Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CIT

260 ITR 599High Court2003#4653 most cited

What is Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Action under section 263 is valid where the assessment order is passed without application of mind and without conducting proper inquiry, making the order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Ashok Leyland Ltd v CIT · 260 ITR 599 · Section 263 · revisionary powers · Commissioner of Income Tax · erroneous assessment order · prejudicial to revenue · lack of inquiry · non-application of mind

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

assessment order erroneousmalabar industrialinadequate enquirylack of enquiryerroneous and prejudicialnon-application of mindsection 119section 263chief commissionersection 26share application moneylimited scrutiny

Judgments citing Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CIT

Champaklal Bhimshi Gangar, Mumbai vs. CIT 17, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5551/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2009-10 Champaklal Bhimshi Cit-17, Gangar, 146, 4Th Floor, बनाम/ Dewan Prakash, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Hindu Colony Road No.6, Parel, Mumbai-400014 Mumbai-400012 Pan No. Aafpg8529B ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

…R 309 that action u/s. 263 is valid where theassessment order is passed without application Of mind by the Assessing Officer and without conducting proper enquiry. The same view has been confirmed by Madras High Court in the case of Ashok Leyland ltd. vs. CIR 260 ITR 599. In .view of the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, you are given an opportunity to explain d5 to why the assessment order should not be set aside u/s. 263 of the IT.Act For the purpose, you may appear either personally or through your Authorized Representative to represent in…

Estrela Batteries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 2, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2122/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2010-11
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…after conducting an appropriate enquiry finalize the assessment. Reliance was placed upon the decision in Malabar Industrial Corporation ltd. (243 ITR 83) (SC), Pt. 3 M/s Estrela Batteries Ltd Lashkari Ram vs CIT 272 ITR 309 (All.) and Ashok Leyland vs CIT 260 ITR 599. 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have also perused the assessment order, which is a subject matter of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 and the impugned order passed by the ld. Commissioner. Admittedly, an incorrect assumption of fact or an incorrect application of law would satisfy the…

Sarah Faisal Hawa, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4752/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…8. LaSa Vat/ SInghal Vs. C1T (All) 226 ITR 527 9. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. C1T & Ors(Del) 99 ITR 375 10. D&H Secheron Electonles Ltd. Vs. DOT (ITAT, Indore) 70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. CIT(Mad) 260 ITR 599 13. Arvee International Vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495 Color craft Kashmlra Ceramic Compound Vs. ITO (ITAT, Mum) 105 14. ITD 59915. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Duggal & Co. v. C1T (1996) e) 220 ITR 456 (De/) held as under: 'An Assessing Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an Investigator. He cannot remain passive in th…

Sarah Faisal Hawa, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4751/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…8. LaSa Vat/ SInghal Vs. C1T (All) 226 ITR 527 9. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. C1T & Ors(Del) 99 ITR 375 10. D&H Secheron Electonles Ltd. Vs. DOT (ITAT, Indore) 70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. CIT(Mad) 260 ITR 599 13. Arvee International Vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495 Color craft Kashmlra Ceramic Compound Vs. ITO (ITAT, Mum) 105 14. ITD 59915. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Duggal & Co. v. C1T (1996) e) 220 ITR 456 (De/) held as under: 'An Assessing Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an Investigator. He cannot remain passive in th…

Sarah Faisal Hawa, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4749/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…8. LaSa Vat/ SInghal Vs. C1T (All) 226 ITR 527 9. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. C1T & Ors(Del) 99 ITR 375 10. D&H Secheron Electonles Ltd. Vs. DOT (ITAT, Indore) 70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. CIT(Mad) 260 ITR 599 13. Arvee International Vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495 Color craft Kashmlra Ceramic Compound Vs. ITO (ITAT, Mum) 105 14. ITD 59915. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Duggal & Co. v. C1T (1996) e) 220 ITR 456 (De/) held as under: 'An Assessing Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an Investigator. He cannot remain passive in th…