CIT v. Daga Entrade Pvt. Ltd & Others

327 ITR 467Reported decision2010#7407 most cited

What is CIT v. Daga Entrade Pvt. Ltd & Others authority for?

Revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 can be exercised when an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to the Assessing Officer failing to apply their mind to relevant material, not holding normal inquiries, or passing an order ignoring relevant material.

15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Daga Entrade Pvt. Ltd · section 263 · erroneous assessment · prejudicial to revenue · Assessing Officer failure to inquire · ignoring relevant material · quasi-judicial proceedings · application of mind

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 10(34)Section 10(43)Section 10A

Issues it is cited on

erroneous and prejudicialsection 263section 26section 142(1)section 143section 14section 143(3)total incomeinterest

Judgments citing CIT v. Daga Entrade Pvt. Ltd & Others

Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Khanji Bhavan vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan(Vejalpur), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 651/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80GSection 80I

…s normal and not applying mind to relevant material in making assessment by the Assessing Officer would be an erroneous assessment warranting exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It was held as under: "23. Accordingly, we hold that Daga Entrade P. Ltd [2010] 327 ITR 467 (Gauhati) lays down correct law and the same is not in conflict with the earlier order of this court in Rajendra Singh [1990] 79 STC 10(Gauhati). Jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised whenever it is found that the order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Cases of assessment order passed on wrong…

Infobeans Technologies Limited, Indore, M.P vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Indore - 1, Indore, M.P

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being devoid of

ITA 371/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: S/Sh.SN Agrawal & Ritesh Jain, ARs
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 154Section 263

…have been made by the Assessing Officer in the instant case. It is well settled that if the Assessing Officer fails to make a proper enquiry this is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. [Para 13] (v) Daga Entrade (P.) Ltd.'s case ((2010) 327 ITR 467): The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court held that if the order of the assessing officer was passed ignoring relevant material, causing prejudice to the interest of the revenue, suo-moto revisional jurisdiction could be exercised by the commissioner.” (vi) Toyota Motor Corporation [2008] 174 Taxman 395 (Delhi) Affirmed in [2008] 173 Taxman 458 (SC) T…

M/S Punya Shree Jewellers, S4Eoni Malwa vs. The PCIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, for the reasons mentioned above, the assessment order u/s 143(3) r

ITA 154/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S Punya Shree Jewellers Pcit (1) Main Road, Seoni Malwa Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aapfp9682A Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.12.2023

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 69

…to observe rules of natural justice and to provide opportunity of hearing to assessee before making fresh assessment order on merit. This adequately safeguards the interest of the assessee and would cause no prejudice.In Daga Entrade (P.) Ltd.'s case [(2010) 327 ITR 467], the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court held that if the order of the Assessing Officer was passed ignoring relevant material, causing prejudice to the interest of the revenue, suo-moto revisional jurisdiction could be exercised by the Commissioner, In the case of Daniel Merchants Private Limited vs. ITO (Supreme Court) reported in (SC 23976/2017) hon'b…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1) ), Raipur vs. Shri Santosh Jain, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 44/RPR/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteिनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle 3(1), Shri Santosh Jain Raipur Vs Prop. M/S. Arihant Mining Co., Raipur. Pan: Acmpj5971B Appellant Respondent Applicant By None Respondent By Shrig.N. Singh Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Isdirected Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Raipur, Dated 22.11.2019For Assessment Year 2009-10 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 11.02.2015 Passed Under Section 143(3)R.W.S. 263Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As ‘The Act’). The Revenue Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: “1. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Not Erred In Law & In Fact Byadjudicating The Issue Of Retrospective Applicability Of The Secondproviso To Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The I. T. Act, Which Was Not Aground Of Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A)? 2. Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Not Erred In Law & In Facts By Ignoringthe Fact That The Order Of The Ao Was Erroneous & Prejudicial Tothe Interest Of Revenue In The Light Of The Fact The Ao Did Notexamine The Issue Of Non Deduction Of Tax At Source Andapplicability Of Provision U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The I. T. Act?

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 DCIT, Circle 3(1), Shri Santosh Jain Raipur Vs Prop. M/s. Arihant Mining Co., Raipur. PAN: ACMPJ5971B Appellant Respondent Applicant by None Respondent by ShriG.N. Singh Date of hearing 02/11/2022 Date of pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue isdirected against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Raipur, dated 22.11.2019for Assessment Year 2009-10 emanating from th…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1) ), Raipur vs. Shri Santosh Jain, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is Dismissed

ITA 43/RPR/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. Ita No.43/Rpr/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Dcit, Circle 3(1), Shri Santosh Jain Raipur Vs Prop. M/S. Arihant Mining Co., Raipur. Pan: Acmpj 5971 B Appellant/Revenue Respondent /Assessee Applicant By None Respondent By Shri G.N. Singh Date Of Hearing 02/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Raipur, Dated 22.11.2019For Assessment Year 2008-09Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 29.09.2015 Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As ‘The Act’). The Revenue Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: “1. Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Not Erred In Law & In Fact By Adjudicating The Issue Of Retrospective Applicability Of The Second Proviso To Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The I. T. Act, Which Was Not Aground Of Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A)? 2. Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Not Erred In Law & In Facts By Ignoring The Fact That The Order Of The Ao Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue In The Light Of The Fact The Ao Did Not Examine The Issue Of Non Deduction Of Tax At Source & Applicability Of Provision U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The I. T. Act?

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194ASection 263Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. ITA No.43/RPR/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 DCIT, Circle 3(1), Shri Santosh Jain Raipur Vs Prop. M/s. Arihant Mining Co., Raipur. PAN: ACMPJ 5971 B Appellant/Revenue Respondent /Assessee Applicant by None Respondent by Shri G.N. Singh Date of hearing 02/11/2022 Date of pronouncement 12/12/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-I, Raipur, dated 22.11.…

Parvinder Kaur, Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 64/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, C.A.&For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54BSection 54F

…isions: • Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products and Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53 (SC) [CLC 23-37] • Prakashwati [2005] 144 Taxman 313 (Allahabad) [CLC 38-40] • Vallabhdas Vithaldas [2005] 56 Taxman 300 (Gujarat) [CLC 41- 71] • Daga Entrade (P) Ltd [2010] 327 ITR 467 (Gauhati) [CLC 72-82] C3. Since such evidences prove that the property at Raghunandan Vihar was just a plot of land and, hence, the assessee was owning only one house property and, therefore, the order of Id. AO cannot be held to be erroneous. C4. Further, no evidence against the assessee was found to be available on record and the plea of the…

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

…Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products and Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53 (SC) [CLC 26-32] 18.2. Prakashwati [2005] 144 Taxman 313 (Allahabad) [CLC 33-34] 18.3. Vallabhdas Vithaldas [2005] 56 Taxman 300 (Gujarat) [CLC 35-48] 18.4. Daga Entrade (P) Ltd [2010] 327 ITR 467 (Gauhati) [CLC 49-54] 19. Since all the evidences, from which it was discernible that the claim of the assessee was justified, were before ld. PCIT, the order of ld. AO could not be held erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 13 Smt. Renu Poddar vs. Pr. CIT, Jaipur 20. It is further submitted that as per the provisions of…

M/S R.R.Ispat Ltd, Raipur vs. C.I.T-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 71/BIL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia, Hon'Ble & Shrin.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: ShriR.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263iSection 32Section 32(1)(iia)

…s not meant to be substitute for the power of the Assessing Officer to make assessment, the same can certainly be exercised when order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In Daga Entrade (P) Ltd.’s case (2010) 327 ITR 467, the Hon'ble Gauhati hg held that if the order of the Assessing officer was passed ignoring relevant material, causing prejudice to the interest of the revenue, suo motu revisional jurisdiction could be exercised by the Commissioner. I, accordingly set aside the assessment order on the limited issues discussed in para 4.1 to 4.3. 3. The Assessee…

Sanjay Majumdar, Allahabad vs. Pr. CIT, Allahabad

ITA 68/ALLD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad28 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Sanjay Majumdar, V. The Principal Commissioner Type Ii – 112, Devprayagam Of Income Tax, Sangam Vatika – Jhalwa, Aayakar Bhawan, Allahabad 211012 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad 211001 Pan: Adopm 2688P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Basudev Banerjee, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chanda, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 154Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Sanjay Majumdar, v. The Principal Commissioner Type II – 112, Devprayagam of Income Tax, Sangam Vatika – Jhalwa, Aayakar Bhawan, Allahabad 211012 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad 211001 PAN: ADOPM 2688P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Basudev Banerjee, CA Respondent by: Shri Debashish Chanda, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 12. 01. 2021 Date of pronouncement: 28.01. 2021 O R D E R PER SHRI RAMIT KOCHA…

Dipal Piyush Palkiwala, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 3462/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.839/Ahd/2015 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3462/Ahd/2016 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dipal Piyush Palkhiwala, Ito Ward-4(4) 27, Rivera Greens, 1St Floor, Vs Gokuldham Navjeevan Trust Building Sarkhej-Sanand Road, Sanathal, Ahmedabad-380014 Ahmedabad-382210 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Rita Dokania, Cit- Dr

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Rita Dokania, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…is normal and not applying mind to relevant material in making assessment by the Assessing Officer would be an erroneous assessment warranting exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It was held as under: "23. Accordingly, we hold that Daga Entrade P. Ltd [2010] 327 ITR 467 (Gauhati) lays down correct law and the same is not in conflict with the earlier order of this court in Rajendra Singh [1990] 79 STC 10 (Gauhati). Jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised whenever it is found that the order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Cases of assessment order passed on wrong…

Dipal Piyush Palkiwala, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 839/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.839/Ahd/2015 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3462/Ahd/2016 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dipal Piyush Palkhiwala, Ito Ward-4(4) 27, Rivera Greens, 1St Floor, Vs Gokuldham Navjeevan Trust Building Sarkhej-Sanand Road, Sanathal, Ahmedabad-380014 Ahmedabad-382210 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Rita Dokania, Cit- Dr

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Rita Dokania, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…is normal and not applying mind to relevant material in making assessment by the Assessing Officer would be an erroneous assessment warranting exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It was held as under: "23. Accordingly, we hold that Daga Entrade P. Ltd [2010] 327 ITR 467 (Gauhati) lays down correct law and the same is not in conflict with the earlier order of this court in Rajendra Singh [1990] 79 STC 10 (Gauhati). Jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised whenever it is found that the order of assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Cases of assessment order passed on wrong…

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

…him taken a view. Since he had not done so, the reassessment could not be challenged on the ground that it was based on a change of opinion." (i) Following the judgment in the case of Mukur Corpn. (supra), in the case of CIT v. Daga Entrade (P.) Ltd. [2010] 327 ITR 467(Gauhati) it was held that :— "The Gujarat High Court in Mukur Corporation [1978] 111 ITR 312 (Guj.) has held that when the Income-tax Officer at the stage of making assessment fails to make inquiry into relevant details, such assessment has to be considered as erroneous. If fresh assessment is thereafter ordered by the revisional authority, the…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3752/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Orient (Goa) Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 66 ITD 479 (Pune). In reply, the Ld. CIT-DR contended that the facts of the are squarely covered by the decision of Gauhati High Court COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v.DAGA ENTRADE P. LTD. (327 ITR 467)(Gau.), order dated 17/02/2009, by contending that there was enough incriminating material against the assessee for which our attention was invited to para 10.1 of the assessment order and also the statement recorded by the Department, wherein, it was specifically admitted that bogus transactions were transacted. Our attention was also invi…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3748/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Orient (Goa) Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 66 ITD 479 (Pune). In reply, the Ld. CIT-DR contended that the facts of the are squarely covered by the decision of Gauhati High Court COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v.DAGA ENTRADE P. LTD. (327 ITR 467)(Gau.), order dated 17/02/2009, by contending that there was enough incriminating material against the assessee for which our attention was invited to para 10.1 of the assessment order and also the statement recorded by the Department, wherein, it was specifically admitted that bogus transactions were transacted. Our attention was also invi…

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

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3747/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Orient (Goa) Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 66 ITD 479 (Pune). In reply, the Ld. CIT-DR contended that the facts of the are squarely covered by the decision of Gauhati High Court COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v.DAGA ENTRADE P. LTD. (327 ITR 467)(Gau.), order dated 17/02/2009, by contending that there was enough incriminating material against the assessee for which our attention was invited to para 10.1 of the assessment order and also the statement recorded by the Department, wherein, it was specifically admitted that bogus transactions were transacted. Our attention was also invi…

CIT v. Daga Entrade Pvt. Ltd & Others (327 ITR 467) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax