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.

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 843)

Trivitron Healthcare P Ltd., Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 97/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Mr. M.Rajan, CITFor Respondent: 17.05.2022

Section 2Section 263Section 32(1)

…sment is made on (i) wrong assumption of facts, (ii) Incorrect application of law or (iii) without due application of mind (CIT Vs Jawahar Bhattacharya (341 lTR 434). It was also held by Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs Energy Shoe Manufacturing Co (213 ITR 843) held that failure to apply the correct provisions of law may be applicable to the facts of the case would result in an erroneous order. 6.4 in this case, the provisions of the Income Tax Act have not been correctly applied by the AO. The proviso under section 32(l) clearly prescribes that in the case of an amalgamation, the aggregate deduction i…

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 13, Mumbai

ITA 3600/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 163Section 263Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Play Games 24X7 Principal Commissioner of Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-13, 401, B-Wing, 4th Floor, Room No.122, 1st Floor, Interface 16, Vs. Off Malad Link Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Malad (West), Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 067 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AADCP9139P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri P. J. Pardiwala, A.R. Shri Jeet Kamdar, A.R. Revenue by : Ms. Surabhi Sharma, D.R. Date of Hearing : 02 . 05 . 2022 Date of Pro…

Smt Nituben Pradeep Dhingra, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 180/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Toshiwal & Ms Richa Toshiwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 57

…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). In the assessee`s case under consideration, the assessing officer did not make enquiry in respect of expenses of Rs.37,04,113/- and did not try to establish the nexus that such Assessment Year. 2014-15 Neetuben Pradeep Dhingra expenditure has been incurred by the assessee to earn interest income of Rs.29,90,030/-. No doubt, assessee…

Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporatio Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1452/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant Respondent ITA No. A.Y. 724/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Andhra Pradesh Gas Deputy Power Corporation Commissioner of Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad Circle-1(1), 1452/Hyd/2019 [PAN: AABCA9105C] Hyderabad 2014-15 For Assessee : Shri V.Siva Kumar, AR For Revenue : Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR (ITA No.724/H/18) Shri Danda Srinivas, DR (ITA No.1452/H/19) Date of Hearing : 13-07-2021 (ITA No.724/H/18) 20-07-2021 (ITA No.1452/H/19) Date…

Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 724/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant Respondent ITA No. A.Y. 724/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Andhra Pradesh Gas Deputy Power Corporation Commissioner of Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad Circle-1(1), 1452/Hyd/2019 [PAN: AABCA9105C] Hyderabad 2014-15 For Assessee : Shri V.Siva Kumar, AR For Revenue : Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR (ITA No.724/H/18) Shri Danda Srinivas, DR (ITA No.1452/H/19) Date of Hearing : 13-07-2021 (ITA No.724/H/18) 20-07-2021 (ITA No.1452/H/19) Date…

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

…Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi (1973) 88 ITR 323(SC) Tara Devi Aggarwal (1975) 99 ITR 375(Delhi) Gee Vee enterprises (1966) 220 ITR 657 (Mad) K.A. Ramaswami Chettiar & Another (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) -. CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd 343 ITR 161(B…

Agro Tech Foods Limited., Sec'Bad, Secunderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 775/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Sri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 264Section 92C

…1994] 207 ITR 225. In support of the argument that the Assessing Officer when applies wrong law it gives raise to an error and could be revised by the Commissioner, reliance was placed on the Rajasthan High Court decision in CIT v. Emery Stone Mfg. Co. [1995] 213 ITR 843. It was pointed out that the order did not deal with the provisions of section 11(4A) of the Act and therefore, error did creep in the order of Assessing Officer. The contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the amendment to section 263 of the Act permitting revision of orders has to be limited to that portion of the order not cove…