CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7. CIT v. Hastings Properties

247 ITR 555High Court2001#9581 most cited

What is CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7. CIT v. Hastings Properties authority for?

A Principal Commissioner (PCIT) cannot assume jurisdiction under Section 263 merely because the Assessing Officer's (AO) view is not acceptable, if the AO has made due enquiries and taken a plausible view.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v Hastings Properties · Section 263 · revision · Commissioner's power · plausible view · complete scrutiny · non-application of mind · erroneous and prejudicial · final assessment order · assessment procedure

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 153ASection 263Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

malabar industrialamalgamationerroneous and prejudicialfaceless assessmentnon-application of mindcomplete scrutinysection 263section 26final assessment ordersection 144bsection 143(2)notice under section 148

Judgments citing CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7. CIT v. Hastings Properties

Leader Electric Co., Rajkot vs. The PCIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 377/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.376 & 377/Rjt/ 2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15& 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Leader Electric Co. The Pcit – 1, Vs. Dindayal Industries Estates, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Aji Vasahat, Opp. Gamara Hostel, Road, Rajkot - 360003 Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfl6072C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ShriD. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: ShriSanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT (DR)
Section 147Section 2Section 263

…R 157 (MP) 4. CIT v. Parmeshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj.) 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) 7. CIT v. Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v. Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) (e)Assessee submitted that explanation 2 to section 263 was inserted with effect from the date 01.06.2015, hence, same is not retrospective in nature. Merely just because the view taken by the FAO was not acceptable does not mean that respective FAO has failed to make requisite enquiries. As your honour will be find that FAO has made due en…

Leader Electric Co., Rajkot vs. The PCIT-1, Rajkot

ITA 376/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: ShriD. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: ShriSanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT (DR)
Section 147Section 2Section 263

…R 157 (MP) 4. CIT v. Parmeshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj.) 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) 7. CIT v. Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v. Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) (e)Assessee submitted that explanation 2 to section 263 was inserted with effect from the date 01.06.2015, hence, same is not retrospective in nature. Merely just because the view taken by the FAO was not acceptable does not mean that respective FAO has failed to make requisite enquiries. As your honour will be find that FAO has made due en…

Naresh Kumar Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 221/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan SoganiFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka, CIT
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…v CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) 7.3.v Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 7.3.vi CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7.3.vii CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 7.3.viii CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 7.3.ix CIT v Amalgamations Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 963 (Mad) 7.3.x CIT v Macneill Magore Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 945 (Cal) 7.4. Where the NFAC has exercised the quasi-judicial power vested in it in accordance with law and arrived at a conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be considered erroneous simply because the Commissioner does not feel sati…

Career Point Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…157 (MP) 4. CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) . 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7. CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 1.17 From the facts on record (PB 22-27), it is crystal that the order was passed by AO after full enquiries and therefore, the case is not falling within clause (a) and (b) of Explanation 2 to Section 263. In view of the above factual and legal position, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263. Thus, the entire order b…

Nimita Soni Prop. Swaranlata Traders, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 41/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 263

…tra Brothers, 270 ITR 157 (MP); 5. CIT v. Parameshwar Bohra, 267 ITR 698 (Raj.); 6. Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT, 263 ITR 101 (Ker.); 7. CIT v. Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502 (Guj); 8. CIT v. Hastings Properties, 253 ITR 124 (Cal); 9. CIT v. Goal (J.P.) (HUF), 247 ITR 555 (Col); 10. CIT v. Amalgamations Ltd., 238 ITR 963 (Mad); 11. ClT v. Macneill Magore Ltd., 232 ITR 945 (Col.) (b) Simply because the Commissioner of Income Tax felt that the assessment order is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue by itself would not be enough to vest the Commissioner with the power of suo moto revision because the first requir…

Pratap Technocrats Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 225/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

…v CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) 4.8.v Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 4.8.vi CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 4.8.vii CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 4.8.viii CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 4.8.ix CIT v Amalgamations Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 963 (Mad) 4.8.x CIT v MacneillMagore Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 945 (Cal) 4.9 Moreover, assessment order dated 29.03.2021, was passed under E-Assessment Scheme, 2019. Under E-Assessment Scheme, 2019, the assessments are completed through the following units: 4.9.i Assessment Unit 4.9.ii Verification…

Kgk Homes, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

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

ITA 223/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

…270 ITR 157 (MP) 4. CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7. CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 9. CIT v Amalgamations Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 963 (Mad) 10. CIT v Macneill Magore Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 945 (Cal) 7. Where the NFAC has exercised the quasi-judicial power vested in it in accordance with law and arrived at a conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be considered erroneous simply because the Commissioner does not feel satisfied wit…

Mukesh Kumar Saraogi, Churu vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 186/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Smt. Shivangi Samdhani, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. R. Meena (CIT)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…270 ITR 157 (MP) 4. CIT v ParameshwarBohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7. CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 9. CIT v Amalgamations Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 963 (Mad) 10. CIT v MacneillMagore Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 945 (Cal) 1. Without prejudice to aboveand without agreeing it is submitted that if the provisions of section 115BBE are made applicable then also rate of 60% cannot be applied because of the following reasoning: 1. The provisions of Section 1…

Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

ITA 126/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Prathviraj Meena (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 6(3)(ii)

…157 (MP) iv. CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) v. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) vi. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) vii. CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) viii. CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) ix. CIT v Amalgamations Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 963 (Mad) x. CIT v Macneill Magore Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 945 (Cal) 14. Where the Assessing Officer has exercised the quasi-judicial power vested in him in accordance with law and arrived at a conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be considered erroneous simply because the Commissioner does not fee…

Ultratech Cement Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Central - 1, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2999/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhita No. 3000/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ita No. 3001/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, D.R
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(2)Section 80I

…(vii)Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2008) 301 ITR 407 and various other decisions as under: • CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers (270 ITR 157) (MP) • CIT vs. Parameshwar Bohra (267 ITR 698) (Raj) • CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502) (Guj) • CIT vs. J.P Goal (HUE) (247 ITR 555) (Cal) • CIT vs. Macneill Magore Limited (232 ITR 945) (Cal) • CIT vs. Amalgamations Limited (238 ITR 963) (Mad) • Lark Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT[2011] (16 taxmann.com 13) (Mum) • Ashok Kumar Parasramka vs. ACIT (65 lTD 1) (Kol) Finally, the ld. A.R contended that by no stretch of imagination the order passed by the A.O be treated as erroneous even…

Umang Madan, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 16, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2202/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ashok J. PatilFor Respondent: Shri Sangram Gaikwad (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…to find out if the provision of section 50C was applicable in the case of assessee or the fair value of the property at the time of sale. 9. The ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the judgment filed before us, particularly, in case titled as CIT vs. J.P.Goel 247 ITR 555(Kol) and CIT vs. Amalgamation Ltd. 238 ITR 963 (Madras). None of the authority cited by the ld. AR is helpful to the assessee as facts of both the cases are at the variance and altogether different. In the assessment order dated 18.01.2013, the AO has not referred any other source of income or transaction during the relevant Financial Year (FY) a…

CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7. CIT v. Hastings Properties (247 ITR 555) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax