CIT v. Eastern Medikit Ltd.

337 ITR 56High Court2011#10800 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2023.

Issues it is cited on

change of opinionchief commissionerreopening of assessmentsection 263genuineness of the transactionsection 142reassessment proceedingssection 147section 143prescribedsection 148opportunity of being heard

Judgments citing CIT v. Eastern Medikit Ltd.

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 140/COCH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt
Section 147

…Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP)(where, in it’s words, the Tribunal itself started making inquiries); or CIT vs. Eastern Medikit Page 14 ITANos. 139 & 140/Coch/ 2020 (AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12) CO Nos. 02 & 03/Coch/2020 Asst. CIT vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd. Ltd. [2011] 337 ITR 56 (Del)(where the Tribunal proceeded to decide the issue on merits, converting itself into a court of first instance), as well as generally, disapproved such a course being adopted, being no more than a usurpation of power. Reference in this context may also be made, inter alia, to CIT vs. Toyota Motor Corp. [2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del) [affirmed in [200…

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 139/COCH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt
Section 147

…Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP)(where, in it’s words, the Tribunal itself started making inquiries); or CIT vs. Eastern Medikit Page 14 ITANos. 139 & 140/Coch/ 2020 (AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12) CO Nos. 02 & 03/Coch/2020 Asst. CIT vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd. Ltd. [2011] 337 ITR 56 (Del)(where the Tribunal proceeded to decide the issue on merits, converting itself into a court of first instance), as well as generally, disapproved such a course being adopted, being no more than a usurpation of power. Reference in this context may also be made, inter alia, to CIT vs. Toyota Motor Corp. [2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del) [affirmed in [200…

MURIWALA AGROTECH PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT CIRCLE-14, DELHI

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

ITA 608/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Shushil Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Dhan, Meena, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250(6)Section 37Section 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.608/DEL/2022 Assessment Year 2012-13 Murliwala Agrotech Private Ltd., v. The Assistant Commissioner of G-240-245, RIICO Industrial Area, Income Tax, Gudli, Udaipur. Circle-14, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AACCM0796Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Shushil Kumar Gupta, CA Respondent by: Shri Ram Dhan, Meena, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 13 04 2023 Date of pronouncement: 21 04 2023 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been file…

LEARNING CURVE EDUTECH SOLUTIONS PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT-7, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 832/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…) and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). 9. We find that learned Departmental Representative during the course of hearing had placed reliance on various decisions as under :- • CIT Vs. Eastern Medikit Ltd. (337 ITR 56)(Del) • Raj Mandir Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. PCIT (77 taxmann.com 285)(SC) 12 Learning Curve Edutech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. • Deniel Merchants (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO dated 29.11.2017 • CIT Vs. Ballarpur Indistries Ltd. (85 taxamnn.com 10)(Bom) • Sripan Land Development (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (46 SOT 447)(Mum) • Arvee International Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (101 ITD 495)(Mu…

MR. ABHISAR SHARMA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3285/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 17(2)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…47/143(3) for AY 2005-06 in your Case: (1) Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT(SC) 67ITR 84 (2) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 (3) Swarup Vegetable Products industries Ltd. vs CIT (AIL) 187 ITR 412 (4) CIT vs Eastern Medikit Ltd. (Del) 58 DTR 265; 337 ITR 56. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the law governing the issues involved undersign considered view that the Assessment Orders dated 28. 03.2013 as passed by the Assessing Officer for A. your case, erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and as such assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 I.T Act, 1961 by undersigned in case…

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3284/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR
Section 263

…2005-06 to A.Y. 2008- 09 in this case: Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT(SC) 67 ITR 84 (1) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 243 (2) ITR 83 Swarup Vegetable Products Industrial Ltd, (3) CIT(AIL) 187 ITR 412 CIT Vs Eastern Medikit Ltd. (Del) 58 DTR (4) 265; 337 ITR 56. 15. As against the above noted findings, It is observed from the written submissions made by the assessee that objections on the following points, relevant to the notice u/s 263 and the issues raised therein, have been made in written submissions filed before this office (for the sake of brevity, the written submissions of the assessee on these i…

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3281/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR
Section 263

…2005-06 to A.Y. 2008- 09 in this case: Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT(SC) 67 ITR 84 (1) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 243 (2) ITR 83 Swarup Vegetable Products Industrial Ltd, (3) CIT(AIL) 187 ITR 412 CIT Vs Eastern Medikit Ltd. (Del) 58 DTR (4) 265; 337 ITR 56. 15. As against the above noted findings, It is observed from the written submissions made by the assessee that objections on the following points, relevant to the notice u/s 263 and the issues raised therein, have been made in written submissions filed before this office (for the sake of brevity, the written submissions of the assessee on these i…

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3283/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR
Section 263

…2005-06 to A.Y. 2008- 09 in this case: Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT(SC) 67 ITR 84 (1) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 243 (2) ITR 83 Swarup Vegetable Products Industrial Ltd, (3) CIT(AIL) 187 ITR 412 CIT Vs Eastern Medikit Ltd. (Del) 58 DTR (4) 265; 337 ITR 56. 15. As against the above noted findings, It is observed from the written submissions made by the assessee that objections on the following points, relevant to the notice u/s 263 and the issues raised therein, have been made in written submissions filed before this office (for the sake of brevity, the written submissions of the assessee on these i…

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3282/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR
Section 263

…2005-06 to A.Y. 2008- 09 in this case: Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT(SC) 67 ITR 84 (1) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 243 (2) ITR 83 Swarup Vegetable Products Industrial Ltd, (3) CIT(AIL) 187 ITR 412 CIT Vs Eastern Medikit Ltd. (Del) 58 DTR (4) 265; 337 ITR 56. 15. As against the above noted findings, It is observed from the written submissions made by the assessee that objections on the following points, relevant to the notice u/s 263 and the issues raised therein, have been made in written submissions filed before this office (for the sake of brevity, the written submissions of the assessee on these i…

MR.ARITRO ASHISH ROY,MUMBAI vs. PR.CIT(A)-24, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assesee is allowed

ITA 1791/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negiaritro Ashsish Roy Vs. Acit-24(1) Room No.604, 6Th Floor Plot No.121, Edifice 5Th Road, Khar(W) Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 052 Parel Mumbai-400 012 Pan/Gir No.Agapr8158C Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…converting itself to a court of first instance and deciding the factual aspect on which, neither AO nor PCIT had written any findings. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Eastern Medi Kit Ltd. 2011 337 ITR 56. The Ld.DR has also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Toyota Motor corporation vs CIT 2008 306 ITR 52 9. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The Ld.PCIT can assume jurisdiction u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, 1961, to revise assessmen…