How many judgments cite CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.?

75 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (85 Taxmann.com 10), spanning 2018 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 1961, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 147, Section 148.

CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.

85 Taxmann.com 10High Court2017#1517 most cited

What is CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. authority for?

The Commissioner cannot revise an assessment order under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer applied their mind and adopted one of the possible views after an inquiry, as a mere difference of opinion does not make the order erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. However, if the Assessing Officer failed to make proper verification or inquiry, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial, Section 263 jurisdiction is validly invoked.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. · Section 263 Income Tax Act · Revision by Commissioner · erroneous and prejudicial assessment · inadequate enquiry by AO · lack of proper verification · change of opinion PCIT · Assessing Officer's possible view · Malabar Industrial precedent

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 1961 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 148 Section 115BBE Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

revision under section 263 inadequate enquiry assessment order erroneous section 263(1)lack of enquiry revision u/s 263 malabar industrial erroneous and prejudicial limited scrutiny section 263 section 26 change of opinion

Judgments citing CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd.

Compucom Software Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 153/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’B’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM deys’k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 153/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2017-18 cuke Compucom Software Ltd., Principal Commissioner of Vs. IT-14-15, EPIP Sitapura Income Tax-2, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACG 5818 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ R…

Renu Poddar, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 188/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev SoganiFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT

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

…erely based on that assumption and presumptions the order passed by the assessing officer cannot be termed as order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 24. The ld. DR relied upon the case law of CIT Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. reported at 85 Taxmann.com 10 wherein the issue is differently about the claim of the assessee under section 80HHC no evidence of examination of claim was made available whereas in this case the AO has already raised a question about the investment of the property by issue of notice dated 16.05.2019 and therefore, the fact is different and not applicable in this case an…

Smt. Jyoti Ashok Kotecha vs. C.I.T.-(Central), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 258/NAG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker

Section 127Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 292B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. ITA No. Name of Appellant Name of Respondent Asst. No. Year 1 257/NAG/2015 Smt. Meena Dellip CIT (Central), Nagpur 2011-12 Kotecha, 1, Pradhan Apartment, Pratap Nagar, Jalgaon- 425001. PAN : AATPK1231C 2 258/NAG/2015 Smt. Jyoti Ashok CIT (Central), Nagpur 2011-12 Kotecha, 4, Teachers Colony, Ring Road, Jalgaon- 425001. PAN : ALIPK3264H Assessee by : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue by : Shri J. P. Chadraker Date of hearing : 17.03.2022 Date of pronouncement : 22.…

Smt. Meena Dilip Kotecha vs. C.I.T.-(Central), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 257/NAG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker

Section 127Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 292B

Prabhakar Manjaji Thakre vs. Principoal C.I.T.-1, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 230/NAG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Chandraker

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 201Section 263Section 40Section 54E

…263. The Commissioner was correct in setting aside the assessment order. Followed Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC). (AY. 2006-07, 2007-08). 16. Similarly, the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (2017) 85 Taxmann.com 10 (Bom) observed as under: 13. The above issue which comes for our consideration is, did the Assessing Officer consider and examine the claim of the respondent before allowing a claim for deduction under Section 80 BHC of the Act. The 7 Prabhakar S. Thakare A.Y. 2011-12 respondent- assessee seeks to draw inference from the statement of case t…

Kooud Software Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/BANG/2022[2013-14 (24Q-QII)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Tyagi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT(DR)

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234Section 234E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.82 to 90/Bang/2022 Assessment year : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/s Kooud Software Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dy. Director of Income-tax, 26-A, 3rd Floor, Electronic City 1st CPC – TDS, Phase, Ghaziabad – U.P. Bengaluru. PAN – AADCP 7724 Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Mukesh Tyagi, C.A Revenue by : Shri Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT(DR) Date of hearing : 23.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 25.03.2022 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member The assessee has filed th…

Niagara Financial Consultants P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, City-6, Mumbai

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

ITA 762/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.762/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ Niagara Financial Pr. Cit, City-6 Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C-201, Kailash Explanade, Aayakar Bhavan, Lbs Marg, Opp. Sheryas Maharshi Karve Road, Theatre, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400086. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn1918R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Revenue By: Shri Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-06, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015-16 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. 1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Iii Law, Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Passing The Revision Order U/S.263 Though The Reassessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) Is Not Erroneous Anti In So Far Is Not Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue 2.0 The Ld. Pr. Cit, Before Setting Asides The Assessment Ordev.De Novo On Invoking Sec 263(I), Ought To Have Considered The Understated Facts, Being;

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…he AO has examined the issue and one possible 9 A.Y. 2015-16 view has already been taken, therefore, the assessment u/s 263 of the Act is not liable to be reviewed in view of the decision of Hon‟ble High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. 85 Taxmann.com 37, Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 188 Taxman 327, CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 12 Taxmann.com 445 & CIT Vs. Mepco Industries Ltd, 163 Taxman 648. If it is assumed that the inquiry was not correct or conducted properly, therefore, the revisional power u/s 263 of the Act is not liable to be invoked in view of the decision of MOIL Ltd. Vs. C…

Ramesh Kumar Purohit, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, City-17, Mumbai

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

ITA 692/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ramesh Kumar Purohit, Pr. Cit, City-17, Room No. 120, 1St Floor, Sahara Shopee, Shop No. 191, Off. Manish Market, S.S. Musafirkhana Road, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Mumbai-400 001. 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Axmpp 6458 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. D.K. Gupta, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ramesh Kumar Purohit, Pr. CIT, City-17, Room No. 120, 1st floor, Sahara Shopee, Shop No. 191, Off. Manish Market, S.S. Musafirkhana Road, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C- Mumbai-400 001. 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. PAN No. AXMPP 6458 N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Prakash Jhunjhunwala, AR Revenue by : Mr. D.K. Gupta, DR Date of Hearing : 23/12/2021 Date of pronouncement : 10/01/2022 ORDER…

Reliance Home Financ Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-8, Mumbai

ITA 815/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Shekhar Gajbhiy, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 72A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.815 & 814/M/2021 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 M/s. Reliance Home Principle Commissioner Finance Ltd., of Income Tax-8, 11th Floor, Room No.611, The Ruby, 6th Floor, Vs. North-West Wing, Aayakar Bhavan, Senapati Bapat Marg, M.K. Road, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 028 PAN: AAEFC0305E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Thar, A.R. & Shri Chaitanya D. Joshi, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Shekhar Gajbhiy, D.R. Date of…

Vikas Oil Products, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 28/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 26/JP/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 JR Industries, cuke P.C.I.T-1 Vs. H-36-37-38, RIICO Industrial Area, Jaipur. Dausa, (Rajasthan) PAN No.: AAEFJ 4186 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 27/JP/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 OM Industries, cuke P.C.I.T-1 Vs. E-6A, Dausa, RIICO Industrial Area, Jaipur. Agra Road, Dausa, (Rajas…

Om Industries, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur, Jiapur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 27/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 263

Jr Industries, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 26/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 263

Biz Secure Labs Private Limited, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Pune

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

ITA 1406/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1406/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman JainFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण] पुणे "यायपीठ “बी” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1406/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Biz Secure Labs Private Limited, ………. अपीलाथ" / 1206, Sadashiv Peth, Appellant Pune – 411 030. PAN : AADCB6188L. बनाम v/s The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax – 1, ………. ""यथ" / Pune. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Vardhaman Jain. Revenue by : Shri Deepak Garg, CIT. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date of Hearing : 13.07.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date of Pro…

Prem Jain, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 279/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka (Adv) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)

Section 263Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ‘B’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 279/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 cuke Prem Jain, Principal Commissioner Vs. 90, Bapu Bazar, Jaipur of Income Tax-1, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABZPJ4150C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Siddharth Ranka (Adv) & Sh. Saurav Harsh (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Desai (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 04/JP/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, cuke Pr.CIT, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. PAN No.: AACCS 8796 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Dilip Desai (CA) Shri Vijay Shah (CA) Shri Mohit Choudhary (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR) lquokbZ d…

Bhagwan Das Harwani, Ajmer vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jun 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri B. K. Gupta (Pr.CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 269S

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ‘B’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 05/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2016-17 cuke Bhagwan Das Harwani, Pr. CIT, Vs. Prop. M/s Parwati Oil Mill, Ajay Udaipur Nagar, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABHPH1392L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) & Sh. Subhash Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by :…

DCIT 11 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Qing Ambay Developers Corporation Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, for statistical purpose, the appeal is Allowed

ITA 7128/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Mishra, DRFor Respondent: None

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 7128 & 7129/Mum/2019 (A.Y: 2015-16 & 2016-17) DCIT 11(1)(1) Vs. M/s. Qing Ambay R No. 204, Aayakar DevelopersCorporation. Bhavan, MK Road, Ltd.,Hotel Sahara Star, Mumbai – 400020. Opp Domestic Airport, Vile Parle, Mumbai - 400099 PAN/GIR No. : AAJCA2307C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Rajesh Mishra, DR Respondent by : None Date of Hearing 20.05.2021 Date of Pronouncement 02.06.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: These are the two ap…

M/S. Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd Village Post-Patan, Tehsil-Kishangarh, District-Ajmer, Kishangarh vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 861/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)

Section 115BSection 263Section 3Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘B’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 861/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 cuke M/s Alokik Steels Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner Vs. Village Post- Patan, of Income-Tax-II, Tehsil- Kishangarh, Jaipur District- Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAGCA9590E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Siddharth Ranka & Sh. S…

The Jalgaon People'S Co.Op Bank Ltd, Jalgaon vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax -2, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 698/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.698/Pun/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Jalgaon People‟S Co-Op Bank Ltd. 152, Polan Peth Dana Bazar, Jalgaon-425 001 Pan : Aacat1603M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.698/PUN/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Jalgaon People‟s Co-OP Bank Ltd. 152, Polan Peth Dana Bazar, Jalgaon-425 001 PAN : AACAT1603M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nashik. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kapil Hirani Revenue by : Shri Deepak Garg सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 29.01.2021 घोषणा…

Swami Keshwanand Shikshan Sansthan, Sikar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 273/JPR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 273/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Swami Keshwanand Sikshan Cuke C.I.T. (Exemption), Vs. Sansthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan). N.H.11, Bhadhadhar, Sikar-332315 (Raj) Pan No.: Aafts 2816 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shafi Mohammed Chouhan (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 21/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Exemption), Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur Is Illegal & Against The Law Because The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Examined & Considered The Matter Involved In This Order. 2. That The Donation So Received Was Received For A Specific Purpose & Use, Hence It Was Corpus Donation. The Corpus Donation Cannot Be Treated As Part Of Income & Expenditure Account.

For Appellant: Shri Shafi Mohammed Chouhan (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 273/JP/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Swami Keshwanand Sikshan cuke C.I.T. (Exemption), Vs. Sansthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan). N.H.11, Bhadhadhar, Sikar-332315 (Raj) PAN No.: AAFTS 2816 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shafi Mohammed Chouhan (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR) lquokbZ…