Calcutta in Reliance Jute Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer

150 ITR 643High Court1984#4973 most cited

What is Calcutta in Reliance Jute Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer authority for?

The Assessing Officer (AO) is not required to refer the valuation to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) if the AO has conducted a detailed inquiry and is satisfied with the cost of construction. Strict adherence to procedural requirements is essential; failure to comply with mandatory conditions renders the assessment based on such non-compliance invalid.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Reliance Jute Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer · 150 ITR 643 · section 144B · section 147 · section 263 · adequate inquiry · inadequate inquiry · DVO reference · fair market value · Assessing Officer satisfaction

Sections most often in play

Section 144BSection 147Section 155(15)Section 50CSection 55ASection 56(2)(vii)(b)

Issues it is cited on

section 55asection 55section 263(1)erroneous and prejudicialfair market valuecomplete scrutinyincome-tax officersection 263section 26section 153prescribedperson

Judgments citing Calcutta in Reliance Jute Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer

Sonali Roy, Kolkata vs. PCIT-17, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1329/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Sonali Roy V/S. Pr. Commissioner Of V-5, Block-B, Meena Income Tax-17, Residency, Baguihati, Maniktala, Uttarapan Kolkata-59 Complex, Civic Centre, [Pan No.Afppr 4436 P] Kolkata-54 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 10-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 28-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Dispute The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-17, Kolkata Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 29.03.2017 Set Aside The Assessment Order Dated 25.03.2015 U/S 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2012-13 With A Direction To Re-Do The Assessment In Respect Of Issue Therein. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds:- “1. That The Findings Of Ld. Pr. Clt Kolkata-17 That Assessing Officer First Recorded His Decision Of Referring The Matter To Ova In The Order Sheet & Then Passing Of Order U/S 143(3) Was Recorded Do Not Support The Languages Used In Section 55A Of It Act, 1961 Which Speaks For Actual Reference To Dvo But Not "Decision" To Make Reference. 2. That The Ld. Pr. Cit, Kolkata-17 Having Admitted That Reference To Dvo & Passing Of Order U/S 143(3) Had Been Done On The Same Day Is Wrong & Unjustified In Drawing Conclusion That The Decision For Referring To Dvo Was Taken Before Passing Order U/S 143(3) Without Any Other Supporting Evidence.

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…ied upon upholding the order as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The assessee in support of her claim also relied on the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. Vs. ITI reported (1984) 150 ITR 643 (Cal), wherein the Hon'ble court has held:- “The purpose for which alone a valuation report can be utilized, namely, for completion of the assessment in conformity with the valuation report is no longer existence, the assessment having been completed in the meantime. In such circumstances, to allow the assailed valuation proceeding to continue wo…

Voltas Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 7(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5330/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2005-06 & Assessment Year: 2005-06 Voltas Ltd. Ito Wd 7(3)(4) Voltas House-A, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Dr. Babasheb Ambedkar Vs. Rd, Chincpokli, Mumbai-40020 Mumbai-400033 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaacv2809D Assessment Year: 2005-06 Ito Wd 7(3)(4) Voltas Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Voltas House-A, Dr. Babasheb Ambedkar Rd, Vs. Mumbai-40020 Chincpokli, Mumbai-400033 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaacv2809D Appellant By Shri Dinesh Vyas (Ar) Revenue By Shri Asghar Zain (Dr)

Section 143(3)Section 154

…uently refer to the valuation report for substituting the amount of sales consideration in the hands of the assessee. The reliance was placed in this regard on the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. v. ITO 150 ITR 643 and Bhalanath Majumdar v. ITO 221 ITR 608. It was also submitted that no reference can be made u/s 55A for the purpose of determination of sales consideration on the ground that the expression full value of consideration cannot be construed as having reference to the market value of assets transferred but only means full value of consideration ac…

ACIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Dilip Shoorji, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 5987/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5987/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Asstt. Commissioner Of Shri Dilip Shoorji, बनाम/ Income Tax – 16(3), 4 Th Floor, Cutch Castle, V. Matru Mandir, 523, S.V.P. Road, 2 Nd Floor, R. No. 206, Opera House, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400 004. Mumbai – 400 007. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aoqps0438E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap,DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 50Section 50CSection 55A

…inity. It was objected that the A.O. cannot extend the time barring limit of the assessment if the DVO report is not received. In support the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. v. ITO, 150 ITR 643 (Cal.) and in the case of Shahdara (Delhi) Sarangpur Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 208 ITR 882 (Cal.). It was further submitted that all the lands are developed lands having structure, road, electricity, drainage and water facilities and are non agricultural lands as per non-agricultural permission and merely because they are occupied by hutment…