How many judgments cite CIT v. Arvind Jewellers?

186 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Arvind Jewellers come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 147, Section 148, Section 144B.

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 366,369 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 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 148 Section 144B Section 143(2)Section 10(37)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 145a(b)section 45(5)malabar industrial section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)inadequate enquiry lack of enquiry prejudicial to interest of revenue section 263(1)section 10(37)revision u/s 263 enhanced compensation

Judgments citing CIT v. Arvind Jewellers

Gajanand Financial Consultancy Private Limited, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…5IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.126/Nag./2025 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) Gajanand Financial Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. N–86, MIDC, Hingna Road ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 016 PAN – AADCG2049R v/s Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent (Central), Nagpur Assessee by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani Revenue by : Shri Pankaj Kumar Date of Hearing – 23/06/2025 Date of Order – 22/09/2025 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. By this appeal, the assessee has challenged the impugned order dated 05/0…

Altaf Ayoobbhai Vehvaria, Jamnagar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 27/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.26/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Plot No.3452 Gidc 3, Dared Income-Tax, Jamnagar, Jamnagar-361 004 ( Gujarat) Vs. Room No.101, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.:Aeqpv3027C "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.27/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Altaf Ayoobbhai Vehvaria, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम Prop. Of K A Enterprise, Ground Income-Tax, Floor, Near Alamin Park, Vs. Jamnagar, Room No.101, 1St Vehwaria Madresa, Jamnagar- 361 004 Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Aempv7317M "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit- Dr

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "यायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA Nos.26/RJT/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2021-22 Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria Principal Commissioner of बनाम Plot No.3452 GIDC 3, Dared Income-tax, Jamnagar, Jamnagar-361 004 ( Gujarat) Vs. Room No.101, 1st Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Nr. Shubhas Bridge, Jamnagar-361 001 /. /. PAN/GIR No.:AEQPV3027C "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA Nos.27/RJT/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Y…

Jabir Ayoob Vahevaria, Jamnagar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 26/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Khanji Bhavan vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan(Vejalpur), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 651/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80GSection 80I

…r passed on wrong assumption of facts, or incorrect application of law, without due application of mind or without following the principles of natural justice are not beyond the scope of section 263 of the Act. " 18. In case of CIT v. Arvind Jewellers [2003] 259 ITR 502/[2002] 124 Taxman 615 (Guj.) Division Bench of this Court referring to the judgement of Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000]243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66 observed as under: "6. From the above observations made by the Supreme Court, it is clear that the provisions of Section 263cannot be invoked to correct each and every…

Alliance Nirmaan Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 263

…9. CIT vs. Mohd. Ishaq Mohd. Gulam 276 ITR 13 (MP) 10. CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 152 Taxman 242 (Raj), 296 ITR 292 11. Balram Manmani vs. ACIT 7 SOT 368 (Lucknow ITAT) 12. Salora International vs. ACIT 02 SOT 705 (Delhi Tribunal) 13. CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 14. ACIT vs. Technip Italy Spa [2006] 150 Taxman 13 (Delhi Tribunal) 15. Antala Sanjaykumar Rasvjibhai vs. CIT [2012] 135 ITD 506 (Rajkot Tribunal) 16. Vijay Kumar Megotia vs. CIT [2010] 3 ITR (T) 760 (Patna Tribunal) 17. Roshan Lal Vegetable Products (P) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Appeal No. 6(ASR) of 2010, assessment year 2006-07 18. Fi…

Balubhai Kikabhai Patel, Valsad vs. Principal Commisioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 461/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.461/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Balubhhai Kikabhai Patel Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ Nahuli, Karmbele, Umbergon, Income-Tax, Valsad, Room No. Vs. Surat-396 105 301, 3Rd Floor, Palak Arcade, Shanti Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Akqpp 2563 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 13/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

…decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Meshana District Co-Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. 263 ITR 645 (Guj) and CIT vs. Shashi Theater (P.) Ltd. 248 ITR 126 (Guj); CIT vs. Amit Corporation 81 CCH 69 (Guj); CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj); CIT vs. R.K. Construction Co. 313 ITR 65 (Guj) and Rayon Silk Mills vs. CIT 221 ITR 155 (Guj). ITA No.461/SRT/2024/AY.18-19 Balubhai K Patel 5. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue supported the order of Ld.PCIT. He submitted that the order of AO is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 6. We have heard bo…

Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs. Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 269/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 269/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Prop. Khodiyar Silver Manufacture Income Tax – 1, Rajkot Champak Nagar Chs Ltd., Opp. Pani Aayakar Bhavan, Race Na Ghoda, Pedak Road, Course Ring Road, Rajkot – 360003 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adnpk3148B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rashmin Vekariya, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Rashmin Vekariya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 133ASection 133A(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 269/RJT/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Kakadiya Vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Prop. Khodiyar Silver Manufacture Income Tax – 1, Rajkot Champak Nagar CHS Ltd., Opp. Pani Aayakar Bhavan, Race Na Ghoda, Pedak Road, Course Ring Road, Rajkot – 360003 Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ADNPK3148B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rashmin Vekariya, Ld. AR Respondent by : Sh…

Pushp Raj Bohra, Jalore vs. Pr. CIT – 1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 374/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

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

…he CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law." 11. We are further guided by the Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers [2003] 259 ITR 502, wherein the Division Bench referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. has observed that the provisions of Section 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer, it is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted and…

Ashokkumar Projects India Pvt. Ltd., Porbandar vs. The Pr. CIT, Jamnagar

In the result, appear of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.83/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Ashokkumar Projects India P. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Manek Centre, P.N. Cholera Arcade, M.G. Road Opposite, Bhaveshwar Mahadev Marg, Jamnagar - 361008 Temple, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamca5891Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194CSection 263Section 40

…ITANo.83/RJT/2024 Ashok Kumar Project India P. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR.ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.83/RJT/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Ashokkumar Projects India P. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Ltd. Income Tax, 4th Floor, Manek Centre, P.N. Cholera Arcade, M.G. Road Opposite, Bhaveshwar Mahadev Marg, Jamnagar - 361008 Temple, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAMCA5891Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, AR Res…

Denish Khodidas Patel, Rajkot vs. Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.356/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Denish Khodidas Patel Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 Raag Mahavir Society, Street Rajkot No.2, Nirmala Convent School Road, Rajkot – 360005, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agipp1382Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

Section 147Section 263Section 50C

…order passed by the assessing officer is neither erroneous and nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. On the above undisputed facts on record, the matter is already decided by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Arvind Jewellers [2003] 259 ITR 502 (Guj) following the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) by holding as under: “Held, that the finding of fact by the Tribunal was that the assessee had produced relevant material and offered explanations in pursuance of the 128- ITA.356/RJT/2024 – A.Y. 2016-17 Sh…

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

…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 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…

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

Horizon Dwellings Private Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 77/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl

Section 143(3)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 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 in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd…

Shri Chetan Sharma, Kanpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur

In the result, both appeals are allowed

ITA 343/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 153DSection 263

Mikuni India Private Limited, Alwar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT

12. In view of the above discussion, we find merit in this appeal, when the assessment order dated 27

ITA 745/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: passing the impugned order, Learned PCIT issued notice to the assessee, as Learned PCIT found that the Assessing Officer, while framing the above said assessment and the making addition, did not initiate penalty proceedings 270A of the Act. Learned PCIT was of the view that penalty proceedings were to be initiated under the said provision on account of misreporting of income, which came to be added by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee company. It being a Transfer Pri

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Agarwal, C.A. (Through V.C.) &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 194C(5)Section 263Section 270ASection 92CSection 94C

…le Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan [384 ITR 200].  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.P. Karai [266 ITR 113].  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers [259 ITR 502]  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Limited [388 ITR 81].  Copy of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Limited [295 ITR 282].  Copy of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (395 ITR 1].  Copy of decision o…

Chaitalee Sachin Deokar, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, -It -2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2806/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69BSection 69C

…aw. The assessee relied upon following case law in support of his contentions:- (i) CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd 9203 ITR 108)(Bom) (ii) CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd (332 ITR 167)(Delhi) (iii) CIT Vs. Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 537)(Delhi) (iv) CIT Vs. Arvind Jeweller (259 ITR 502)(Guj) 5.The Ld Pr. CIT was not convinced with the contentions of the assessee and accordingly held that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Accordingly he set aside the assessment orders of both the years under consideration and directed the AO to redo the assessment de novo. The Ld Pr. CIT also observed…

M/S. Anabond Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-1

In the result, all the grounds appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

ITA 1625/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1625/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Anabond Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Type-Ii, 36, Dr. V.S.I. Estate Income Tax-1 Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai Chennai-600041. [Pan: Aacca4158Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35Section 5Section 80I

…ase of the Revenue that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is not permissible in law, the CIT is not justified in invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act.” We are also conscious of the decision taken In the case of CIT Vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Gujarat), where the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that “… It is clear that the provisions of section 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer, it is only when an order is erroneous, that section will :- 10 -: be attracted and incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect appli…

Ridhhi Siddhi Jwellers Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 135/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.135/Ahd/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S.Riddhi Siddhi Jewellers The Pr.Cit-3 बनाम/ Pvt.Ltd. Ahmedabad – 380 015 V/S. 41/42/2, Khodiar Chowk Opp: Panchmukhi Hanmanji Temple Paldigam, Ahmedabad-390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aafcr 1736 C अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ritesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT-DR

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

…. The PCIT cannot invoke Section 263 merely because he holds a different opinion from the AO. The placed reliance on some judicial precedent including in the case of CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers (395 ITR 1) [SC] and in the case of CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502) [Guj HC]. 4.7. The PCIT, in the show-cause notice, implied that the inquiry conducted by the AO was inadequate and that more detailed verification of the cash sales was required. The AR refuted this, arguing that inadequacy of inquiry does not make the order erroneous, and unless there is a complete lack of inquiry, Section 263 of the Act canno…

Adani Wilmar Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 777/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 777/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 Adani Wilmar Limited, The Principal 3 Rd Floor, बनामVs Commissioner Of . Nr. Navrangpura Railway Income Tax-1, Crossing, Ahmedabad. Fortune House, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabca8056G

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…icial to the interest of Revenue and therefore the Ld.PCIT was not right in invoking the provision of section 263 of the Act. The Ld.AR also relied upon the following judicial precedents. a. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502. b. Hon’ble SC in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83. c. Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs G M Mittal Stainless Steel Pvt. Ltd. 263 ITR 255. Asst. Year 2018-19 4 d. Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167. e. Decision of Hon’ble S.C in the case of CIT vs/ Greenworld…

Nityanand Baug Co Operative Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA 2209/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Br Baskaran & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhannityanand Baug Co-Operative Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Society Limited Income Tax Plot No. 80/83, Nity Anand Baug, R. Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway C. Marg, Chembur, Mumbai – 400 Station, Commercial Complex, 074. Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 Pan: Aaaan6410C 703. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…he Revenue unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law (P)83. In support of his argument, he relied upon various cases as follows: a. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s CIT(2000)243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66(SC) b. CIT v/s Arvind Jeweller 259 ITR 502 c. CIT v/s Power Finance Corporation (2015)/378 ITR 619 (Delhi) d. Bongoigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. v/s Union of India (Gauhati HC) 287 ITR 120 e. CIT v/s Pathy Cine Enterprises 292 ITR 495 f. CIT v/s Mepсо Industries Ltd 294 ITR 121(Section 159) 7. Secondly, it is argued that as per various judgements if one Co-operative Society invests…