How many judgments cite CIT v. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company?

43 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company (213 ITR 843), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 147, Section 10(38), Section 143(3), Section 270A(8), Section 270A(9)(a).

CIT v. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company

213 ITR 843High Court1995#2737 most cited

What is CIT v. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company authority for?

The Commissioner can invoke revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 even when the assessee has disclosed all facts, if the Assessing Officer failed to examine those details in accordance with the correct provisions of law. Full disclosure does not provide immunity from revision if the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue due to the AO's inadequate inquiry.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company · 213 ITR 843 · Section 263 · revisional jurisdiction · full disclosure no immunity · inadequate enquiry by AO · examination of correct provisions of law · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · Commissioner's power Section 263

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 147 Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 45 Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 270a(9)(a)section 270a(8)section 153(3)section 263(1)faceless assessment scheme malabar industrial prejudicial to interest of revenue inadequate enquiry bogus ltcg bogus long term capital gain erroneous and prejudicial deduction under section 80ia

Judgments citing CIT v. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company

HOLLIS VITRIFIED PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI, GUJARAT, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT, INDIA

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

ITA 363/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…ut the assessing officer has not examined these details as per correct provisions of law. In support of this proposition, we place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court delivered in the case of CIT Vs. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company, 213 ITR 843 (Rajasthan). Further, the provisions of section 263 can be invoked even where the issue is debatable. For this proposition, we place reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court delivered in the case of CIT Vs. M. M. Khambhatwala, 198 ITR 144 (Gujarat). Considering these facts and circumstances, we find that since the order of the Asses…

JAYESH KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

ITA 6/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

…ut the assessing officer has not examined these details as per correct provisions of law. In support of this proposition, we place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court delivered in the case of CIT Vs. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company, 213 ITR 843 (Rajasthan). Further, the provisions of section 263 can be invoked even where the issue is debatable. For this proposition, we place reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court delivered in the case of CIT Vs. M. M. Khambhatwala, 198 ITR 144 (Gujarat). 23. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also considered the ratio laid…

BHANUBEN MANSUKHLAL KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

ITA 5/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

…ut the assessing officer has not examined these details as per correct provisions of law. In support of this proposition, we place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court delivered in the case of CIT Vs. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company, 213 ITR 843 (Rajasthan). Further, the provisions of section 263 can be invoked even where the issue is debatable. For this proposition, we place reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court delivered in the case of CIT Vs. M. M. Khambhatwala, 198 ITR 144 (Gujarat). 23. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also considered the ratio laid…

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

ITA 4/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

…ut the assessing officer has not examined these details as per correct provisions of law. In support of this proposition, we place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court delivered in the case of CIT Vs. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company, 213 ITR 843 (Rajasthan). Further, the provisions of section 263 can be invoked even where the issue is debatable. For this proposition, we place reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court delivered in the case of CIT Vs. M. M. Khambhatwala, 198 ITR 144 (Gujarat). 23. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also considered the ratio laid…

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

ITA 3/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

…ut the assessing officer has not examined these details as per correct provisions of law. In support of this proposition, we place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court delivered in the case of CIT Vs. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company, 213 ITR 843 (Rajasthan). Further, the provisions of section 263 can be invoked even where the issue is debatable. For this proposition, we place reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Gujarat High Court delivered in the case of CIT Vs. M. M. Khambhatwala, 198 ITR 144 (Gujarat). 23. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also considered the ratio laid…

HANSA JITENDRA HARIA,JAMNAGAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hansa Jitendra Haria Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 2, Oswal Colony, Near Rajendra Income Tax Balkrindagan, Jamnagar, Gujarat Jamnagar 361005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph4309L (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT. DR

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263Section 69A

…correct provisions of law. In support of this ITA No. 104/RJT/2024/AY.2013-14 Hansa Jitendra Haria vs. PCIT proposition, we place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court delivered in the case of CIT Vs. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company, 213 ITR 843 (Rajasthan). Therefore, based on these facts and circumstances, we uphold the order of the ld. PCIT and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 24. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 20/06/2025 (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rajkot () "दनांक/ D…

SBS BIOTECH UNIT II,SIRMOUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 801CSection 80I

…h an inquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct." vii) Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Emery Stone Manufacturing Company (213 ITR 843) has held as under: "Simply because the facts have been disclosed by the assessee, it does not give immunity from revisional jurisdiction which the Commissioner can exercise u/s 263 and as such even in a case where the facts have been disclosed by the assessee to the Assessing Authority and the correct provisions of law have not been examined by…

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 300/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

…inquiry has not been made and not because there i s anything wrong with the order i f all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct." vi). Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income- Tax vs Emery Stone Manufacturing Company (213 ITR 843) has held as under: "Simply because the facts have been disclosed by the assessee, it does not give immunity from revisional jurisdiction which the Commissioner can exercise u/s 263 and as such even in a case where the facts have been disclosed by the assessee to the Assessing Authority and the correct provisions o f law have not been examined by…

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 299/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

EXOTIC REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

…h an inquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct." vi). Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Emery Stone Manufacturing Company (213 ITR 843) has held as under: "Simply because the facts have been disclosed by the assessee, it does not give immunity from revisional jurisdiction which the Commissioner can exercise u/s 263 and as such even in a case where the facts have been disclosed by the assessee to the Assessing Authority and the correct provisions of law have not been examined by…

M/S. GANGA ELECTRICALS,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX.-1, , NASHIK

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

ITA 215/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

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

…CIT Vs Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. [2001] 118 Taxman 230 (Madras) / [2001] 248 ITR 611 (Madras) / [2001] 171 CTR 154 (Madras) [06-11-2000] 4. Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in case of CIT Vs Emery Stone Mfg. Co [1995] 83 Taxman 643 (Rajasthan) / [1995] 213 ITR 843 (Rajasthan) / [1995] 126 CTR 345 (Rajasthan) [21-07-1994] 5. Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case of Thalibai F Jain Vs ITO [1975] 101 ITR 1 (Karnataka) [14-03-1975] 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) / [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC)/ (2000) 159 CTR 1 (SC) [10-02-2000] 11 7. Hon'bl…

JAMESON ABRAHAM,KOLLAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 979/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasjameson Abraham Principal Commissioner Emmanuel Cashes Industries Of Income Tax Chepara P.O., Kottarakara Vs. Thiruvananthuparam Kollam 691520 [Pan: Afopa7312Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…urned balances, for redoing it upon due verification upon extending due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Reliance was placed by him on the decisions in CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434 (Gau)(FB) and CIT v. Emery Stone Mfg. Co. [1995] 213 ITR 843 (Raj). Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal. 4.1 Before us, the assessee’s case was that there was due verification by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the assessment proceedings, and that merely because he Jameson Abraham v. Pr. CIT had not elaborated thereon in the assessment order, should not prejudice the assessee, even as held by the Tribunal in i…

NAHAR COLOURS AND COATINHGS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…even in a case where the facts have been disclosed by the assessee to the assessing authority and the correct provisions of law have not been examined by the assessing authority, the power under section 263 can be invoked. (CIT v. Emery Stone Mfg. Co. [1995] 213 ITR 843/83 Taxman 643 (Raj.)) 5.3. Merely asking a question which goes to the root ofthe matter and not carrying it further is a case of non-enquiry. the query not otherwise satisfied while responding to another query. In the instant case, the Assessing is Officer raised query regarding valuation of shares in question to which response was only that the…

BARCLAYS MERCHANT BANK ( SINGAPORE ) LTD.,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL CIRCLE) RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse stand dismissed

ITA 907/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Rajesh Meshram

Section 143(3)Section 263

…aid forwards contracts were especially entered into for hedging the portfolio of the assesse. “i. Guwahati High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (341 ITR 434). ii. Rajasthan High Court in the case of CITVs. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company (213 ITR 843) iii. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) iv. ITO Vs. DG Housing Projects Limited (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) v. Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. ACIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi)” 8. Heard both the sides and perused the m…

CREDIT SUISSE (SINGAPORE ) LIMITED ,SINGAPORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX), MUMBAI-2

In the result, appeals by the assessee for 2016-17 and 2017-18 are allowed

ITA 1008/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 1007/मुं/2022 ("न.व.2016-17) आअसं. 1008/मुं/2022 ("न.व.2017-18) Credit Suisse (Singapore) Limited, C/O. Delloite Haskins & Sells Chartered Accountants Llp, 30Th Floor, Tower 3, One International Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai 400 013 Pan: Aaccc-7328-N ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation) Mumbai-2, 1706, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, ...... ""तवाद"/Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 038

For Appellant: Shri P.J.Pardiwala Sr. Advocate with Shri. Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT DR and Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. AR

Section 263

…cannot accept claim of the assessee blindly. To support her submissions the ld. Departmental Representative placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee , 341 ITR 434(Gawahati); (ii) CIT vs. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company , 213 ITR 843(Raj); (iii) Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT, 67 ITR 84 (SC); (iv) ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Limited, 343 ITR 329 (Del); (v) Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Additional CIT, 99 ITR 375 (Del); & (vi) CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. I.T. Reference No.27 of 2002 decided on 31/07/2017 by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. The ld. Departmental Representative pray…

CREDIT SUISSE (SINGAPORE ) LIMITED ,SINGAPORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX), MUMBAI-2

In the result, appeals by the assessee for 2016-17 and 2017-18 are allowed

ITA 1007/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.J.Pardiwala Sr. Advocate with Shri. Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT DR and Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. AR

Section 263

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS P. LTD,TRIVANDRUM vs. THE PR CIT, TRIVANDRUM

In the result, appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 5/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin21 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Asianet Satellite Vs. Pcit, Communications Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram. 2A, 2Nd Floor, Carnival Technopark, Technopark, Kazhakuttom, Karyavattom, P. O., Thiruvananthapuram. Pan : Aaeca 5548 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Raghunathan S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. Rajasekhar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…be 'erroneous' [CIT Vs. Jawahar Bhatacharjee (2012) 341 ITR 434 (Gau.)(FB)] II. Failure to apply the correct provision of law as may be applicable in given facts of the case will be resulting in an erroneous order [CIT Vs. Emery Stone Manufacturing Co.(1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj)]” 4. The learned AR submitted that interest paid for delayed payment of Service Tax/VAT/TDS is not penal in nature and therefore should be allowed as a deduction. The learned AR submitted that Co- ordinate Bench in the case of ITO Vs. Lakshadweep Development Corporation Ltd., has held that interest on delayed payment of VAT and TDS is only…

RAJA GOPAL REDDY GOLI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-11(5), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Raja Gopal Reddy Goli Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(5) Pan:Bbwpg4389J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Advocate Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 6.6.2019 Of The Learned Pr.Cit-5 Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2015-16. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under: 1. The Order Of The Ld. Pr. Cit Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That There Is Error In The Order U/S 143(3) Dated 19.12.2017 3. The Ld. Pr. Cit Ought To Have Considered The Facts That The Assessing Officer While Completing The Assessment U/S 143(3) Considered All The Facts & Circumstances & Arrived At The Total Income. 4. The Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That The Assessment Order Is Erroneous & Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. 5. Any Other Ground That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.“ Page 1 Of 12

For Appellant: Advocate Smt. S. SandhyaFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA 139 of 2021 Raj Gopal Reddy Goli आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Raja Gopal Reddy Goli Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(5) PAN:BBWPG4389J Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Advocate Smt. S. Sandhya Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 13/12/2022 Date of pronouncement: 19/12/2022 ORDER Per R.K. Panda, A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 6.6.2019 of th…

M/S KINNOR KINNOREE,KOLKATA vs. CIT-X, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/KOL/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…, then one can advert with advantage to the decisions in Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 1TR 84 SC) : Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) : Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT(1992) 198 ITR 611 (ker) : CIT vs. Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) : B.S. Bajaj & Sons vs. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 418 (P&H) : Patel Cotton Co. Ltd. vs. ACIT (1998) 64 ITD 273 (Mum) : BLu Mai Pyare Lai vs. ACIT(2001) 79 IT'D 169 7 Assessment Year : 2005-2006 M/s. Kinnor Kinnoree (Chd): Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT (2001) 78 ITD 189 (Chd) : Export House (2002) 256 ITR 603 (P&H) : Diamond Wor…

JUNIPER NETWORKS INTERNATIONAL B.V. ,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-3, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 982/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 982/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2014-15) Juniper Networks International B.V, Boeing Avenue 240, 1119Pz Schipol-Rijk, Amsterdam,0 Netherlands Pan: Aadcj-0974-G ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It), Mumbai -3, Room No.1601, 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Prachi Mehta &Shri Sandeep Bhalla ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Surabhi Sharma & Shri Milind Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Prachi Mehta &Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma &

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

…al Developers Ltd. In Income Tax Appeal No.507/2014 decided on 22/02/2018 by Hon’ble Delhi High Court. (iv) CIT vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee 341 ITR 434 (Guwahati) (v) ITO vs. DG Housing Project Ltd., 343 ITR 329 (Del) (vi) CIT vs. Emery Stone Manufacturing Co., 213 ITR 843(Raj) 6. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of the Authorities Below. We have also considered various decisions on which rival sides have placed reliance in support of their respective arguments. 7. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the CIT has exercised revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of th…

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3