How many judgments cite CIT v. Development Credit Bank Ltd.?

80 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (323 ITR 206), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Development Credit Bank Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 263, Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 143(2), Section 147.

CIT v. Development Credit Bank Ltd.

323 ITR 206High Court2010#1423 most cited

What is CIT v. Development Credit Bank Ltd. authority for?

If the Assessing Officer conducts a specific enquiry on an issue during the original assessment and adopts a possible view, the Principal Commissioner cannot invoke revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act on that same issue.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Development Credit Bank Ltd. · Section 263 · revisionary jurisdiction · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · erroneous and prejudicial · AO examined issue · AO took possible view · capital gains · assessment order erroneous · Principal Commissioner of Income Tax · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.

Also reported as

196 Taxmann 329262 CTR 604

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263 Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 143(2)Section 147 Section 148 Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiry lack of enquiry malabar industrial revision under section 263 revision u/s 263 assessment order erroneous section 56(2)(viib)section 263(1)valuation of shares erroneous and prejudicial kelvinator section 56(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Development Credit Bank Ltd.

M/S La Opala RG Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 296/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. La Opala Rg Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Eco Centre Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Vs 8Th Floor Em-4, Sector-5 Kolkata - 700091 [Pan : Aaacl5569J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -2 (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 29/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Is That The Assessee Is A Limited Company & Income Of Rs.52,63,83,260/- Declared In The E-Return Furnished On 31/10/2017 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Was Completed On 21/12/2019 Assessing Income At Rs.56,22,70,863/-. Thereafter, The Ld. Pr. Cit Called For The Assessment Record & After Going Through The Same It Was Observed That The Order Of The Assessment Was Erroneous Insofar As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue On The Following Grounds:- “Upon Examination Of Case Records, It Is Observed That The Assessee Had An Income Of Rs. 49,08, 14,480/- From Sitaganj Exempted Unit In Which The Assessee Had Claimed Deduction U/S. 80Ic Of The Act Of Rs. 14,72,44,452/- (30% Of Rs.49,08, 14,480/-). It Was Observed From The Profit & Loss Accounts Of The Assessee For The Year Ended 31.03.2017 That The Assessee Had Credited An Amount Of Rs. 2,43,75, 193/- From Export Incentives & Also

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

…under section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked under the facts and circumstances of the case. This position is further supported by the following judicial pronouncements; - CITVs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Del HC); - CIT Vs. Developement Credit Bank Ltd. 323 ITR 206 (2010); - CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (1993); ITA No. 559/Kol/2018 La Opala RG Ltd.., AY- 2013-14 - CIT Vs. Vikash Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del); 8. In this regard, the ld AR also placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Fab India Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, 201 Taxman 173 wherein under the similar facts and circum…

Hritik Exim, Secunderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 743/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Hritik Exim Vs. Dcit, Circle-10(1) C/O P.Murali & Co. 5Th Floor, It Towers Chartered Accountants Ac Guards 6-3-655/2/3 Hyderabad-500 004 Somajiguda Hyderabad-500 082

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.Madhusudan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2014-15 Hritik Exim Vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1) C/o P.Murali & Co. 5th Floor, IT Towers Chartered Accountants AC Guards 6-3-655/2/3 Hyderabad-500 004 Somajiguda Hyderabad-500 082 PAN : AAGFH1123F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, CA Revenue by: Shri K.Madhusudan, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 18.10.2022 Date of pronouncement: 16.11.2022 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda, A.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directe…

Privilege Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 14, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 3317/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax– M/S Privilege Industries Ltd. 14 3Rd Floor, Dheeraj Arma, Anant Room No. 415, Vs. Kanekar Marg, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecs6532N

For Appellant: Mr. Nimesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sanjay V. Deshmukh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…quiries which have already been concluded by the AO only for the reason that it is not carried out in the manner, learned PCIT thinks. Once again he relied upon the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus development credit Bank Ltd 323 ITR 206. h. He also justified that that share application money should be included in the net worth calculation made by the independent valuer. He referred to the provisions of the companies act and explained to us that how the valuation of share is required to be made to compute the net worth. He stated that the rule 11 UA (2) the shares are to be value…

Varun Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 1963/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 263

…de proper enquiries and has taken a plausible view of the matter. Accordingly he submitted that the initiation of revision proceedings is bad in law. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following case law:- (a) CIT vs. Development credit bank Ltd (2010)(323 ITR 206)(Bom) (b) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd (2011)(332 ITR 167)(Delhi) 9. We heard rival contentions and perused the record. The legal position with regard to the power of Learned CIT to invoke revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act. The scope of revision proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act was considered by Hon'ble Bombay High…

M/S. Anand Projects Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-2, Mumbai

ITA 813/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Blem/S. Anand Projects Limited V. Pr.Cit – 2 19/3, Sujata Building Room No. 344, 3Rd Floor Rani Sati Marg, Malad (East) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400097 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaact1389G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Shah Department By : Smt Shailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Chetan ShahFor Respondent: Smt Shailaja Rai

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…stainable. The Ld. A.R heavily relied upon the following judicial precedents in support of his submissions: - (i). “CIT v. Late Shri Vijay Kumar Koganti” (2020) 4 NYPCTR 606 (Madras HC) (ii). “Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd” (2010) 323 ITR 206 (Bombay HC) (iii). “Colour Publications (P) Ltd. Vs. Pr.CIT” (iv). Asaria Lalji Vador vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax” - ITA No. 559/Mum/2021 (ITAT Mum.) 15 M/s. Anand Projects Limited 18. On the other hand, the Ld. DR. vehemently submitted the fact that the assessee has not denied the fact that it has received advance beyond 5% as per…

Radiant Life Care Mumbai P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 896/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 56(2)

…oking the revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 was not justified with respect to said expenditure. 7.20 In another case relied upon by the Ld. counsel of the assessee of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Development Credit Bank Ltd (2010) 323 ITR 206 (Bom) also the Hon’ble High Court held that since the enquiry was specifically held with reference to the issue of capital gain by the AO in original assessment proceedings, therefore invoking the revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 on the issue of the capital gain was not justified. ITA Nos. 895 & 296/M/2021 28 Radiant Life Care Mumbai…

Radiant Life Care Mumbai P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 895/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 56(2)

M/S. Long Life Realtors LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -17, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

…‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del). 13. We further find that the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Development Credit Bank Ltd reported in 323 ITR 206 (Bom) which would also squarely be applicable to the facts of the instant case. The relevant operative portion of the said judgement is reproduced hereunder:- 7. A reading of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax would show that the principal objection which the Revisional Authority expressed against the order of the Assessing Office…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND 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…

Kamal Vyas, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 17, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal stand allowed

ITA 303/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 303/Mum/2021 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Vs. PCIT-17 Kamal Vyas F-2007/2008 Room No. 120 1st Floor, Oberoi Splendor Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 JVLR Road, Andheri-E to C-43, G Block, Mumbai-400 060. Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra East PAN : AABPV6454A Mumbai-400 051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Department by Shri Vinay Sinha Date of Hearing 16.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement 07.01.2022 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) : The assessee has filed this appeal against t…

Ocimum Bio Solutions India Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 122/HYD/2020[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022

Bench: S/Shri A .Mohan Alankamony & Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year : 2014-2015 M/S. Ocimum Bio Solutions India Vs. Ito, Ward-16(1), Ltd., C/O P. Murali & Co., Ca, 6- Hyderabad 3-655/2/3, Simajiguda, Hyderabad Pan/Gir No.Aaaco 4095 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao , Ar Revenue By : Shri B.Bala Krishna Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 13 /10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao , ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna CIT (DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD ‘A’ BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE S/SHRI A .MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-2015 M/s. Ocimum Bio Solutions India Vs. ITO, Ward-16(1), Ltd., C/o P. Murali & Co., CA, 6- Hyderabad 3-655/2/3, Simajiguda, Hyderabad PAN/GIR No.AAACO 4095 L (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao , AR Revenue by : Shri B.Bala Krishna CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 13 /10/ 2021 Date of Pronouncement : 06/01/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order u/s.263 of the A…

Sanaa Ashiqali Raval, Mumbaui vs. Rp. CIT - 19, Mumbai

ITA 318/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansanaa Ashiqali Raval, Flat No.42, 2Nd Floor, Ajay Apartment, 25, Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026 Pan: Aihpr7427D ............ Appellant Vs. Pr. Cit-19 Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 ............ Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Hero Rai, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Amrish Bedio, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT v Gabriel India Ltd. 4. 305 CTR 486 (Bom) CIT v Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. 5. 387 ITR 691 (Bom) CIT v Gera Development P Ltd. 6. 372 ITR 303 (Bom) CIT v Fine Jewellery India Ltd. 7. 301 ITR 407 (Bom) Idea Cellular Ltd. v DCIT 8. 323 ITR 206 (Bom) CIT v Development Credit Bank Ltd 7. The ld. AR had further submitted that the PCIT for the purposes of justifying the order under section 263 of the Act relied upon the Explanation- (2) to section 263 of the Act. The ld. AR submitted that the Explanation-(2) though was introduced w.e.f. 01.06.2015, however, is not of any use to the PCIT a…

M/S. the India Cements Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle - 2 (1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 833/CHNY/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. S.Bharath,CITFor Respondent: 13.07.2021

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…ption of facts or incorrect application of law or without due application of mind or without following principles of natural justice is considered to be an erroneous order. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. 33 Development Credit Bank Ltd. (323 ITR 206) (Bom) has held that merely because the Assessing Officer should have gone deeper into the matter or should have made elaborate discussion could not be a ground for exercising power u/s.263 of the Act. Moreover, the issue whether expenditure incurred towards premium on redemption of debentures is capital or revenue in nature and further is i…

Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT, -27, Mumbai

ITA 1603/MUM/2020[2016-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2016-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Shri Sanjay Agarwal The Pr.Cit-27 1001/02 Brindavan Terrace, Vs. Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Deonar Farm Road, Deonar, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400088 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Agepa6776B (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel, A.R Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2021

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263o

…the CIT as against that of the Income Tax Officer unless the latters decision is found to be erroneous. Also, reliance was placed by the ld. A.R on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Development Credit Bank Limited (2010) 323 ITR 206 (Bom). By drawing support from the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, it was the claim of the ld. A.R, that in a case where the assessment order had been passed after considering the details that were called for and had been furnished by the assessee, the CIT could not revise the order, on the ground, that no enquiry had been conducted. Reliance w…

Shrimati Ravinder Bawa, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 703/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…assessee, the observation of the CIT that the Assessing Officer had arrived at his findings without conducting an enquiry was erroneous and therefore the CIT wrongly exercised the powers by recourse to section 263. CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 206 / 40 DTR 61 (Bom.) 22.2 Mere lack of inquiry by Assessing Officer not sufficient for revision under section 263. CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2010) 236 CTR 476 / 47 DTR 348 / 194 Taxman 57 (Delhi) 22.3 Non–Examination of issue by Assessing Officer does not per se make assessment order prejudicial to interest of revenue for revision under section 263.…

Satish Kumar Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 260/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…eel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) -. CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd 343 ITR 161(Bom.) - CIT v . Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.) - CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.: 332 ITR 167 (Del) -CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Born.) - Vimgi Investment (P) Limited: 290 ITR 505 (Del) - Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H) - CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Born). 5.12.1 In connection wit the submission of the assessee, received on 03.12.2018, it may be reiterated that in order to provide clarity on the issue of "erroneous in so far as it is prej…

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ltu 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3425/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 263Section 71

…Choudhury reported in 167 Taxmann 1 c) Decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd., reported in 203 ITR 108. d) Decision of Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd., reported in 323 ITR 206. e) Decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vodafone Essar South Ltd., reported in 28 Taxmann.com 273. 3.7. It was specifically pointed out that the order passed by the ld. AO was not passed on incorrect assumption of fact or incorrect application of law on the impugned subject. It was also pointed out that provisions of Section 263 o…

K R Satyanarayana vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

ITA/192/2015HC Karnataka21 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(2)Section 154Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 50CSection 80C

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.192 OF 2015 BETWEEN: K.R. SATYANARAYANA NO.1036-20, 4TH MAIN VIDYRANYAPURAM MYSURU. ... APPELLANT (BY SMT. SWATHI SUKUMAR, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX "SHILPASHRE", VIDYARANYA COMPLEX VISHWESWARANAGAR, MYSURU. 2. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2 "SHILPASHREE", VIDYARANYA COMPLEX VISHWESWARANAGAR, MYSURU. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-2(1),…

Seth Brothers, Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly

ITA 3395/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Sh. C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) I.T.A. No. 3395/DEL/2013 A.Y. : 2008-09 SETH BROTHERS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME SHANTI NIKETAN, VS. TAX, CIVIL LINES, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MEERUT BHAINSALI GROUND, (PAN: AAJFS0123M) MEERUT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. C.S. Anand, Advocate Department by : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The background of the case is that the assessment order in this case was passed on 30.11.2010 by the ACIT, Cirlce-2, Meerut, and the…

Ravish Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 47/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68