CIT v. ArvindJewllers

233 ITR 649High Court1998#17300 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2022.

Judgments citing CIT v. ArvindJewllers

Ravi Manohar Batwara, Jaipur vs. The PCIT-1, Jaipur

ITA 145/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Batwara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…he assessee, it cannot be said that he has not applied his mind for which following decisions of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court are relevant:- 1. CIT vs Girdhar Lal 258 ITR 331 (Raj) 2. CIT vs Ganpat Ram Vishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj) 3. CIT vs Shiv Hari Madhusudan 233 ITR 649 (Raj) It is also noteworthy to mention that an order can be treated as ‘’erroneous’’ if it was passed in utter ignorance or in violation of any law or passed without taking into consideration all the relevant facts or by taking into consideration irrelevant facts. The ‘Prejudice’ that is contemplated u/s 263 is the prejudice to the Income SHRI R…

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

…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, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Forei…

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

…evenue. The exercise of jurisdiction under s. 263 by the PCIT is, not valid in eye of law. Reliance 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 suppo…

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

…eous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 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. Commi…

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

…) 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 Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of R…