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 366,418 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

Sri. Gireeshshastri Shankarshastri Jeere, Gajendragad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 305/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Gireeshshastri Shankarshastri Jeere, The Principal Commissioner Of Prop : Fakeeresh Fuels, Income Tax (Central), Kustagi Road, Main Road, Vs. Bengaluru. Gajendragad – 582 114. Pan : Agupj 2460 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. R. Chandrashekar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023

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

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Gireeshshastri Shankarshastri Jeere, The Principal Commissioner of Prop : Fakeeresh Fuels, Income Tax (Central), Kustagi Road, Main Road, Vs. Bengaluru. Gajendragad – 582 114. PAN : AGUPJ 2460 M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. R. Chandrashekar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 15.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Judicial Member: Th…

Om Sai Housing & Development Co. P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 635/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.635/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2015-16) Om Sai Housing & Development Co. Private Limited v. Pr.CIT – 8 B/27, Suprabhat Society Room No. 611, Aayakar Bhavan Dyanmandir Road, Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACO8560E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Vishnu Agarwal Department Represented by : Shri K.C. Salvamani Date of Hearing : 23.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 15.02.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMA…

Subhash Chand Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1063/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…T vs. Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.)  Fab India Overseas vs. CIT: 244 CTR 380 (Del.)  CIT vs. Vodafone Essar : 212 Taxman 184 (Del.)  CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj.)  CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 171 ITR 141 (MP)  CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP)  CIT vs. Associated Food Products (P) Ltd. 280 ITR 377 (MP)  CIT vs. Girdhari Lai: 258 ITR 331 (Raj.)  CIT vs. Raman Singh: 73 DTR 297 (MP.)  CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Bom.)  CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd.: 262 CTR 604 (Del.) 19. On merits the ld counsel submitted that in the case of CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF), t…

Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1061/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Satish Kumar Dhingra, Haryana vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1060/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

Jvr Retails Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 175/HYD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Jvr Retails Private Limited Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1) C/O. Murali & Co. . Hyderabad Chartered Accountants 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda Hyderabad-500 082 Pan : Aaccv9428J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V.Joshi Appeared For P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.03.2021 Passed U/S. 263 By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Hyderabad Relating To A Y 2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Domestic Company Engaged In The Business Of Retails & Manufacturing Of Jewelry. It Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 49,97,390/- On 08.09.2012 Which Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 21.02.2013. Subsequently, The Ao Reopened The Assessment By Recording Reasons As Per Provisions Of Section 147. The Reasons To Believe Which Was Put Up Before The Ld.Pcit-2 For Approval & Which Has Been Reproduced By The Ao In The Body Of The Assessment Order Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Joshi appeared for P.Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…A vs CIT reported in 91 taxmann.com 444(Kol.Trib) m) Spectra Shares & Scrips (P) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 36 taxmann.com 348(Hyd.Trib) n) Sanspareils Greenlands(P.) Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 99 taxmann.com 222(Del.Trib) o) CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers reported in 270 ITR 157 (MP.HC) p) CIT vs.Srinivasa Hatcheries (P.) Ltd.vs DCIT reported in [2002] 81 ITD 36(Hyd) (Hyd.Trib) q) Development Credit Bank Ltd. reported in [2011] 196 taxmann 329 12. The ld.DR on the other hand strongly supported the order of the ld.PCIT. He submitted that a perusal of the balance sheet of the assessee company shows that during the FY 2011…

Hritik Exim, Secunderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 743/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Hritik Exim Vs. Dcit, Circle-10(1) C/O P.Murali & Co. 5Th Floor, It Towers Chartered Accountants Ac Guards 6-3-655/2/3 Hyderabad-500 004 Somajiguda Hyderabad-500 082

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.Madhusudan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…A vs CIT reported in 91 taxmann.com 444(ITAT.Kol) iii.Spectra Shares &Scrips(P) Ltd. vs CIT reported in 36 taxmann.com 348(ITAT.Hyd) iv.Sanspareils Greenlands(P.) Ltd. vs CIT reported in 99 taxmann.com 222 ((ITAT Delhi) v.CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers reported in 270 ITR 157 (MP.HC) 6 ITA 743/Hyd/2019 vi.Srinivasa Hatcheries(P) Ltd. reported in [200] 81 ITR 36(Hyd) (ITAT.Hyd) vii.Development Credit Bank Ltd. reported in [2011] 196 taxmann 329 (Bom.HC) viii.CIT vs. D.S.Gopta Gowda reported in 34 tamxan 154 (Kol.HC) ix. Pravardhan Seeds Pvt.Ltd. vide ITA No.667/Hyd/2017 (ITAT.Hyd) x. Visu International Ltd. vide ITA N…

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

…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 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.…

Janata Traders, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 401/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Girija, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…ITA No.401/Bang/2022 Janata Traders, Gadag IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Janata Traders Namjoshi Road, Principal CIT Gadag 582 101 Vs. Hubli 580 025 PAN NO : AABFJ1358F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Girija, A.R. Respondent by : Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 26.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 26.10.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Principal CIT passed u/s 263 of t…

Kusuma Cashews, Karkala vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 511/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2017-18 Kusuma Cashews, Vs. The Principal Commissioner of 316/1, 316/2A, Income Tax (Central), Near Kariakallu, Bengaluru. Karkala – 574 104. Karnataka. PAN: AAPFK 6027L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Smt. Sheetal Borkar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 19.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21.10.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal is against the order of P…

Nepal Singh Rathod (HUF), Hubli vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

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

ITA 400/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

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

…ITA No.400/Bang/2022 Nepal Singh Rathod (HUF), Hubli +IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Nepal Singh Rathod (HUF) Flat No.401, B Block Ramdatt Apts Keshwapur Vs. Principal CIT Hubli 580 023 Hubli PAN NO : AAHHN3255R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Smt. G.P. Girija, A.Rs Respondent by : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R. Date of Hearing : 27.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by asse…

M/S. Janatha Fish Meal & Oil Products, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bengaluru

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

ITA 489/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms.Padmavathy S.M/S. Janatha Fish Meal & Vs Pcit, Central Oil Products C.R. Building D.No. 1-4(9), Manur Fisheries Queen'S Road Road, Kota, Post Kota Bengaluru 560001 Udupi 0576221 Pan – Aaefj1257G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocte Revenue By: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Appeal Is Against The Revision Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 28.03.2022 Passed For Ay 2018-19 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Pcit) Bangalore.

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocteFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 153DSection 263Section 269Section 269SSection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU “B” BENCH, BENGALURU Before Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President and Ms.Padmavathy S., Accountant Member M/s. Janatha Fish Meal & vs PCIT, Central Oil Products C.R. Building D.No. 1-4(9), Manur Fisheries Queen's Road Road, Kota, Post Kota Bengaluru 560001 Udupi 0576221 PAN – AAEFJ1257G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocte Revenue by: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 14/09/2022 Date of pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This appeal is against the revision order passed under Section 263 of the In…

Hariyappa Kotian, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 430/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Hon’Ble & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)

Section 139Section 143Section 153DSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V VASUDEVAN, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.430 & 431/Bang/2022 Assessment year : 2017-18 & 2018 - 19 M/s Hariyappa Kotian, Vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Karthik Complex, Tax [Central], Malpe Main Road, Bengaluru. Udupi-576 108. PAN – AECPK 7269 M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri V Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 08.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 19.09.2022 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member These two…

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)

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

R V Deshpande HUF, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-1, Bangalore

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

ITA 340/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2017-18 R V Deshpande HUF, Vs. The Principal Commissioner No.372, Nilay, R.T. Nagar of Income Tax, Main Road, R.T. Nagar, Bangalore – 1, Bangalore – 560 032. Bangalore. PAN: AABHR 8684Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri S V Ravishankar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 30.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : .09.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal is against the or…

M/S. Karthik Estate, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153DSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2018-19 M/s. Karthik Estate, Vs. The Principal Commissioner 79/AP1, 79/1A1, of Income [Central], Kidiyoor Village, Bengaluru. Udupi – 576 103. PAN: AAQFK 0031M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 17.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 24.08.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is against the order of…

M/S. Haris Marine Products, Mangaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 383/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)

Section 143Section 153DSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.383 /Bang/2022 Assessment year : 2017-18 M/s. Haris Marine Products, Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Trinity Commercial Complex, Income Tax [Central], N.G. Road, Attavara, Bengaluru. Mangaluru – 575 001. PAN: AAAFH 9819G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent by : Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD) Date of hearing : 21.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal…

Sadhu Salian, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 457/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)

Section 143Section 153DSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2018-19 Sadhu Salian, Vs. The Principal Commissioner of D.No.16, MMV Bhavan, Income Tax [Central], Bunder Malpe, Bengaluru. Udupi – 576 106. PAN: ASZPS 5632F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate Respondent by : Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD) Date of hearing : 21.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Principal C…

Vanishree Holabsu Shettar, Guledgudd vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 270/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2017-18 Vanishree Holabasu Shettar, Vs. The Principal Commissioner # 1, Hiral Street, of Income Tax, Behind Darak Medical, Hubli. Post : Guledgudd – 587 203. PAN: AEKPM 1689M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Ravi Shankar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 14.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S., Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is agai…

Shakuntala Singhvi, Jabalpur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 31/JAB/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Anil Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 45Section 54E

…the Appellate Tribunal. No revision under the circumstances would lie, for which reliance is placed on the decisions in CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC); Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83; and CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers [2004] 270 ITR 157 (MP). The Revenue‟s case, on the other hand, is that there has been no enquiry whatsoever by the AO during the assessment proceedings in the matter, with it being trite law that an absence of enquiry would per se result in the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, liable for revision, and for which reliance is pla…