Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Amir Corporation 81 CCH 0069 (Guj.), CIT Mehrotra Brothem come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 263, Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 143(3).

CIT v. Amir Corporation 81 CCH 0069 (Guj.), CIT Mehrotra Brothem

Q: How many judgments cite CIT v. Amir Corporation 81 CCH 0069 (Guj.), CIT Mehrotra Brothem?

101 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Amir Corporation 81 CCH 0069 (Guj.), CIT Mehrotra Brothem (270 ITR 157), spanning 2016 to 2026.

270 ITR 157High Court2004#1088 most cited

What is CIT v. Amir Corporation 81 CCH 0069 (Guj.), CIT Mehrotra Brothem authority for?

A revision under section 263(1) is justified when the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue due to an inadequate enquiry or non-application of mind by the assessing officer.

101

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,406 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Amir Corporation · CIT Mehrotra Brothers · section 263 · section 147 · section 148 · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · erroneous and prejudicial · non-application of mind

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 148 Section 263 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiry prejudicial to interest of revenue section 263(1)lack of enquiry malabar industrial revision under section 263 revision u/s 263 erroneous and prejudicial section 119 non-application of mind section 263 section 26

Judgments citing CIT v. Amir Corporation 81 CCH 0069 (Guj.), CIT Mehrotra Brothem

Amazon Smart Commerce Solutions Private Limited, Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, Delhi

ITA 3533/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

…Del.) Fab India Overseas vs. CIT: 244 CTR 380 (Del.) CIT vs. Vodafone Essar: 212 Taxman 184 (Del.) -CIT v. DLF Ltd.: 350 ITR 555 (Del) -CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co: 171 ITR 141 (MP) -CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishonoi: 152 Taxman 242 (Raj.) -CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers: 270 ITR 157 (MP) -CIT vs. Associated Food Profits (P) Ltd.: 280 ITR 377 (MP) -CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Bom.) -Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. PCIT: [2025] 171 taxmann.com 754 (Delhi – Trib.) 156 It is respectfully submitted that, in the aforesaid circumstances, the AO order dated 15.12.2022 was not ‘erroneous’or‘prejudicial to the interests of…

Madan Mohan Rao Puvvada, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1152/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1152/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Madan Mohan Rao The Income Tax Puvvada, Hyderabad. Officer, Ward-5(1), Vs. Pin – 500 063. Hyderabad. Pan Agjpp4754H Telangana. Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263

…ipura Developers (P.) Ltd vs. Pr. CIT [2024] 168 taxmann. Com 543 ( Delhi). 10. Divya Jyothi steels Ltd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle - 12, Hyderabad [ 'A' Bench ITAT Hyderabad in ITA Nos. 1176 & 29/Hyd/2016 dated 28-03-2018. 11. CIT vs Mehrotra Brothers [2004] 270 ITR 157 (M.P). 8.1. He has further contended that the Assessing Officer has conducted a detailed enquiry before accepting the return of income and therefore, the learned Pr. CIT has no power to invoke the provisions of sec.263 of the Act on the issue other than the reasons for which the case of the assessee was reopened. Thus, the Pr. CIT cannot exercis…

Satish Sawarmal Saraf, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 5540/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69A

…urnished to justify identity and creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of loan transaction. The Assessee in support of its case, has also relied on the following decisions: 1. Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj-HC) 2. CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP-HC) 3. CIT vs. S. Kamaljeet Sing 147 Тахтапп 18 (AII-HC) 4. CIT vs. Diamond Products Ltd 21 DTR 9(Del- HC) 9.2 The Ld. Commissioner by considering the aforesaid peculiar fact and circumstances of the case and the submission of the Assessee and the evidences on record, observed and found that the unsecured loan parties duly confirmed the ledge…

Venetian Ldf Projects LLP, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3533/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

…India Overseas vs. CIT: 244 CTR 380 (Del.) - CIT vs. Vodafone Essar: 212 Taxman 184 (Del.) 42 - CIT vs. DLF Ltd.: 350 ITR 555 (Del) - CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co: 171 ITR 141 (MP) - CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishonoi: 152 Taxman 242 (Raj.) - CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers: 270 ITR 157 (MP) - CIT vs. Associated Food Profits (P) Ltd.: 280 ITR 377 (MP) - CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Bom.) - Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. PCIT: [2025] 171 taxmann.com 754 (Delhi – Trib.) 156 It is respectfully submitted that, in the aforesaid circumstances, the AO order dated 15.12.2022 was not ‘erroneous’ or ‘prejudicial to the interes…

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

…e interest of the Revenue, which was required to be taken in revision by the Commissioner u/s. 263 of the IT Act. 1. CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 2. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v. ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1(Cal) 3. CIT v. Mahrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 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 ef…

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

…he interest of the Revenue, which was required to be taken in revision by the Commissioner u/s. 263 of the IT Act. 1. CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 2. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v. ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1(Cal) 3. CIT v. Mahrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 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 ef…

ITO, Income Tax Department vs. Ska Techinfra Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stand dismissed on merits, whereas the CO filed by the Assessee stand dismissed being not pressed

ITA 4369/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Sawant, Ld. Sr. A.R

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…rnished to justify identity and creditworthiness of the lender and genuineness of loan transaction. The Assessee in support of its case, has also relied on the following decisions: 1. Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 219 CTR 571 (Raj-HC) 2. CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP-HC) 3. CIT vs. S. Kamaljeet Sing 147 Taxmann 18 (AII-HC) 4. CIT vs. Diamond Products Ltd 21 DTR 9(Del- HC) 9.2 The Ld. Commissioner by considering the aforesaid peculiar fact and circumstances of the case and the submission of the Assessee and the evidences on record, observed and found that the unsecured loan parties duly confirmed the ledg…

Alok Vijawat, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Udaipur

ITA 605/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…1 आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 605/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2019-20 Shri Alok Vijawat cuke The PCIT Vs. Udaipur Station Road, Masjid Ke Samne Bhawani Mandi, Jhalawar 326 502 LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AERPV0538 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Devang Gargieya, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: M…

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

…oneous. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: - 25 Naresh Kumar Bhargava vs. PCIT 7.3.i CIT v Ratlam Coal Ash Co (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 7.3.ii Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) 7.3.iii CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 7.3.iv 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…

Shri Lokendra Panwar, Indore vs. The PCIT (1), Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Lokendra Panwar Pcit (1) 8 B Chandra Nagar, A.B. Indore Vs. Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Achpp2073R Assessee By Shri S.S. Solanki, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 31.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.12.2023

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57(1)

…o.185/Ind/2023 Lokendra Panwar (ii) Reliance Money Infrastructure Ltd vs. Pr. CIT 51CCH0166(ITAT Mumbai) (iii) ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd (ITA 179/2011 (Delhi HC) (iv) (iv) DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation 267/2013 (Delhi HC) (v) (v) CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (M.P.) Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Pr. CIT is not sustainable in law and liable to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the order of the AO is completely silent about inquiry he has conducted on the issue for which the limited scrutiny under CASS was taken up. Thus, Ld. DR has submit…

Sourabh Sharma, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) a

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 240/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 Sourabh Sharma cuke PCIT, 58, Gom Defense Colony, 5th Vs. Jaipur-2 Avenue, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADPPS 2335 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Reve…

Manish Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.192/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Manish Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, Gantiwala Compound, Near A S Surat Motors, A. K. Road, Surat - 395008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm6018Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri S. M. Keshkamat, Cit(Dr) 13/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2023

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.192/SRT/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Manish Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The PCIT -1, Gantiwala Compound, Near A S Surat Motors, A. K. Road, Surat - 395008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCM6018Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by Shri S. M. Keshkamat, CIT(DR) 13/09/2023 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 26/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: By way of this appeal, the assessee has challenged the correctnes…

Gayatri Devi, Jaipur vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 405/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 405/JPR/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2019-20 cuke Gayatri Devi Pr. CIT Vs. Rathunath Puri Daba Takhta Tonk Central, Jaipur Tonk 304 001 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ALJPD 4796 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Mahendra Gargieya Advocate & Ms. Veshnawi Joshi, Ad…

Girnar Software Private Limited, 6Th Floor, Jaipur Textile Market, B-2, Near Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur vs. PCIT – 2, Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

…ered accordingly.” • CIT vs. Girdharilal: 258 ITR 331 (Raj.) • Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H) • CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co: 171 ITR 141 (MP) • CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishonoi: 152 Taxman 242 (Raj.) /198 CTR 546 (Raj.) • CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers: 270 ITR 157 (MP) • CIT vs. Associated Food Profits (P) Ltd: 280 ITR 377 (MP) 12 Girnar Software Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. • Salora International Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT: 2 SOT 705 (Delhi) • Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT: 131 Taxman 32 (Delhi) (Mag.) • Shivam Leasing & Finance Ltd. vs. ITO: 68 Taxman 211 (Delhi) (Mag.) • Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd…

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

…l the facts, the order cannot be termed as erroneous. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. CIT v Ratlam Coal Ash Co (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 2. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) 3. CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 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) 1.17 From the facts on record (PB 22-27), it is crystal that the order was…

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

…f Income Tax Act, 1961. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions : 1. CIT v. Valliammal (D) 230 ITR 695 (Mad); 2. CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co., 171 ITR 141 (MP); 3. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v. ACIT, 65 ITD 1 (Cal); 4. CIT v. Mehrotra 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…

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

…ts, the order cannot be termed as erroneous. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 4.8.i CIT v Ratlam Coal Ash Co (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 4.8.ii Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) 4.8.iii CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 4.8.iv 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…

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

…all the facts, the order cannot be termed as erroneous. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. CIT v Ratlam Coal Ash Co (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 2. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) 3. CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 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…

Shri. Nagaraj Vinayak Joshi, Karawar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 133ASection 263Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.238 and 239/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2017-18 and 2018-19 Nagaraj Vinayak Joshi, The Principal Commissioner of Income Civil Engineer and Contractor, Tax (Central), H. No.4038, Joshiwada, Vs. Bengaluru. Nandangadda, North Kanara, Karawar – 581 301. PAN : ABXPJ 3854 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 22.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023 O…

Shri. Nagaraj Vinayak Joshi, Karawar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 133ASection 263Section 69