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 366,470 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

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

In the result the ground No

ITA 90/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

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…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 94/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.92, 93 & 94/SRT/2021 A.Y: 2014-15 to 2016-17 (Hearing in Virtual Court) M/s.Amrut Sarovar, The Principal Commissioner Block No. 514-515, of Income Tax – Central, Vs. Opposite Girnar Hotel, Surat. At & PO Kather, Taluka-Kamrej, Surat. PAN: ABGFA 2065 C Applicant /assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 21.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 93/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

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

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 92/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

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

P I Industries Limited, Udaipur vs. Pr. CIT, Udaipur

ITA 4/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Pi Industries Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, Udaisagar Road, Udaipur. Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aabcp 2183 M

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 35(1)(iv)Section 80ISection 92C

…(2008) 305 ITR 332 8 ITA 04/Jodh/2021 PI Industries Ltd. Vs PCIT h. CIT vs. Nahar Exports Ltd. (2008) 173 TAXMAN 3 i. Virendra Kumar Jhamb vs. CIT (2009) 222 CTR (Bom) 88 j. CIT V/s. GirdhariLal (2002) 258 ITR 331 (Raj) (DB) k. CIT V/s. ArvindJewllers (2002) 259 ITR 502 l. CIT V/s. Shiv HariMadhu Sudan (1998) 233 ITR 649 (Raj) m. CIT V/s. Mehsana District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 645 (Guj) 10. In regard to the reference to the TPO is concerned, the assessee referred to para 3 of the CBDT Instruction No. 3/2016, F.No. 500/9/2015-APA-II Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Departm…

Shanti Lal Deora, Sumerpur vs. ACIT, Circle, Pali

Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 22/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Shri Shanti Laldeora, Vs. A.C.I.T., Hotel Inder Palace, Bhagat Circle- Pali Singh Circle, Sumerpur, Dist.- Pali-306902 (Raj.) Pan No. Adhpd 4172 A Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv. & Shrimohitsoni, Adv. Revenue By Smt. Sanchita Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 08/09/2021

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…liance is placed on the following judicial pronoucements: CIT vs. GirdhariLal (2002) 176 CTR (Raj) 92 : (2002) 258 ITR 331 (Raj), CIT vs. Shiv Hari Madhu Sudan (1998) 233 ITR 649 (Raj), CIT vs. Kanda Rice Mills (1989) 178 ITR 446 (P&H) CIT vs. ArvindJewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj) ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Rakesh Khandelwal V/s CIT ITA No.204/Ind/2019 dated 29.01.2020 ITAT Jodhpur Bench in the case of Shiv Lal Choudhary V/s CIT reported in 188 TTJ_UO (Jd)(UO) 57 5. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR has vehemently supported the order of the ld. PCIT and submitted that the ld. PCIT had passed order discussing al…

Satya Narayan Dhoot, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/JODH/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Mohit Soni (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Sanchita Kumar (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…63 by the PCIT is not valid in eye of law as held in following decisions: • CIT vs. Girdhari Lal (2002) 258 ITR 331 (Raj), • CIT vs. Shiv Hari Madhu Sudan (1998) 233 ITR 649 (Raj), • CIT vs. Kanda Rice Mills (1989) 178 ITR 446 (P&H) • CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj) • Rakesh Khandelwal vs CIT (ITA No.204/Ind/2019 dated 29.01.2020) • PCIT vs. M/s Cartier Leaflin Pvt. Ltd. (2020) 268 Taxman 0222 (Bombay) 6 Shri Satya Narayan Dhoot, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-03, Jodhpur • Perfect Stoneware Pipes ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2018) 61 ITR (Trib) 0526 (Jabalpur) In light of above, it was submitted tha…

Secure Meters Limited, Udaipur vs. Pr. CIT, Udaipur

ITA 2/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Secure Meters Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, E-Class, Pratap Nagar Udaipur. Industrial Area, Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aaccs 8785 M

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 43ASection 92C

…303 ITR 353 g. CIT vs. PANKAJ DHIRAJLAL DHRUVE (2008) 305 ITR 332 h. CIT vs. Nahar Exports Ltd. (2008) 173 TAXMAN 3 i. Virendra Kumar Jhamb vs. CIT (2009) 222 CTR (Bom) 88 j. CIT V/s. GirdhariLal (2002) 258 ITR 331 (Raj) (DB) k. CIT V/s. ArvindJewllers (2002) 259 ITR 502 l. CIT V/s. Shiv HariMadhu Sudan (1998) 233 ITR 649 (Raj) m. CIT V/s. Mehsana District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 645 (Guj) 7 ITA 02/Jodh/2021 Secure Meters Ltd. Vs PCIT 9. In regard to the reference to the TPO is concerned, the assessee referred to para 3 of the CBDT Instruction No.3/2016, F.No.500/9/2015-APA-II Gover…

Shrimati Ravinder Bawa, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 703/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…inquiries and verification to an extent which may tantamount to oppression and harassment of a tax payer. Therefore the action of the AO cannot be impugned under s.263 of the Act. Further, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arvind Jwellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj) has held that provisions of Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the AO. Further, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. R. K. Construction Co. (2009) 313 ITR 65 (Guj) for the proposition that where the AO has taken a particu…

Shri Ashokkumar Govindbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 863/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-D.R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…en advanced by him which could lead us to the conclusion that the said case was not correctly decided nor has he pointed out any error in the judgment in that case.” We have also gone through the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502) held that:- "Held, that the finding of fact by the Tribunal was that the assesses had produced relevant material and offered explanations in pursuance of the notices issued under section 142(1) as well as section 143(2) of the act and after considering the material and explanations, the Income-tax Officer had come to a definite conclusion. Since…

Soma Tech Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 344/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.344/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Soma Tech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Principal 301, Soham House, Commissioner Of Income Opp. St. Xavier’S School, Tax-2, Surat. Ghod Dod Road, Surat. [Pan: Aakcs 5265 N] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Hiren Vepari – Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit-Dr

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…e, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is unsustainable in law. 12. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in well known leading case in CIT Vs Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502), while relying on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court has taken a view 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 be attracted and incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of la…

M/S Nilkanth Stone Industries, Valsad vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 386/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.386/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Nilkanth Stone Industries, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Shop No.A-1/2/3, Nilkanth Of Income Tax, Valsad. Residency, B/H Old Jakarta Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad. [Pan: Aajfn 5653 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Surji Chheda - Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 27.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (Act) By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Pcit” Passed Under Section 263 Of Income-Tax Act (Act) Dated 27.03.2018, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Vide His Application Dated 16.08.2018 Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit Has Erred In Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Which Was Without Jurisdiction & The Cit Erred In Holding That The Assessment Order Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue On All Issues Discussed In Revision Order & Has Erred In Setting It Aside For Fresh

Section 253Section 263

…rts Ltd., 341 ITR 166 (Delhi HC.),  CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Delhi HC),  CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd. 329 ITR 289 (Delhi HC),  CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC),  ITA NO.3206/DEL/2017 Amira Enterprises ltd Vs PCIT,  CIT Vs Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502 GUJ HC),  CIT Vs R. K. Construction Co. (313 ITR 65),  Indus Best Hospitality ITA No. 3125/MUM/2017” 7. On ground No.8, the ld.AR submits that the commission of Rs.4.10 lakhs each was paid to Deepakbhai M. Dama & Shri Manjibhai L. Bhanushali. The ld. PCIT in his show cause notice stated that nature of services rendered by parties is not examine…

Shalby Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 793/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.793/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 263Section 72A

…ommissioner to reopen issues on mere apprehension and surmises - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, Tribunal was justified in setting aside impugned revisional order - Held, yes [Para 20] [In favour of assessee] 12. In the case of CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 Division Bench of Gujarat High Court referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 wherein it is held as under: "6. From the above observations made by the Supreme Court, it is clear that the provisions of Section 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or erro…

Sukhbir Singh Sahni, Mumbai vs. CIT-16, Mumbai

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

ITA 1871/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1871/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Sukhbir Singh Sahni बिधम/ Cit-16 101, Mangal Bhandar, 13Th Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. Road, Tps-Iii, Khar, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajps4701K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Kavita Hehendale (Ar) Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.02.2020 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015- 16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita Hehendale (AR)For Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(1)(b)Section 24Section 263

…e assessee. In such circumstances, the assessment is not liable to be reopened on the basis of this specific reason. In this regard, we also find support of the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (1993) and CIT Vs. Arvind Jeweller, 259 ITR 502 (Guj), therefore, in the said circumstances, we are of the view that the PCIT has wrongly invoked the provisions u/s 263 of the I. T. Act, 1961 on the specific grounds maintenance of charges, hence, we set aside the order passed by PCIT u/s 263 of the Act and decide this issue in favour of the assessee against the revenue. 4 A.Y.2015-16 8. In th…

M/S. Itt Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 344/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 344/Ahd/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.R

Section 142Section 144Section 263Section 263(1)Section 44A

…nts, their copies have been placed in paper book: “1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83) (SC) 2. CIT Vs. Reliance Communication Limited (SC) 3. CIT v. Reliance Communication Limited (ITA No. 1816 of 201 3) (Bombay HC) 4. CIT v. Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502) (Gujarat HC) 5. CIT v. R.K. Construction (313 ITR 65) (Guj HC) 6. CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (55 taxmann.com 514) (Mum HC) 7. CIT v. Jain Construction Co. (34 taxmann.com 84) (Raj HC) 8. Merrut Roller Flour Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (1 10 taxmann.com 170) (Allahabad HC) 9. Munjal Casting Limited (303 ITR 23) (P&H HC) 10. CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co…

Satyanarayan Sharma, Indore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Indore

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

ITA 426/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 154oSection 2Section 263Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year:2013-14 Satyanarayan Sharma, Pr.CIT-I, 11/2, South Tukoganj, Indore बनाम/ Swapnalok Colony, Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AEAPS5126D Appellant by Shri Girish Agrawal & Miss Nisha Lahoti, ARs Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 11.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 28.12.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Pr. Commissione…

K R Satyanarayana vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

ITA/192/2015HC Karnataka21 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(2)Section 154Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 50CSection 80C

…eliance has been placed on decisions in 'CALCUTTA DISCOUNT CO. VS. ITO', (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC), 'CIT VS. J.L. MORRISON (INDIA) LTD.', 8 (2014) 366 ITR 593 (CAL), 'CIT VS. SUNSCAM AUTO LTD.', (2011) 332 ITR 167 (DEL), 'CIT VS. ARVIND JEWELLERS', (2003) 259 ITR 502 (GUJ), 'CIT VS. DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK', (2010) 323 ITR 206 and 'CIT VS. MARKETING AND ADVERTISING CO.', (2012) 341 ITR 180. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee neither in the return of income nor in financial statements disclosed that he is carrying on the real estate business and the…

Nilkanth Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1853/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…ference and revision itself, lead to conclusion that order of Assessing Officer called for interference and revision itself, lead to conclusion that order of Assessing Officer called for interference and revision - Held, yes  CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) Section 263 of the Income of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 1981 Assessment year 1981-82 - Whether provisions of section 263 cannot be Whether provisions of section 263 cann…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The DCIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…am Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.) d. CIT v/s. Makal Suta Cotton Co. P. Ltd. 275 ITR 54(M.P) e. CIT v/s R.K. Construction Co., 313 ITR 65 (Guj.) f. CIT v/s Max India, 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. CIT v/s Ratlam Coal Ash Co., 171 ITR 141 (M.P) h. CIT v/s Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) i. CIT v/s Vodafone Essar South Ltd, 212 Taxmann 184 (Del.) j. CIT v/s Mehrotra Brothers, 270 ITR 157 (M.P) k. CIT v/s Shri Govindram Seksariya Cahrity Trust, 166 ITR 580 (M.P) l. Hari Iron Trading Co. v/s CIT, 263 ITR 437 (P&H) m. CIT v/s HARI Singh & Associates, 267 CTR 442 (Raj.) n. 335 ITR 83, CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (Delhi), o. 341…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The ACIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57