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.

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 502)

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)

…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 Magore Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 945 (Cal) 14. Where the Assessing Officer has exercised the quasi-judicial power vested in him in accordance with law and arrived at a…

Shri Madhavrav H. Fichadia, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…the foundation for exercise of revisional jurisdiction by invoking the clause (a) of Exaplanation-2 to Section 263 is missing in the present case. The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the PCIT has rightly exercised the revisionary power under Section 263 of the Act as the Assessing Officer has not taken into account the authenticity of the cash of Rs.52,79,832/-. The Ld. DR further submitted that in fact the assessee has shown inflow of cash on various dates from cash withdrawals from bank in its…

M/S Greenwell Orchards, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 695/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.R. and Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT/DR

Section 10Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2009-10 M/s. Greenwell Orchards The Principal Nr. Gujarat Bottling, Commissioner of Rakhiyal Road, Rakhiyal, Vs Income Tax - 3, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad (Respondent) PAN: AABFG4602M (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.R. and Shri Parin Shah, A.R. Respondent by : Shri A.P. Singh, CIT/DR. Date of hearing : 22-06-2022 Date of pronouncement : 26-08-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the as…

M/S. Leopard Vitrified Pvt. Ltd., Village Matel, Dist. Morbi vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 83/RJT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: 12/05/2022

Section 143(3)Section 263

…Co. Ltd. v. CIT [20001 159 CTR (SO l/r20001 243 ITR 83 (SO. There is nothing on record to suggest that the view taken by the AO is unsustainable at law. This Court has also taken the same view in case of CIT v. Arvind Jewellers [2002] 177 CTR (Gui) 546/120031 259 ITR 502 (Guj) whereby the order passed by the CIT under s. 263 of the Act was quashed and set aside." 4.7 In the case of CIT v. Arvind Jewellers [20021 177 CTR (Guj) 546/12003] 259 ITR 502 (Gui) it was observed that the finding of fact given by the ITA No. 83/Rjt/2021(M/s. Leopard Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2016-17 - 12 - Tribunal was that th…

Himanshu Engineering Works, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 675/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 May 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shushilkumar Madhuk, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member ITA No. 675 /Ahd/2015 Assessment Year 2010-11 Himanshu Engineering Pr. CIT-3, Works P.A. No. Ahmedabad AABFH2716F, Vs (Respondent) Plot No. 620, Phase-IV, GIDC, Vatva, Ahmedabad PAN: AABFH2716F (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri P.F. Jain, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Shushilkumar Madhuk, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 21-03-2022 Date of pronouncement : 18-05-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal f…

Sach Electro Mech Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 392/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 145ASection 14ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 40A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Hearing in Virtual Court) Sach Electro Mech Private Limited Pr. Commissioner of Income C/2, Maheshwari Apartment, Tax-2, Vs. Nanpura, Timaliawad, Room No. 227, 2nd Floor, Surat. Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, PAN : AAICS 8963 M Surat-395001 APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by Shri H. P. Meena, CIT-DR Date of hearing 21/01/2022 Date of pronouncement 06/04/2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Thi…

M/S Satyam Educational Health & Charitable Trust, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-Central, Patna

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 39/PAT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…ke the provision of section 263 of the Act to revise the assessment for a reason that a different view can be taken on the basis of the same record. The Ld. A.R. relied on a series of decisions to corroborate his arguments: i) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) ii) CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP) iii) CIT vs. Deepak Mittal 324 ITR 411 (P & H) iv) CIT vs. International Travel House, 194 Taxman 324 (Del). 5.6. The Ld. A.R. also referred to explanation (2) of Section 263 as inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 which conferred the PCIT specific power to revise the assessment where AYs: 2013-14 to 201…

M/S Satyam Educational Health & Charitable Trust, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-Central, Patna

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 38/PAT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…ke the provision of section 263 of the Act to revise the assessment for a reason that a different view can be taken on the basis of the same record. The Ld. A.R. relied on a series of decisions to corroborate his arguments: i) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) ii) CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP) iii) CIT vs. Deepak Mittal 324 ITR 411 (P & H) iv) CIT vs. International Travel House, 194 Taxman 324 (Del). 5.6. The Ld. A.R. also referred to explanation (2) of Section 263 as inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 which conferred the PCIT specific power to revise the assessment where AYs: 2013-14 to 201…

M/S Satyam Educational Health & Charitable Trust, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-Central, Patna

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 37/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…ke the provision of section 263 of the Act to revise the assessment for a reason that a different view can be taken on the basis of the same record. The Ld. A.R. relied on a series of decisions to corroborate his arguments: i) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) ii) CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP) iii) CIT vs. Deepak Mittal 324 ITR 411 (P & H) iv) CIT vs. International Travel House, 194 Taxman 324 (Del). 5.6. The Ld. A.R. also referred to explanation (2) of Section 263 as inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 which conferred the PCIT specific power to revise the assessment where AYs: 2013-14 to 201…

M/S Satyam Educational Health & Charitable Trust, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-Central, Patna

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 36/PAT/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…ke the provision of section 263 of the Act to revise the assessment for a reason that a different view can be taken on the basis of the same record. The Ld. A.R. relied on a series of decisions to corroborate his arguments: i) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) ii) CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP) iii) CIT vs. Deepak Mittal 324 ITR 411 (P & H) iv) CIT vs. International Travel House, 194 Taxman 324 (Del). 5.6. The Ld. A.R. also referred to explanation (2) of Section 263 as inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015 which conferred the PCIT specific power to revise the assessment where AYs: 2013-14 to 201…

Mrs Minakshi Shivkumar Bansal, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner Ofincome-Tax -6, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 345/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.345/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs. Minakshi Shivkumar Vs. Pr. Cit- 6, Bansal, Pune. Building No.A-3, Flat No.702, Oxford Village Wanworie, Pune- 411040. Pan : Ablpb1124E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By Shri B. Koteswara Rao : Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.03.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 6, Pune [‘Pcit’ For Short] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 11.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Holding That The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Dated 30-10- 2015 Is Erroneous In As Much As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Hari Krishan

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

…lication of mind. In support of this, reliance placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bom.-HC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502 (Guj.-HC). 5. On due consideration of the above submissions, the ld. PCIT held that while completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer had accepted the value as per the valuer report of Rs.33,81,750/- as against the value of stamp duty purpose of Rs.96,60,000/- without application of mind on the provisions of section 50C r.w.s. 56(2)(vii)(b)…

M/S. Tejas Networks Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 582/BANG/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

Section 154

…83, 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282, 3. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231, IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 30 of 34 4. CIT Vs. Arvinda Jewellers 259 ITR 502 5. CIT Vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 34. Further, he submitted that the Principal CIT cannot substitute his own views on the issues whether AO has taken conscious decision after due verification of the books of accounts as such exercising of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is bad in law. Further, he submitted that the A.O. passed the assessmen…

M/S Tejats Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1674/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

Section 154

…83, 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282, 3. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231, IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 30 of 34 4. CIT Vs. Arvinda Jewellers 259 ITR 502 5. CIT Vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 34. Further, he submitted that the Principal CIT cannot substitute his own views on the issues whether AO has taken conscious decision after due verification of the books of accounts as such exercising of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is bad in law. Further, he submitted that the A.O. passed the assessmen…

Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 694/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

Section 154

…83, 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282, 3. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231, IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 30 of 34 4. CIT Vs. Arvinda Jewellers 259 ITR 502 5. CIT Vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 34. Further, he submitted that the Principal CIT cannot substitute his own views on the issues whether AO has taken conscious decision after due verification of the books of accounts as such exercising of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is bad in law. Further, he submitted that the A.O. passed the assessmen…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 621/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

Section 154

…83, 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282, 3. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231, IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 30 of 34 4. CIT Vs. Arvinda Jewellers 259 ITR 502 5. CIT Vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 34. Further, he submitted that the Principal CIT cannot substitute his own views on the issues whether AO has taken conscious decision after due verification of the books of accounts as such exercising of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is bad in law. Further, he submitted that the A.O. passed the assessmen…

Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 468/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

Section 154

…83, 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282, 3. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231, IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 30 of 34 4. CIT Vs. Arvinda Jewellers 259 ITR 502 5. CIT Vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 34. Further, he submitted that the Principal CIT cannot substitute his own views on the issues whether AO has taken conscious decision after due verification of the books of accounts as such exercising of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is bad in law. Further, he submitted that the A.O. passed the assessmen…

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 296/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

Section 154

…83, 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282, 3. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231, IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 30 of 34 4. CIT Vs. Arvinda Jewellers 259 ITR 502 5. CIT Vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 34. Further, he submitted that the Principal CIT cannot substitute his own views on the issues whether AO has taken conscious decision after due verification of the books of accounts as such exercising of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is bad in law. Further, he submitted that the A.O. passed the assessmen…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue in IT(TP)A No

ITA 1119/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.It(Tp)A Nos.296/Bang/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Tejas Networks Ltd. Plot No.25, 5Th Floor Jp Software Park Acit, Circle-1, Ltu Vs. Electronic City, Phase I Bangalore Bangalore 560 100

For Appellant: Shri Jairam Raipura, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Annamalli & Shri Narendra Sharma, A.Rs

Section 154

…83, 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282, 3. CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231, IT(TP)A No.296, 468 & 1119/Bang/2015 IT(TP)A No.621 & 694/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A No.1674/Bang/2018 & IT(TP)A No.582/Bang/2021 Page 30 of 34 4. CIT Vs. Arvinda Jewellers 259 ITR 502 5. CIT Vs. Saluja Exim Ltd. 329 ITR 603 34. Further, he submitted that the Principal CIT cannot substitute his own views on the issues whether AO has taken conscious decision after due verification of the books of accounts as such exercising of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is bad in law. Further, he submitted that the A.O. passed the assessmen…

Troikaa Pharmaceuticlas Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 55/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…per Exhibit-VI 7. Commissioner of Income Tax v. R.K. Construction Co. (2009) 313 ITR 65 (Guj) I.T.A Nos. 55 & 56/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No 17 Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. The Pr. CIT 8. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 9. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) 10. Commissioner of Income Tax. V. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 11. CIT vs. Ms. Bina Indrakumar (2015) 61 taxmann.com 11 (2015) 370 ITR 552 12. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (HC Bombay) 13. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vik…

Satyam Textile Park, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 91/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263Section 271DSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.90 & 91/SRT/2021 (AY 2016-17 & 2017-18) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Satyam Textile Park, The Principal Block No.430,Moje Hathoda, Commissioner of Income Vs TA-Magrol, Surat – 394380. Tax (Central), Surat. PAN: ACXFS 1576 L Assessee / appellant Revenue /respondent Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 25.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMB…

CIT v. Arvind Jewellers

What is CIT v. Arvind Jewellers authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Arvind Jewellers

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

Shri Madhavrav H. Fichadia, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

M/S Greenwell Orchards, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT-3, Ahmedabad

M/S. Leopard Vitrified Pvt. Ltd., Village Matel, Dist. Morbi vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

Himanshu Engineering Works, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

Sach Electro Mech Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

M/S Satyam Educational Health & Charitable Trust, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-Central, Patna

M/S Satyam Educational Health & Charitable Trust, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-Central, Patna

M/S Satyam Educational Health & Charitable Trust, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-Central, Patna

M/S Satyam Educational Health & Charitable Trust, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-Central, Patna

Mrs Minakshi Shivkumar Bansal, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner Ofincome-Tax -6, Pune

M/S. Tejas Networks Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Bengaluru

M/S Tejats Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central, Bangalore

Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore

Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Tejas Networks Limited, Bangalore

Troikaa Pharmaceuticlas Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

Satyam Textile Park, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat