CIT v. Arvind Jewellers

259 ITR 502High Court2003#511 most cited

What is CIT v. Arvind Jewellers authority for?

An order cannot be revised under Section 263 merely because the Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's view or a different view is possible, provided the Assessing Officer has adopted one of the courses permissible in law.

186

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Arvind Jewellers · 259 ITR 502 · Section 263 · revision of assessment · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · two possible views · Commissioner's power under 263 · Assessing Officer's view · Malabar Industrial · mere disagreement · inadequate enquiry section 263

Also reported as

124 Taxmann 615

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 144BSection 143(2)Section 10(37)

Issues it is cited on

section 145a(b)section 45(5)malabar industrialsection 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)inadequate enquirylack of enquiryprejudicial to interest of revenuesection 263(1)section 10(37)revision u/s 263enhanced compensation

Judgments citing CIT v. Arvind Jewellers

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) - 4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 212/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 211/NAG/2025(AY 2015-16) Shree Sant Bhojaji Maharaj CIT(E), Pune at Nagpur Deosthan Ajansara Vs Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Ajansara, Wardha – 442001. Nagpur – 440001. [PAN: AAPTS4528N] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by ShriManoj G Moryani, Adv & Shri Bhavesh M Moryani, Adv Revenue by Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR Date of hearing 23.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 01.04.2026 PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM: 1. These three appeals are filed by assessee against the…

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) -4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 211/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 211/NAG/2025(AY 2015-16) Shree Sant Bhojaji Maharaj CIT(E), Pune at Nagpur Deosthan Ajansara Vs Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Ajansara, Wardha – 442001. Nagpur – 440001. [PAN: AAPTS4528N] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by ShriManoj G Moryani, Adv & Shri Bhavesh M Moryani, Adv Revenue by Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR Date of hearing 23.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 01.04.2026 PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM: 1. These three appeals are filed by assessee against the…

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE AT NGP, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 186/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 211/NAG/2025(AY 2015-16) Shree Sant Bhojaji Maharaj CIT(E), Pune at Nagpur Deosthan Ajansara Vs Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Ajansara, Wardha – 442001. Nagpur – 440001. [PAN: AAPTS4528N] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by ShriManoj G Moryani, Adv & Shri Bhavesh M Moryani, Adv Revenue by Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR Date of hearing 23.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 01.04.2026 PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM: 1. These three appeals are filed by assessee against the…

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…. at pages 339 ii) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Ltd. iii) ITA No. 705/2017 PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. PROPOSITION III: WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE NOTICE U/S 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED i) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers iii) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Casti…

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…. at pages 339 ii) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Ltd. iii) ITA No. 705/2017 PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. PROPOSITION III: WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE NOTICE U/S 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED i) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers iii) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Casti…

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…. at pages 339 ii) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Ltd. iii) ITA No. 705/2017 PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. PROPOSITION III: WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE NOTICE U/S 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED i) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers iii) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Casti…

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…. at pages 339 ii) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Ltd. iii) ITA No. 705/2017 PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. PROPOSITION III: WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE NOTICE U/S 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED i) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers iii) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Casti…

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…. at pages 339 ii) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Ltd. iii) ITA No. 705/2017 PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. PROPOSITION III: WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE NOTICE U/S 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED i) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers iii) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Casti…

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…. at pages 339 ii) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Ltd. iii) ITA No. 705/2017 PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. PROPOSITION III: WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE NOTICE U/S 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED i) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers iii) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Casti…

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…. at pages 339 ii) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Ltd. iii) ITA No. 705/2017 PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. PROPOSITION III: WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE NOTICE U/S 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED i) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers iii) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iv) 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd v) 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. vi) 323 ITR 632 (Bom) CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Casti…

JAIN ENTERPRISES, BHILAI,DURG vs. PCIT, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as above

ITA 187/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 187/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jain Enterprises, Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 87-B, Light Industrial Area, Raipur-1, Central Revenue Building, Bhilai-490026, C.G. Civil Lines, Raipur, 492001, C.G. Pan: Aagfj3469G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri S. R. Rao, Advocate राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 11/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2018-19 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24.03.2025 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (‘Pcit’) Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri S. R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ning that it was a case of change of opinion. He placed reliance on the following decision: 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. Mahavir Ashok Enterprises Pvt Ltd. [2024] 167 taxman.com 396 (Chhattisgarh) 3. CIT Vs. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 6. The Ld. Counsel reiterated the submissions/contentions/arguments filed/ taken before the Ld. PCIT. His contentions/arguments were confined on the issues of (i) validity of reassessment (ii) applicability of average price for valuation of the closing stock (iii) non-appreciation of the transfer of quantitative details from VAT regime to…

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

ITA 100/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ectionist point of view, it is felt that some more\nenquiries and verifications could have been made by AO while making\nassessment, the assessment order cannot be declared to be erroneous\nand prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.\nCIT v. Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502 (Guj)\nThe court held that the assessee had produced relevant material and\noffered The court held that the assessee had explanations in pursuance of\nthe notices issued u/s 142(1) as well as u/s 143 (2) of the Act and after\nconsidering the materials and explanations, the Income-tax Officer had\ncome to a definite conclusion. Merely because the…

MALAY MULTANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1095/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT(DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

…lid assessment orders. Therefore, invoking section 263 against a void or invalid assessment is beyond jurisdiction. 6.1 The assessee relied on various judicial precedents including Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83, SC), CIT v. Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502, Guj), and decisions holding that once the Assessing Officer has made due enquiry and taken a possible view, the order cannot be revised merely because the PCIT has a different opinion. 6.2 The assessee further contended that the had specifically examined the issue during assessment proceedings. The statement of Shri Suresh Thakkar was recorded…

DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT - 1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

…as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, Rampyari Devi Sarangi vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 82 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC).” The same principle has also been reiterated in the following cases: 259 ITR 502 (Guj), CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers • 354 ITR 489 (Kar), CIT vs. Digital Global Soft Ltd. • 295 ITR 282 (SC), CIT vs. Max India Ltd. • 395 ITR 1 (SC), CIT vs. Quality Steel Suppliers Complex • 6.2 Keeping into consideration the principle as propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial (supra), it has been further held by…

MOHMEDAMIN MOHMEDUMAR GENERAL,SURAT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 522/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(iia)

…on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industrial Company Limited vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT vs. Green World Corporation, 181 Taxmann 11 (SC) and decisions of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in cases of CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502 (Guj.), Aryan Arcades Ltd. vs. PCIT, 412 ITR 277 (Guj.) and other decisions and submitted that when the AO had taken a plausible view of the issue, it could not be subjected to the action u/s 263 of the Act. 3.2 The ld. PCIT did not accept the reply of the assessee. He has referred to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and reply of the assessee at…

SH. SUKHVINDER SINGH,KANPUR vs. PR CIT, CENTRAL, KANPUR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 190/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…her Assessing Officer has made proper enquiry with due application of kind or not, is not the domain of the CIT to judge and further held that the fact that the Assessing Officer has made enquiries is sufficient itself. In the case of CIT vs Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502 (Guj): Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held merely because the Assessing Officer had taken a particular view with which the Commissioner did not agree cannot ITA Nos.190 & 191/LKW/2020 Page 28 of 30 form the basis for an action under section 263 of the Act. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court…

SLR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 544/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

…erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It held that where two views are possible order cannot be termed as erroneous. The powers under section 263 cannot be exercised merely because a different view is possible SC dismissed the SLP against 259 ITR 502 CIT Vs. Arvind Jewellery (266 ITR 101) St.\n\nIn the case of CIT vs. Bharat Aluminum Co. Ltd. (303 ITR 256), the Hon'ble High 'Court of Delhi has held that for revision under section 263, the Commissioner of Income-tax has to be satisfied of two conditions viz. (i) the order of the AO sought to be revised is erroneous and (ii) It is prejudicial t…

SAURASHTRA GRAMIN BANK MANAGER (F & A), RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,, RAJKOT

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

ITA 37/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 37/Rjt/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. Cit-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1St Floor Wing 2, Lic Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahas2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. A.D. Vyas, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viii)Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 37/RJT/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Saurashtra Gramin Bank Vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Manager (F & A), Rajkot 1st Floor Wing 2, LIC Jeevan Prakash Building, Tagore Road, Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAHAS2116H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : Ms. A.D. Vyas, AR राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 29/09/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of…

M/S. PARISHRAM BUILDERS,,VERAVAL vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT

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

ITA 98/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.98/Rjt/2021 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Parisharam Builders The Pr. Commissioner Of बनाम Krunal Complex, Income Tax, Rajkot-1, 1St Floor, Junagadh Road, Veraval Vs. Rajkot Gujarat-362266 Pan : Aacfp5403G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…the case of Parshuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. vs. ITO (106 ITR 01). (C) Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83. (d) Decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502). (e) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC), CIT vs. Jagson International Limited 214 CTR (Del) 227. (g) CIT vs. SakSoft Ltd. 298 ITR 63 (Mad.) (h) CIT vs. R.K. Construction Co. 313 ITR 65 (Guj.) 6. However, Ld. PCIT rejected the above contention of the assessee and observed that in some cases, the payments have been made in cash in various in…

VITTHALDAS NATHUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 823/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Vitthaldas Nathubhai Shah Vs. The Pr.Cit-3 1St Floor, Tax Planning House Vejalpur Above Usmanpura Underbridge Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 380013. Pan : Acwps 4622 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Mukesh Patel, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…t both conditions, namely, that the assessment order is “erroneous” and “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue,” must be satisfied before the revisional power u/s. 263 can be exercised. Further, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502) and CIT v. R.K. Construction Co. (313 ITR 65) has consistently held that where the AO has conducted enquiries and accepted the assessee’s explanation, the PCIT cannot invoke section 263 merely because he does not agree with the conclusion drawn by the AO. 7.4 Recently, the Coordinate Bench in Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. PCIT…

Showing 1–20 of 186 · Page 1 of 10

...