Calcutta in Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. S.P. Jain

Dena Bank, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sooddena Bank Vs. Pcit-2 Room No.344, 3Rd Floor Accounts Department Dena Bank Building Aaykar Bhawan 2Nd Floor M.K.Road 17/B, Horniman Circle Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aaacd4249B Appellant) .. Respondent)

…e from records called for by the Commissioner.-- Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd, vs. [TO 1977 CTR (SC) 32 : (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC), Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd, vs. ITQ 1977 CTR (AP) 138 : (1978) 114 ITR 404 (AP), Dawjee Dadabhov & Co. vs. S.P. Jain & Anr. (1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal) and Russell Properties 1M. Ltd, vs. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT (1977) 109 ITR 229 (Cal) relied on ." 13. The assesse also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd (supra). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the said judgment held that if the AO while making assessment has made an inadequate enqui…

Bse Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 1790/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2015-16) Bse Ltd. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Phiroze Jeejeebhoy Towers, Tax-2, 25Th Floor, Room No. 344, बनाम/ Dalal Street, Fort, 3Rd Floor, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Vs. Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaccb6672L अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Rajesh Shah, Ars प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri M Dayasagar, Cit Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10.07.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.10.2019

…e Revenue, then also the power of suo motu revision cannot be exercised. Any and every erroneous order cannot be the subject-matter of revision because the second requirement also must be fulfilled. As observed in Dawjee Dadabhoy and Co. vs. S. P. Jam [19571 31 ITR 872 (Cal), "the words" "prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" have not been defined, but it must mean that the orders of assessment challenged are such as are not in accordance with law, in consequence whereof the lawful revenue due to the State has not been realized or cannot be realized. It can mean nothing else". The aforesaid observations w…

The J.K. Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

…e has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation a lesser tax than what was just has been imposed. 43 M/s J.K. Trust Bombay 13. As observed in Dawjee Dadabhoy and Co. v. S. P. Jain [1957] 31 ITR 872 (Cat), at page 881, "the words 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' have not been defined, but it must mean that the orders of assessment challenged are such as are not in accordance with law, in consequence whereof the lawful revenue due to the State has not been realised or cannot be realised. It can mean nothing else". The aforesaid ob…

Maharashtra Airport Development, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

…which was lawfully exigible has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation a lesser tax than what was just has been imposed. 13. As observed in Dawjee Dadabhoy and Co. v. S. P. Jain [1957] 31 ITR 872 (Cat), at page 881, "the words 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' have not been defined, but it must mean that the orders of assessment challenged are such as are not in accordance with law, in consequence whereof the lawful revenue due to the State has not been realised or cannot be realised. It can mean nothing else". The aforesaid ob…

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1(1), Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

…al Co-op. Bank Ltd. iv. CIT v. Narayana Pai (T.) [1975] 98 ITR 422 (Karn) (para 11) v. CIT v. R. K. Metal Works [1978] 112 ITR 445 (P&H) (para 17) vi. CIT v. Sunder Lal (Late) [1974] 96 ITR 310 (All) (para 16) vii. Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. v. Jain (S. P.) [1957] 31 ITR 872 (Cal) (paras 11, 12) viii. J. P. Srivastava and Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 326 (All) (para 16) ix. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) (paras 9, 11) x. Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC) (para 13) 2.3. We are also expected to analyze the latest decision dated 31/07/2017 (relied upon…

Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT 14, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Idea Cellular Limited Principal Commissioner Of 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Income Tax-14, Century Mills Compound, 469, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400 030 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aaacb2100P

…passed the order after taking a possible view. Reliance in this regard is also placed in the Kerala High Court Judgement in the case of Bhatsons Acquatic Products 329 11'R 67 (Ker). 4.2.iv. It has been held by the Calcutta High Court in the case reported in 31 ITR 872 that if the decision of the Assessing Officer is not in accordance with the law, the same can be revised by the Commissioner of Income-tax u/s 263. It has been held by Honorable ITAT, Mumbai Bench 'A', Mumbai in the case of Sterling construction & Investment Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 79 lTD 299(Mum) that when assessment order was based…

Priyanka Regency Builders & Developers P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT 10, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2944/ Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year -2009-10) बिाम/ Priyanka Regency Builders & Commissioner Of Income Tax-10, Room No.574, 5Th Floor, Developers Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Priyanka Complex, Shop No.12- Aayakar Bhavan, A, Plot No.4, Sector-10, M K Road, Sanpada, Mumbai-400020 Navi Mumbai-400705 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…has passed the order after taking a possible view. Reliance In this regard is also placed In the Kerala High Court Judgement in the case of Bhatsons Acquatic Products 329 ITR 67 (Ker). 4.1.iv.It has been held by the Calcutta High Court in the case reported In 31 ITR 872 that if the decision of the Assessing Officer Is not In accordance with the law, the same can be revised by the Commissioner of Income-tax u/s 263. It has been held by Honourable ITAT, Mumbal Bench 'A', Mumbal in the case of Sterling construction & Investment Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 79 ITO 299(Mum) that when assessment order was base…

Good Morning, Mumbai vs. CIT 15, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

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.

…ectro 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 Revenue is well-settled. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) laid down a four-way test toward an order bei…

Prayas Writing Instruments, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(3), Mumbai

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4483/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: ( 2008-09) आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Prayas Writing Instruments Dy. Cit – 24(3) Room No.701, C-11, 7Th Floor, Bandra 113, Sati Industrial Estate, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) I.B. Patel Road, Goregaon (E) Vs. Mumbai-400 051. Mumbai-400 063. Pan:Aagfp 6727 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Naveen Gupta-Dr Assessee By: None सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 21.06.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 15.01.2013 Of Cit(A)-34, Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Firm,Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Pens, Ballpens, Mechanical Pencil & Their Parts & Components Etc., Filed Its Return On 30.9.2008 Declaring Total Income At Rs.Nil.The Assessing Officer (Ao) Completed Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 30.05.10 Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.20.60 Lakhs.

…e submission of the assessee, the FAA held that the issue before him was to decide as to whether the receipt arising out of sale of DEPB credits had to be taken in entirety for computation of 80HHC of the Act or not.He referred to the cases of Topman Exports (31 ITR 87-SB-AT) and Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals Ltd. (328 ITR 451). He also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Topman Exports and held that the assessee was entitled to deduction as per the provisions of section 80HHC on export profit and that the benefit of such deduction could not be denied to the assessee.A…

People Infocom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. C.I.T. Cir.7, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 People Infocom Private Ltd. Cit-7, C/O- Samria & Co. Room No.611, बनाम/ Chartered Accountants, 6Th Floor, Vs. 2E, Court Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, 35, New Marine Lines, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aadcp5658H (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

…which was lawfully exigible has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation a lesser tax than what was just has been imposed. 13. As observed in Dawjee Dadabhoy and Co. v. S. P. Jain [1957] 31 ITR 872 (Cat), at page 881, "the words 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' have not been defined, but it must mean that the orders of assessment challenged are such as are not in accordance with law, in consequence whereof the lawful revenue due to the State has not been realised or cannot be realised. It can mean nothing else". The aforesaid ob…