Bharat Overseas Bank v. CIT

152 TTJ 546Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2013#7005 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 143(3)Section 153A Section 153D Section 263 Section 271(1)(C)Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

section 80hhc(3)inadequate enquiry revision u/s 263 lack of enquiry malabar industrial section 80hhc section 263(1)deduction u/s 80ia eligible business section 80ia non-application of mind erroneous and prejudicial

Judgments citing Bharat Overseas Bank v. CIT

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 248/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80

…gh Court in the case of CIT V/s Bhagwan Dass (272 ITR 367) which is\na case wherein it was held that the order was passed without application\nof mind by Ld. AO. The same is not the case here. The case law of\nChennai Tribunal in Bharat Overseas Bank V/s CIT (152 TTJ 546) was a\nsimilar case wherein no inquiry was made by Ld.AO during the course of\nassessment proceedings. Therefore, these case laws are distinguishable on\nfacts and not applicable to the facts of the present case.\n7. Finally, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we quash the order\npassed by Ld. Pr. CIT in terms of settled legal position…

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,NEEMUCH vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 69C

…High Court in the case of CIT V/s Bhagwan Dass (272 ITR 367) which is a case wherein it was held that the order was passed without application of mind by Ld. AO. The same is not the case here. The case law of Chennai Tribunal in Bharat Overseas Bank V/s CIT (152 TTJ 546) was a similar case wherein no inquiry was made by Ld.AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, these case laws are distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the facts of the present case. 15 Shivam Readymix Pvt. Ltd. 7. Finally, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we quash the order passed by Ld. Pr. CIT in terms…

LAXMI NARAYAN AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a

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

…High Court in the case of CIT V/s Bhagwan Dass (272 ITR 367) which is a case wherein it was held that the order was passed without application of mind by Ld. AO. The same is not the case here. The case law of Chennai Tribunal in Bharat Overseas Bank V/s CIT (152 TTJ 546) was a similar case wherein no inquiry was made by Ld.AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, these case laws are distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. Finally, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we quash the order passed by Ld. Pr. CIT in terms of settled legal position as e…

NAHAR COLOURS AND COATINHGS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…tings Private Ltd render it erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Tribunal dismissing the appeal followed the decision of Apex Court in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). (Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. v. CIT (2013) 152 TTJ 546: 82 DTR 373 (ITAT Chennai)) WHAT CAN BE CONSIDERED A VIEW/OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN IT CAN BE SAID THAT AO HAS FORMED AN OPINION/TAKEN A VIEW VIEW IS DIFFERENT THAN CHANCE RESULT 4.1. Mere taking of a view by the Assessing Officer without having subjected the claim to examination would not make it a view of the Assessing Officer. A…

GA INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…High Court in the case of CIT V/s Bhagwan Dass (272 ITR 367) which is a case wherein it was held that the order was passed without application of mind by Ld. AO. The same is not the case here. The case law of Chennai Tribunal in Bharat Overseas Bank V/s CIT (152 TTJ 546) was a similar case wherein no inquiry was made by Ld.AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, these case laws are distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. Finally, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we quash the order passed by Ld. Pr. CIT in terms of settled legal position as en…

DHARMENDRA MEHTA,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Avadhesh Kumar (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 44A

…High Court in the case of CIT V/s Bhagwan Dass (272 ITR 367) which is a case wherein it was held that the order was passed without application of mind by Ld. AO. The same is not the case here. The case law of Chennai Tribunal in Bharat Overseas Bank V/s CIT (152 TTJ 546) was a similar case wherein no inquiry was made by Ld.AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, these case laws are distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the facts of the present case. 7. Finally, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we quash the order passed by Ld. Pr. CIT in terms of settled legal position as en…

VIKRAM RAM PHADKE,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, CHENNAI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 105/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Rahul Chaudharyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A No.:105/Chny/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015 - 2016

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Guru Bashyam, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…ear : 2015 - 2016 mind and hence the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 10. Further, it is pointed out here that the Hon’ble Tribunal, Chennai Bench and Jabalpur Bench, in their decisions in Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd v. CIT [2013] 152 TTJ 546 (Chennai) (Trib.) & Pratap Footwear v. ACIT [2003] SOT 638 (Jabalpur) (Trib.) have held that ……. “Non application of mind by the AO at the time of assessment — An order without application of mind is definitely prejudicial to the interest of revenue.” In the case of CIT v. Bhagwan Das [2005] 272 ITR 367 (AlI.)(HC), the Hon’ble Allahabad High Co…

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT (PCIT)-3, MUMBAI

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 578/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 263

…1 M/s Reliance Industries Limited Assessment Year: 2011-12 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “डी” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष एवुं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 578/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s Reliance Industries Ltd. Pr. CIT- Mumbai-3 3rd Floor, Maker Chamber-IV बिाम/ R. No. 612, 6th floor 222, Nariman Point, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 0…

M/S. ANSYS SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2038/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)

…the issue. Hence, the ground raised on the issue of re- opening assessment and disallowance of the claim for doubtful Standard Asset, is dismissed. 3.7 Secondly, apart from the above, the ratio of Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2013) 152 TTJ 546/82 DTR 373 (Chennai) (Trib), the ratio laid down by ITAT, Ahmedabad (ITA No. 1252/Ahd/2012) dtd 26.07.2013 in the case of Bharuch Dist. Central Co-operative Bank Ltd vs ITO, Ward-1, Bharuch also supports the view taken by the Assessing Officer. 8. On merits the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by Ld.AO. 9. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(…

M/S. ANSYS SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2037/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)

M/S. ANSYS SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2036/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore31 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)

DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LIMITED ,BIDAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , GULBARGA

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 551/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(viia)

M/S. KALINGA CONDUITS ELECTRICABLES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 9, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3287/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Kalinga Conduits Electricables (P) Vs Pr. Cit-9, Ltd., New Delhi. 81/41, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi. Pan : Aacck5784H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate; Shri Rajiv Sabharwal, Ca; & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca. Revenue By : Mrs. Aashna Paul, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23Rd March, 2017 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act, 1961 By The Pcit, New Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2010 Declaring An Income Of Rs.5,940/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Cit-Ii, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No. File 148/2012-13/2817 Dated 15Th March, 2013, Forwarded The Letter Of Investigation Ii, Delhi, Vide F. No.Dit (Inv.)-Ii/U/S 148/2012-13/197 Dated 12Th March, 2013 Giving Information About An Accommodation Entry Of Rs.40 Lakhs Received By The Assessee From M/S Victory Software Pvt. Ltd., Zenith Automotive Pvt. Ltd. & Humtum Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Based On The Above, The Ao Issued Notice U/S 148 After Recording The Reasons.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Aashna Paul, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kalinga Conduits Electricables (P) Vs Pr. CIT-9, Ltd., New Delhi. 81/41, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi. PAN : AACCK5784H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate; Shri Rajiv Sabharwal, CA; & Shri Lalit Mohan, CA. Revenue by : Mrs. Aashna Paul, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 18.02.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 24.03.2021 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23rd…

INDIAN SULPHACID INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, KARNAL

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 261/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta & Shri R.L. Negi

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. C.Chandrakanta, CIT

Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ,“ए“च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “A”,CHANDIGARH BEFORE Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Shri R.L. NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.261/CHD/2020 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Indian Sulphacid Industries Limited, The Pr. CIT, बनाम 110, Daryaganj, Groud Floor, Karnal Near Gurudwara, New Delhi-110002 "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AAACI3718E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing through video Conferencing "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue by : Smt. C.Chandrakanta, CIT सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date o…

M/S. DWARKADHIS BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,BHIWANI vs. CIT, HISAR

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

ITA 3097/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2006-07 Dwarkadhis Buildwell Pvt. Ltd Cit C/O N. K. Jain, Advocate Naya Vs Hisar Bazar, Bhiwani Pan No. Aaccd1951E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Naveen Gupta Ca Shri Ashu Goyal, Ca Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain, Ca Respondent By Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 01/07/2019 Order

Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…e Ld. CIT is justified in invoking the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the IT Act. He also relied on the following decisions :- 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 152 TTJ 546 (Chennai) 3. Pratap Footwear Vs. ACIT 1 SOT 638 (Jabalpur) 4. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax 99 ITR 375 5. CIT Vs. Nagesh Knitwear ITA No.591/2008 order dated 01.06.2012. 19. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his rejoinder submitted that in the case of Deniel Merchants Private Limited (supra) no enquiry was conduc…

BOSCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 571/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…The ld. DR referred to the following decisions laying down the proposition when detailed examination is required, the CIT has the power to remand the issue to the AO for fresh consideration:- CIT v. Shri Bhagwan Das, 272 ITR 367 (All) Bank of India v. CIT, 152 TTJ 546 (Chennai) 15. We have considered the rival submissions. From the factual details pointed out by the ld. counsel for the assessee which was also pointed out in the reply to show cause notice u/s. 263 of the Act before the CIT(A), it is clear that the R&D activity which was carried out by the assessee in Bangalore had nothing to do with the activi…