CIT v. D.G. Gopala Gowda

354 ITR 501High Court2013#9019 most cited

What is CIT v. D.G. Gopala Gowda authority for?

For the revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act to be exercised, the order under revision must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue; a mere error does not grant the jurisdiction.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2022.

Also referred to as

CIT v. D.G. Gopala Gowda · section 263 · revisional powers · erroneous order · prejudicial to revenue · jurisdiction · assessment order

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing CIT v. D.G. Gopala Gowda

The ACIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Torrent Power Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 2047/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Dec 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. D.R
Section 14ASection 36Section 80

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद"यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ D’’BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORESHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos. 14& 2047/AHD/2018 With CO.Nos.41& 120/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 A.C.I.T., M/s. Torrent Power Limited, Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Torrent House, Ahmedabad. Off. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. PAN: AACCT0294J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vartik Choksi, A.R Revenue by : Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. D.R सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 19/10/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement…

The ACIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Torrent Power Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 14/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Dec 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. D.R
Section 14ASection 36Section 80

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद"यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ D’’BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORESHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos. 14& 2047/AHD/2018 With CO.Nos.41& 120/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Years: 2012-13& 2013-14 A.C.I.T., M/s. Torrent Power Limited, Circle-4(1)(2), Vs. Torrent House, Ahmedabad. Off. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. PAN: AACCT0294J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vartik Choksi, A.R Revenue by : Shri Ritesh Parmar, CIT. D.R सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 19/10/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement…

Rk Infra & Engineering India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Hyderabad

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

ITA 188/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 R.K. Infra & Engineering India Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward – 3, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr9570Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 143(3)Section 263

…he same cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the revenue. 8.15 The appellant wishes to place reliance on the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Et Anr. Vs. D.G. Gopala Gowda reported in (2013) 354 ITR 501, where it was held: "the condition precedent for exercising the revisionary powers under section 263 of the Act is that the order under revision should not only be erroneous, but such erroneous order should result in prejudice to the interest of revenue. Mere error would not confer jurisdiction to exercise revisional powers under section 263 of t…

The Dy. CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar vs. M/S. Kalparatru Power Transmission Limited, Gandhinagar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2853/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 92C

…'ble High Court further relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. My Home Power Ltd [2014] 46 taxmann.com 314/365 ITR 82 and the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.G. Gopala Gowda, [2013] 354 ITR 501, which have taken the same view on realization of carbon credits as capital receipt. There is no contrary judgment and the two Hon'ble High Courts, i.e. Andhra Pradesh High Court and Karnataka High Court, having taken a concurrent view on this matter, are to be followed in judicial discipline 19.2The Id. Departmental Representative, on the other…

Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Dy. CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2472/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jul 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 92C

…'ble High Court further relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. My Home Power Ltd [2014] 46 taxmann.com 314/365 ITR 82 and the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.G. Gopala Gowda, [2013] 354 ITR 501, which have taken the same view on realization of carbon credits as capital receipt. There is no contrary judgment and the two Hon'ble High Courts, i.e. Andhra Pradesh High Court and Karnataka High Court, having taken a concurrent view on this matter, are to be followed in judicial discipline 19.2The Id. Departmental Representative, on the other…

Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd., Gandhinagar vs. The Dy. CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2471/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd Usman, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 92C

…'ble High Court further relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. My Home Power Ltd [2014] 46 taxmann.com 314/365 ITR 82 and the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.G. Gopala Gowda, [2013] 354 ITR 501, which have taken the same view on realization of carbon credits as capital receipt. There is no contrary judgment and the two Hon'ble High Courts, i.e. Andhra Pradesh High Court and Karnataka High Court, having taken a concurrent view on this matter, are to be followed in judicial discipline 19.2The Id. Departmental Representative, on the other…

Spml Infra Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 510/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Virtual Court] (Before Sri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member & Sri Manish Borad, Accountant Member) I.T.A. No.: 510/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 SPML Infra Limited.................................................................Appellant [PAN: AADCS 2469 K] Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata.........................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. and Ms. Mita Rizvi, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Md. Ghayas Uddin, CIT(D/R), appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : February 15th, 2022 Date…

Alpex Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3319/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negialpex Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai 400 013 Pan:Aaacn 7738H ...... Appellant Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -6, Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 020 .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak D. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 263

…the pre-requisites contained in section 263(1) of the Act. In this context, reliance has been placed on the following decisions:- 1. Malbar Industries Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. CIT v.. Gabriel India Ltd. - 203 ITR 108(Bom) 3. CIT v. D.G. Gopala Gowda 354 ITR 501(KAR) 4. CIT v. Smt. Minalben S. Parikh, 215 ITR 81(Guj) 5. CIT v. G.R. Thangamaligai [2003] 259 ITR 129 (Mad.) 4. On the other hand, on this aspect, Ld.CIT-DR appearing for the Revenue has merely relied upon the order of the PCIT in support of the case of the Revenue. 5. In the context of the preliminary point made by the appellant, it has to b…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Limited

ITA/169/2015HC Karnataka29 Mar 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260Section 263Section 80I

…order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard. 8. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, we would like to make a reference to the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.G. Gopala Gowda, 354 ITR 501 (2013). In this case, the facts noticed by the Hon’ble High court read as under: “2. The assessee had purchased a site at Rupena Agrahara in the financial year 1995-96 for a consideration of Rs.3,46,520/-. He started construction of the building in April 1999. He agreed to sell the said property under the agreement dated 9-9-2…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Saravana Developers

Appeal is allowed as the consequential order

ITA/67/2014HC Karnataka21 Jan 2016

Bench: S.SUJATHA,N.K.PATIL

Section 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 263

…. 10. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on the following Judgments: (1) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME_TAX vs SUNBEAM AUTO LTD.([2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)) (2) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER vs D.G.GOPALA GOWDA. ([2013] 354 ITR 501(Karn)) 10 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER vs DIGITAL GLOBAL SOFT LTD.([2013] 354 ITR 489 (Karn)) (4) CIT AND ANOTHER vs Dr.L.NARENDRA PRASAD (ITA No.473/2009 disposed of on 18.08.2015) 11. In the light of the above facts and rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have consi…

Bosch Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 571/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…further held that CIT by merely observing that certain points deserved consideration, cannot exercise powers u/s. 263 of the Act. 13. Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT v. D.G. Gopala Gowda, 354 ITR 501 (Karn), wherein it was observed that the order passed u/s. 263 should indicate the error committed by the assessing authority and consequently prejudice caused to the revenue. It was further held that after finding that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue, the revisional authority cannot simply remand the issue to…

M/S Stanley Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Pr.CIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 608/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Shri. Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ns given to its sister concerns. Thus according to him, the order of AO could not be considered as prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. D. G. Gopala Gowda [354 ITR 501]. ITA.608/Bang/2015 Page - 6 06. Per contra, Ld. DR strongly supporting the order of Pr. CIT submitted that AO had never examined the issue at the time of original assessment proceedings. AO had not made any enquiries whether any interest bearing funds were utilised for giving advances to the two concerns. AO also had not examined whether any e…

CIT v. D.G. Gopala Gowda (354 ITR 501) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax