2. Vedanta Ltd., vs. CIT [2021] 124 taxmann.com 435 (Bom.) (HC); 3. Ashok Leyland Ltd., vs. CIT [2003] 260 ITR 599 (Madras) (HC); 4. Nagal Garment Industries (P.) Ltd., vs. CIT [2020] 113 taxmann.com 4 (Madhya Pradesh) (HC); 5. Pr.CIT vs. Shri Braham Dev Gupta AIRONLINE 2018 DEL 1529 (HC); 6. Ankush Garg, Rohtak vs. CIT, Rohtak – Order of ITAT, Delhi ‘B’ Bench, New Delhi ITA.No.2287 & 2288/Del./2015, Order dated 21.05.2019. 8. We have heard the rival…

SONAL SANDEEP SATAV,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 945/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari

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

…pported by many judicial precedents. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhagvandas[(2005) 272 ITR 367(ALL)] and also in the case of P.T.Lashkari Ram [(2005) 272 ITR 309(ALL)] and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd.((2003) (260 ITR 599(MAD)] have held that action under section 263 is valid where the assessment order is passed without application of mind and without conducting proper inquiry. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [(2000)(243 ITR 83(SC)]. wherein it was clearly held that the Commissioner of Inc…

NIHILENT LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT-2, PUNE

ITA 929/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Prakash

Section 139Section 263Section 90

…ported by many judicial precedents. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhagvandas [(2005) 272 ITR 367(ALL)) and also in the case of P.T. Lashkari Ram [(2005) 272 ITR 309(ALL)] and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd.((2003) 260 ITR 599(MAD)] have held that action under section 263 is valid where the assessment order is passed without application of mind and without conducting proper inquiry. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. [(2000)243 ITR 83(SC)], wherein it was clearly held that the Commissioner of Incom…

NIHILENT LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE

ITA 928/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Prakash

Section 139Section 263Section 90

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. SUFLAM INFRA PROJECT LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 46/NAG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CTI DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…erests of revenue. The view taken by the AO is an erroneous and not a possible or plausible view. The Allahabad High Court in the case of Bhagavandas (272 ITR 267) and P.T. Lakshar Ram (272 ITR 309) and the Madras High Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. (260 ITR 599) have held that action u/s 263 is valid where the assessment order is passed without conducting proper ITA NO.97/NAG/2019 & ITA NO. 46/NAG/2021 & CO NO.6/NAG/2023 Sufalam Infra Projects Ltd vrs Pr.CIT (Central) enquiry. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (243 ITR 83), wherein i…

SUFALAM INFRA PROJECTS LTD ,NAGPUR vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL ), NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 97/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CTI DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

M/S. GANGA ELECTRICALS,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX.-1, , NASHIK

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

ITA 215/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

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

…of Kerala in case of Perinthalmanna Services Co- operative Bank Ltd. Vs ITO [2014] 49 Taxmann.com 438 (KERALA)/[2014] 363 ITR 268 (Kerala) [31-01-2014] 2. Hon'ble High Court of Madras in case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs CIT [002] 125 Taxman 965 (Madras) / [2003] 260 ITR 599 (Madras) / [2003] 181 CTR 332 (Madras) [30-09-2002] 3. Hon'ble High Court of Madras in case of CIT Vs Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. [2001] 118 Taxman 230 (Madras) / [2001] 248 ITR 611 (Madras) / [2001] 171 CTR 154 (Madras) [06-11-2000] 4. Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in case of CIT Vs Emery Stone Mfg. Co [1995] 83 Taxman 643 (Rajasthan) / […

PATCHIRAJAN LAKSHMANAN,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 597/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 597/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Principal Commissioner Of Patchirajan Lakshmanan, V. Income Tax, No. 102F,/16Z/3, Maduari -1, Dhanasekaran Nagar, Madurai – 625 002. Polepettai (West) – 628 002. [Pan:Aazpl-1396-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…the Commissioner acting under section 263 was justified in setting aside the assessment order. Similar view has been taken by the Madras High Court in Jai Bharath Tanners (264 ITR 673). The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd Vs CIT (260 ITR 599) has held but has failed to do so, the order passed by him was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Further, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in K. A. RamaswamyChettiar vs. CIT (220 ITR 657) has held that when the Officer is expected to make an enquiry of income and if he does not make an enquiry as expected, it is…

K.RAJESWARI,WEST TUTICORIN vs. PR.CIT, MADURAI-1

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

ITA 487/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the Commissioner acting under section 263 was justified in setting aside the assessment order. Similar view has been taken by the Madras High Court in Jai Bharath Tanners (264 ITR 673). The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd Vs CIT (260 ITR 599) has held that when the Assessing was required to examine the claim of the assessee but has failed to do so, the order passed by him was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Further, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in K A RarmnaswarnyChetiar vs.CIT (220 1TR 657) has held that when the Officer is expected to make a…

SMT ELIZEBETH VASHEELAKUMARI,NAGERCOIL vs. ACI, CIRCLE-I, NAGERCOIL RANGE, NAGERCOIL

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

ITA 783/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.783/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Elizebeth Vasheelakumari, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 3, Parama Street, W.C.C. Road, Income Tax, Circle I, Nagercoil 629 001. Nagercoil Range, Nagercoil. [Pan:Abqpe8121P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit 1, Madurai, Dated 21.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 54F

…the Commissioner acting under section 263 was justified in setting aside the assessment order. Similar view has been taken by the Madras High Court in Jai Bharath Tanners (264 ITR 673). The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd Vs CIT (260 ITR 599) has held that when the Assessing Officer was required to examine the claim of the assessee but has failed to do so, the order passed by him was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Further, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in K. A. Ramaswamy Chettiar vs. CIT (220 ITR 657) has held that when the Officer is expected…

BHAVENDRA HASMUKHLAL PATADIA. LEGAL HEIR OF HASMUKHLAL PATADIA.,CUTTACK vs. ITO WARD-!(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/CTK/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.125/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal Heir Of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 Pan No. :Adapp 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Passed In Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026790827(1), Dated 19.03.2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. Head On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 784 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Dated 11.07.2022 Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Continuous Lockdown On Account Of Spread Of Covid-19, The Assessee Could Not File The Present Appeal In Time, Therefore, He Prayed That Delay Of 784 Days In Filing The Present Appeal May Kindly Be Condoned. On The Other Hand, Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To The Above Submission Of The Ld. Ar. Considering The Above, We Condone

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, कटक न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़पऩया ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अऩीऱ सं/ITA No.125/CTK/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs ITO, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal heir of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 PAN No. :ADAPP 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Deepak Shah, AR राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri…

CAVINKARE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1603/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1603/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Cavinkare Private Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 12, Cavin Ville, Income Tax, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet Company Circle-I(3) Chennai-600 018. Chennai-600 034. Pan:Aaacb 3754B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R.Mohan Reddy, CITFor Respondent: 24.11.2022

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 35Section 36(1)(ii)

…ng under section 263 of the Act, was justified in setting aside the assessment order. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Jai Bharath Tanners (264 ITR 673). The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd Vs CIT (260 ITR 599) has held that when the Assessing Officer was required to examine claim of the assessee, but has failed to do so, the order passed by him was not only erroneous, but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Further, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in K. A. Ramaswamy Chettiar vs. CIT (220 ITR 657) has held that when the Officer is expect…

DORAISWAMY SURESH (HUF),COIMBATORE vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 609/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.609/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Doraiswamy Suresh (Huf), Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 4, Ramalinga Adigalar Nagar, Income Tax, Nehru Nagar, Kalapatti, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore-641 014. Coimbatore. Pan: Aaihd 1367H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. M.Rajan, CIT &

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…the Commissioner acting under section 263 was justified in setting aside the assessment order. Similar view has been taken by the Madras High Court in Jai Bharath Tanners (264 ITR 673). The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd Vs CIT (260 ITR 599) has held that when the Assessing Officer was required to examine the claim of the assessee but has failed to do so, the order passed by him was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Further, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in K. A. Ramaswamy Chettiar vs. CIT (220 ITR 657) has held that when the Officer is expected…

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

…ssessment has been made upon due inquiry and it is found that no such inquiry was made, the ld. CIT has jurisdiction in such a case to set aside the assessment by invoking the powers conferred upon him under section 263. In the case of Ashoke Leyland Limited (260 ITR 599), the Assessing Officer without inquiry had accepted the claim of the assessee that insurance receipts in respect of partially damaged machinery were capital receipts and it was held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court that the Commissioner was justified in exercising power under section 263 and directing ITO to decide the matter after due inquiry.…

K.BALAKRISHNAN,TUTICORIN vs. ITO WARD 1, TUTICORIN

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

ITA 1318/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri S.Bharath, CITFor Respondent: 09.07.2019

Section 143(3)Section 194C(7)Section 263Section 40

…g cognizance of such fact and considering the fact that the AO allowed the assessee’s claim merely on the assessee’s plea, without making due enquiry/verification which is expected of him as held by the Jurisdictional High Courts in the decision reported in 260 ITR 599 and 220 ITR 647, held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as the Officer failed to discuss as to why and how the claim was accepted. Therefore, the ld. DR pleaded that the revision order passed u/s. 263 of the Act is very well within the scope of s. 263 of the Act an…

M/S HAHNEMANN PHARMACY AND LABORATORY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-55(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 77/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Hahneman Pharmacy & Laboratory. -Vs- Ito, Ward-55(3),Kolkata [Pan: Aabfh 6326 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.N. Purohit, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

…rding charges has resulted in double deduction of the same expenditure and consequent under assessment income by a sum of Rs. 6,33,344/-. In this regard, I place reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: a) M/s Ashoke Leyland Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 260 ITR 599 (Mad) b) M/s Jai Bharath Tanners vs. CIT reported in 264 ITR 673(Mad.) c) M/s Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83(S C) The Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Madras High Court have held in the above cases that the AO’s failure to conduct enquiry on the issues depicted in the assessee’s final accounts would render an assessment…

LAKSHMIWADI MINES & MINERALS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3587/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3587/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Lakshmiwadi Mines & Commissioner Of Income बनाम/ Minerals Private Ltd., Tax – 2, V. Yusuf Building, 3 Rd Floor, R. No. 344, Room No. 20, Aayakar Bhavan, 43-45, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 001. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacl 1756 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act is passed without application of mind by the AO and without conducting proper enquiry . It was observed that the same view was confirmed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Ashok Leyland Limited v. CIT (2003)260 ITR 599(Mad. HC). The learned CIT held that the assessment framed by the A.O. was not correct and is required to be reframed and accordingly the learned CIT set aside the assessment order dated 21-12-2011 passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act for making fresh assessments de- novo after undertaking proper enquiries, vide revisionary order dated 28.03.20…

KOLON INVESTMENT P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 8, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2870/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2870/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Kolon Investment Pvt. Ltd. Cit-8, बनाम/ 417-419, 4Th Floor, Room No. 259, Aayakar Bhavan, M. V. Road, Andheri (E), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaack 9118 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Girish Dave & Ms. Kadambari Dave ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri H. N. Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 16.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 23.8.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: The Instant Appeal By The Assessee Agitates The Revision U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 31.3.2014 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-8, Mumbai (‘Cit’ For Short) Qua Its Assessment U/S. 143(3) Dated 01.12.2011 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10. 2. The Basis Of The Revision In The Present Case Is The Acceptance By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Of The Assessee’S Claim For Short Term Capital Gain (Stcg) On The Non- Exercise Of The Option To Subscribe To The (Equity) Share Capital In Sintex Industries

For Appellant: Shri Girish Dave &For Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 263

…legion, and toward which the ld. CIT has himself referred to some decisions, viz. CIT vs. Bhagwan Das [2005] 272 ITR 367 (All) and P. T. Lashkari Ram vs. CIT 7 Kolon Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 309 (All); and Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. CIT [2003] 260 ITR 599 (Mad). No wonder, the thrust of the assessee’s arguments before us, as afore-stated, was on the merits of the case. We are also conscious that while we have held the impugned loss to be a capital loss, the ld. CIT has regarded it as a speculative loss. We disapprove of the same in-as-much as there is no settlement of the contract, much less durin…

GOOD MORNING,MUMBAI vs. CIT 15, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2533/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2533/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Good Morning Cit-15, बनाम/ Shivtirth No. 2, E Wing, 124, Matru Mandir, 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, 4/6 Bhulabhai Desai Road, Haji Ali, Vs. Mumbai-400 026 Mumbai-400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aadfp 2489 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vidisha Kalra सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Revision Of Its Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 16.12.2011 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-15, Mumbai (‘Cit’ For Short) Vide His Order U/S. 263 Of The Act Dated 24.3.2014 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10. 2. None Appeared For & On Behalf Of The Assessee When Its’ Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing. In Fact, We Observe No Appearance By The Assessee-Appellant On Any Date Of Hearing Despite Service Of Notices Of Hearing Per Registered Post. There Is Also No Adjournment Application On Record & Neither Has The Assessee, On The Basis Of The Material On Record, Appointed/Authorized Any Counsel To Represent Its’ Case Before The 2 Good Morning Vs. Cit Tribunal. The Appeal Contests The Order Of Revision, Which Is To Be Taken Up On A Priority Basis In-As-Much As It Has Implication On Quantum Assessment. It Was, Accordingly, Considered Proper To Proceed To Hear This Appeal Ex Parte The Assessee & Decide The Same On Merits After Hearing The Party Before Us & Considering The Material On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vidisha Kalra

Section 143(3)Section 263

…he assessee.’ Referring inter alia to the decisions in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC); CIT vs. Electro House [1971] 82 ITR 824 (SC); Green World Corporation vs. ITO [2006] 285 ITR 118 (HP); Ashok Leyland Ltd. vs. CIT [2003] 260 ITR 599 (Mad); CIT vs. Emery Stone Manufacturing Co. [1995] 213 ITR 843 (Raj); and Dawjee Dadabhoy and Co. vs. S. P. Jain [1957] 31 ITR 872 (Cal). 3 Good Morning vs. CIT 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. That non-application of mind would make an order per se erroneous in-so-far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the…

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2