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 366,421 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

Goldcity Properties Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 14, Mumbai

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

ITA 2179/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhgoldcity Properties Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of [Now Merged With Supergold Vs. Income-Tax -14, R. No. 415, 4Th Floor, Properties Pvt. Ltd.], Shop No.1, Building No.2, Aayakar Bhavan, Sharmik Chs Ltd., Tilak M.K. Road, Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400089. Pan: Aaccg1757H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. Jaya Kumar (CIT-DR)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 152(2)Section 254(1)Section 263

…el India ( 203 ITR 108 Bom), (vi) CIT Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd ( 323 ITR 206 Bom), (vii) CIT Vs Max India (295 ITR 282 SC), (viii) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd ( 332 ITR 167 Delhi), (ix) CIT Vs Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 537 Delhi), (x) CIT Vs Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502 Guj), (xi) Malabar Industrial Company Vs CIT (243 ITR 83 SC), (xii) Mehta Trading Vs CIT ( ITA No. 2838/M/2013 dated 31.10.2014, (xiii) PCIT Vs Ginger Properties (P) Ltd. (396 ITR 496 Guj), (xiv) Pyre Lal Jaiswal Vs CIT (146 ITD 555 Allahabad), (xv) Rashtriya Chemical & Fertilizers Vs CIT ( ITA No. 3625/M/2017 dated 14.02.2018, (xvi) Reliance Gas…

Sterling Addlife India Private Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Pr. CIT-4, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 967/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.967/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2013-14) बनाम/ Sterling Addlife India The Pr.Cit-4 Pvt.Ltd. Ahmedabad Vs. Sterling Hospital Buildings Off Gurukul Road Memnagar Ahmedabad-380 052 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadca 0897 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Dinal Shah & A.C.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 28/01/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax–4, Ahmedabad [Cit In Short] Dated 28/03/2018 Relevant To Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Dinal Shah & A.C.Shah, ArsFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Shah, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law ". 15. The appellant further relies on the following decisions. 1. CIT v/s. Reliance Communication Ltd. (Mumbai High Court) (76 Taxmann.com 226) (Relevant Para 10) 2. CIT v/s. Arvind Jwellers (Gujarat High Court) (259 ITR 502) (Relevant Para 6) 3. Ravi K. Modi v/s. ITO 151 Taxmann 11 (Ahmedabad ITAT) (Relevant Para of page 7 of the order) 4. Sansspareils Greenlands Pvt. Ltd. v/s. CIT 99 Taxman.com 222 (Delhi ITAT) (Relevant Para 5. To 5.9) 5. CIT v/s. Gabrial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bombay-High Court) 6. CIT v/s. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (Delhi High Court) 332 ITR 167 (inade…

Philips India Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-IV, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1142/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…63 of the Act, would not be attracted and for this proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Max India Limited [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) & on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj.). 5.6. On merits he submitted that the assessee has furnished relevant details in connection with the issue of higher depreciation on moulds and the issue of excise duty not recovered from sales debited to profit and loss account, through submission of financial statement and tax audit report before the Assessing Officer during the course o…

M/S. Gayatri Enterprise, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 825/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: Aparna M. Agarwal, CIT.D.R

Section 143(3)

…earned AR for the assessee referred to the and relied upon and the decision of the co- ordinate bench in Dilshad Trading Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1994) 49 ITD 348 (Bom.) and CIT vs. Amit Corporation (2012) 21 taxmann.com 64 (Guj); CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) & (2015) CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom). 7. The learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, supported the revisional order of the Pr.CIT and submitted that the Pr.CIT was well within its power to exercise supervisory jurisdiction of review against the palpably wrong order passed by the AO without considering a glaring…

Shri Darshan Shivlal Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1139/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT/DR

Section 143(2)Section 263

…re, the claim of exempt income on LTCG on sale of scrips of M/s. NCL has to be allowed, therefore, the addition on this issue is directed to be deleted. 6. Ld. Counsel also cited an order of Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502. And in the following case matter has been decided in favour of assessee. Assessee also cited a case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Del.): “There is a distinction between “lack of inquiry” and “inadequate inquiry”. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under…

Jitinder Singh Chadha, New Delhi vs. Prcit-18, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. Cit-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpc6181D Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit-18, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble Vice President and Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Judicial Member ITA No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. CIT-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABPC6181D Assessee by : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CA Revenue by : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31.03.2018 of ld. Pr. CIT-18, New De…

Ultratech Cement Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Central - 1, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2999/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhita No. 3000/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ita No. 3001/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, D.R

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(2)Section 80I

…on Trading Co. Vs. CIT (2003) 131 Taxman 531, (vii)Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2008) 301 ITR 407 and various other decisions as under: • CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers (270 ITR 157) (MP) • CIT vs. Parameshwar Bohra (267 ITR 698) (Raj) • CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502) (Guj) • CIT vs. J.P Goal (HUE) (247 ITR 555) (Cal) • CIT vs. Macneill Magore Limited (232 ITR 945) (Cal) • CIT vs. Amalgamations Limited (238 ITR 963) (Mad) • Lark Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT[2011] (16 taxmann.com 13) (Mum) • Ashok Kumar Parasramka vs. ACIT (65 lTD 1) (Kol) Finally, the ld. A.R contended that by no stretch of imagination the order pa…

Durgesh Autofin P.Ltd, Bijnor vs. Prcit, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2539/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2539/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Durgesh Autofin P. Ltd., Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Director, Muzaffarnagar-251002 S/O Late Sh. Tejpal Singh, Mandi Kotla, Near Nehru Murti, Chandpur, Bijnot, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd0768P Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rachna Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit, Muzaffarnagar U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 41(1)Section 68

…r Works (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC) " DIT Vs Jyoti Foundation (2013) 357 ITR 388 (Del.) " CIT Vs Kamal Galani (2018) 95 Taxmann.com 261 (Guj.) " CIT Vs Jawahar Bhattacharjee (2012) 341 ITR 434 (Gauhati) 24 Durgesh Autofin P. Ltd. " CIT Vs Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) " Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) " CIT Vs Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) 19. It was contended that detailed enquiries were conducted by the AO on both the issues and the ld. Pr. CIT had exercised her revisionary power only on the ground that the AO had failed to examine the case properly, such observation…

Shri Khodidas Premjibhai Bhagiya, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Rajkot-Gujarat

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

ITA 177/RJT/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, CIT-D.R

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

…he following grounds. The assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s CIT (2000) 14 DTC 146(SC), (2000) 243 ITR 831 and decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v/s Arvind Jewellers 124 Taxmann 615(Guj.) (supra). It is pertinent to mention here that in the instant case the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as discussed in para 7.3 above. The power under section 263 can be exercised where the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the inter…

Sree Alankar, Ganjam vs. Principal CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/CTK/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-2013

For Appellant: Sri S.K.Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/s. Sree Alankar, Big Vs. PR. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar. Bazar, Berhampur PAN/GIR No.ABDFS 9511 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Sri S.K.Tulsiyan, AR Revenue by : Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 11/09/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 12 /09/ 2018 O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bhubaneswar dated 17.3.2017 for the assessment year…

Colour Publications P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4023/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40Section 40A(2)

…n of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd vs CIT (2000) 240 ITR 83 (SC). Further, the assessee also relied upon the following case laws:- 1. CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 209 (Bom) 2. CIT vs Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Bom) 3. Mrs. Khatiza Oomerbhoy (2006) 101 TTJ 1095 (Mum) 6. On the other hand, the Ld.DR strongly supporting the order of the PCIT, submitted that the AO has failed to conduct required enquiries and also applied his mind on payment of performance bonus to the director of the company in the light of provisions of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act,…

The J.K. Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…(i) CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108/71 Taxman 585 (Bom.) (ii) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (iii) CIT v. Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537/[2010] 194 Taxman 57 (Delhi) (iv) CIT v. Arvind Jeweller [2003] 259 ITR 502/[2002] 124 Taxman 615 (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…

Maharashtra Airport Development, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

The Asst Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri K.C.K.A.Gupta

The Appeal is dismissed

ITTA/251/2005HC Telangana03 Jan 2018

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

For Appellant: Mr.J.V.PrasadFor Respondent: Mr.C.P.Ramaswami

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 263

…w Suit (SC) 305 = 2000 (243) ITR 83 2007 Law Suit (SC) 1524 = 2007 (295) ITR 282 Referred Case No.18 of 2001, Dated: 22-12-2017 (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) CVNR, J & TA, J ITTA.No.251 of 2005 Dt: 03-01-2018 3 The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy and The Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Amarnath Goud ITTA.No.251 of 2005 Dt: 03-01-2018 Between: The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh – IV, Hyderabad ….Appellant and Sri KCKA.Gupta, H.No.3-6-145/9, Himayatnaga…

Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3746/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms Sunita Billa

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…it is not open for the CIT to take such a different view. No substantial questions of law arise out of the order of the Tribunal and hence, the appeal filed by the Revenue deserves to be dismissed. – CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2002) 177 CTR (Guj) 546 : (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1 : (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) relied on).” In our opinion, the impugned case is duly covered by this decision also. 7. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Limited, 295 ITR 282 (SC) has held as under :- “The phrase “prejudicial to the interests of the Rev…

Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3745/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms Sunita Billa

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

Sanjay B. Paymaster, Mumbai vs. CIT 21, Mumbai

ITA 3211/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263oSection 48

…tisfied with the conclusion. The Court held that in order to exercise power uls.263, the order must be presented in material before the CIT and if that order was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. CIT v. Arvind .Jeweller, 259 ITR 502(Guj.) b] The Court held that the assessee had produced relevant material and offered explanations in pursuance of the notices issued u/s. 142 (1) as well as u/s. 143(2) of the Act and after considering the materials and explanations, the Income Tax Officer had come to a definite conclusion. Merely because the Income-tax Officer had taken a partic…

Technip Uk Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4284/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2008-09] Technip Uk Limited Vs. The D.I.T. C/O Bmr & Associates Llp International - Ii 22Nd Floor, Building No. 5 New Delhi Tower ‘A’, Dlf Cyber City, Dlf Phase Iii, Gurgaon Haryana Pan : Aacct 8268 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora, Sr- DR

Section 263Section 4Section 44BSection 44D

…ly satisfied before the ld. CIT can seek to exercise revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. For the above proposition, he also relied on the following decisions: 11 a) CIT Vs. Max India Limited reported in 268 ITR 128 [P&H] b) CIT V. Arvind Jewellers: 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) [SLP of the Revenue dismissed in 266 ITR (St.) 101.] c) Vimgi Investment (P) Limited: 290 ITR 505 (Del) d) CIT vs. Vikash Polymers: 194 Taxman 57 (Del) e) CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd.: 331 ITR 192:(Del.) f) CIT v. International Travel House Ltd.: 194 Taxman 324 (Del.) g) CIT v. Kelvinator of India: 323 ITR 231 (Del.) h) C…

Sh. Braham Dev Gupta, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2102/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Adv., Sanjiv Jain CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT DR

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

…en a view has already been taken after inquiry. The power of revision can be exercised only where no inquiry as required under the law is done. It is not open to enquiry in cases of inadequate inquiry.” 24 Assessment year: 2011-12 v) CIT vs Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 “The provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 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. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the orde…

Small Wonder Industries, Mumbai vs. CIT 24, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2464/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Small Wonder Industries, Cit-24, 78, Virwani Indl. Estate, Mumbai बनाम/ Western Express Highway, Vs. Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400063 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aalfs6318Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Prakash Jotwani Shri Debasis Chandra Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2017 24/02/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…Credit Bank Ltd. (323 ITR 206) (Bom.) vi. RCI Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 40 DTR Mum (Trb.) 186 vii. Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT(2014) (100 DTR 1)(Mum.)(Trb.) and viii. CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83(Del.) ix. CIT vs Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) x. CIT vs Sunbeam Auto 189 taxman 436 (Del.) 2.3. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in International Travel House Ltd. (344 ITR 554) held that the ld. Commissioner has no unfettered power to initiate proceedings by revision for 6 Small Wonder Industries. reexamining and directing fresh enquiry on his own whim for change or having a different vi…