CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd.

372 ITR 303High Court2015#1217 most cited

What is CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. authority for?

An assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue merely because it does not explicitly discuss an issue for which the Assessing Officer had raised queries and the assessee had provided a response. In such a scenario, the Principal Commissioner cannot invoke revisionary powers under Section 263.

93

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. · Section 263 · revision under section 263 · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · specific query by AO · assessee's response · assessment order 143(3) · AO applied mind

Also reported as

55 Taxmann.com 514230 Taxmann 641

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 135Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 115BAASection 131(1A)

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiryproject completion methodlack of enquirymalabar industrialsection 263(1)section 120section 144aassessment order erroneousrevision under section 263erroneous and prejudicialsection 54fsection 153b

Judgments citing CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd.

DEUTSCHE INVESTMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMABI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3764/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Deutsche Investments India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle 4(2)(1) Block B1, Nirlon Knowledge Park, Off 6Th Floor, Room No. Western Express Highway, Goregaon Vs. 642, Aayakar East, Mumbai-400 063. Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaccd1765E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Umashankar PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…ny are mentioned below :- • CIT v. Nirav Mod/[2016] 71 taxmann.com 272/241 Taxman 255/[2017] 390 ITR 292 (Bombay), • CIT v. Nirav Modi [2017] 77 taxmann.com 15/244 Taxman 194 (SC), • CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. ([2015] 55 taxmann.com 514/230 Taxman 641/372 ITR 303 (Bombay), • Mo/7 Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 420/396 ITR 244 (Bombay), • Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO [2016] 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mumbai), • JMS Mining Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 118/190 ITD 702 (Kolkata - Trib.), • SBI DFHI Ltd. v. ACIT [IT Appeal No. 1431 (Mum) of 2023, dated 27-6- 2023], • ACIT v. Sikka Ports and Terminals Lt…

BHANDARI ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1227/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P Bora and Ms. Sampada S IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…d others vs ITO 63 TTJ 211 d. CIT vs Smt. Nirmal Anand 245 ITR 836 e. Jay Commercial Ltd vs CIT 66 TTJ 731 f. Hycron India vs ACIT 82 TTJ 450 13. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom) and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers reported in 341 ITR 537 (Del), he submitted that if a query is raised during the assessment proceedings which was answered and responded by the assessee, then mere fact that it is not dealt with in the assessment order would not lead to a conclusion that no m…

BHAGWATI STEEL PROCESSORS,CHANDIGARH vs. PCIT, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 435/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: \nShri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: \nShri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ications Ltd. [240 Taxman 655 (Bom)] - held that absence of\ndiscussion in the order does not mean lack of inquiry.\nΟ Nirav Modi [390 ITR 292 (Bom)), Shashi Bhushan Gupta [202 TTJ UO 30], Delhi\nAirport Metro Express [398 ITR 8], Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [372 ITR 303], Jyoti\nFoundation [357 ITR 388], Brahma Centre Development (P) Ltd. [437 ITR 285],\namong others, reiterate that once inquiry is made and a possible view taken\nby the AO, the same cannot be revised under Section 263 unless the PCIT\nundertakes fresh verification and demonstrates how the AO's conclusion is\nerroneous and prejudicial.\n6. The Ld…

DALAL AND BROACHA STOCK BROKING PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2718/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Dalal & Broacha Stock Broking Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pvt. Ltd. Vs Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, 506, Maker Chambers V, 221, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. [Pan No. Aaacd5662J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 80G

…revenue has not been satisfied in the present case. To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision:  CIT vs. Nirav Modi (390 ITR 292),  CIT vs. Nirav Modi (77 taxmann.com 78),  CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (372 ITR 303),  Moil Ltd. vs. CIT (396 ITR 244), 5 DalalAndBroacha Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd.  Narayan TatuRane vs. ITO (70 taxmann.com 227),  JMS Mining Pvt. Ltd. PCIT (91 ITR (T) 80),  SBI DFHI Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. No. 1431/Mum/2023) dated 27.06.2023,  ACIT vs. Sikka Ports and Terminals Ltd. (173 taxmann.com 366),  American Express (India) P. Ltd. vs.…

SHREE BALAJI ASSOCIATES PUNE LLP,PUNE vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1008/PUN/2024[AY 2019 - 20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Krishna GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 43C

…jurisdiction u/s 263 on an issue for which specific queries were raised by the Assessing Officer and for which the assessee has given the detailed reply. 26. We find the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom) at para 8 of the order has observed as under:…

GOEL EISHA CAPITALS,PUNE vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1006/PUN/2024[AY 2019 - 20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Krishna GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…jurisdiction u/s 263 on an issue for which specific queries were raised by the Assessing Officer and for which the assessee has given the detailed reply. 15. We find the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom) at para 8 of the order has observed as under: "8. We find that the impugned order of the Tribunal does record the fact that specific queries were made during the Assessment proceedings with regard to details of expenditure claimed under the head “miscellaneous expenses” aggregating to Rs.2.94 crores. The respondent-assessee had responded to…

PRADIP CHHAGANBHAI DALSANIYA,RAJKOT vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

ITA 367/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.367/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Pradip Chhaganbhai Dalsaniya Vs. Pr Cit, 3Rd Floor, Apex Apartment, Somnath Rajkot-1 Society University Road Rajkot 360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akmpd7956N (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

…ITA No.367/RJT/2024 (AY 2013-14) Pradip Chhaganbhai Dalsaniya v. PCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.367/RJT/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Pradip Chhaganbhai Dalsaniya Vs. Pr CIT, 3rd Floor, Apex Apartment, Somnath Rajkot-1 Society University Road Rajkot 360005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AKMPD7956N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07/11/…

PATCHIRAJAN LAKSHMANAN,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 597/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 597/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Principal Commissioner Of Patchirajan Lakshmanan, V. Income Tax, No. 102F,/16Z/3, Maduari -1, Dhanasekaran Nagar, Madurai – 625 002. Polepettai (West) – 628 002. [Pan:Aazpl-1396-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…s Krishna Capbox Ltd [2015] 372 ITIZ. 310 2. CIT vs Vodafone Essar South Ltd [2012] 28 Taxmann.com 273/[2013] 3. CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd [2011] 332 ITR 167 4. Idea Cellular Ltd vs DCIT &Ors. [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom) 5. CIT vs Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd [2015] 372 ITR 303/230 :-7-: ITA. No:597/Chny/2020 6. CIT vs Goyal Private Family Specific Trust [1988] 171 ITR 698 7. CIT vsMahendra Kumar Bansal [2008] 297 ITR 99 7. Further, the assessee also stated that the claim of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act is as per the provisions of the Act on merits and stated as under: “Notwithstanding the alleged lack of proper enqu…

M/S. S.R. FERRO ALLOYS,JHABUA vs. THE PCIT, BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 148/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. CIT, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) PAN: ABHFS7377Q Appellant by Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement 09.11.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 30.03.2021 of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, passed u/s 26…

M/S. CARNATION AGRO ESTATE PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT -1 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 437/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 263Section 68

…l India Ltd – (1993) 71 Taxmn 585 (Bom) 2. CIT vs Krishna Capbox (P) Ltd – (2015) 60 taxmann.com 243 (All) 3. CIT vs R.K. Construction Co.- 313 ITR 65 (Guj) 4. Grasim Industries Limited vs CIT – 188 taxmann.com 327 (Bom) 5. CIT vs Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd – 372 ITR 303 (Bom) We have perused these judicial pronouncements. 7. In the case of CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd (supra), the Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court held that ITOs order could not be held to be erroneous simply because in his order he did not make an elaborate discussion. 8. In the case of CIT vs Krishna Capbox (P) Ltd (supra), the Hon’ble Allah…

VULVAN TRADERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TEX, MUMBAI-5, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1318/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Principle Commissioner Of Vulvan Traders Private Income Tax, Limited 515, 5Th Floor, 805A, Corporate Avenue, Aaykar Bhavan, Sonawala Road, Vs. Goregaon (East) Mk Road, Mumbai-400 063 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv1603K Assessee By : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Achal Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2022

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM Principle Commissioner of Vulvan Traders Private Income Tax, Limited 515, 5th Floor, 805A, Corporate Avenue, Aaykar Bhavan, Sonawala Road, Vs. Goregaon (East) MK Road, Mumbai-400 063 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACV1603K Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Khandelwal, AR Revenue by : Shri Achal Sharma, CIT DR Date of hearing: 21.09.2022 Date of pronouncement : 19.12.2022 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the revisionary order pass…

DINESH KUMAR SINGH,MIRZAPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD

ITA 11/ALLD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad04 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma, CIT-DR and Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…382 ( Amritsar) 7. Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment and order in the case of Moil Ltd. v. CIT, reported in (2017) 396 ITR 244 (Bom. HC) 8. Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment and order in the case of CIT v. Fine Jewellery(India) Limited , reported in (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom. HC) 9. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court judgment and order in the case of CIT v. Krishna Capbox Private Limited, reported in (2015) 372 ITR 310 (All.HC) 10. ITAT, Kolkatta Bench- Sadhna Stocks and Securities Private Limited v. PCIT, Kolkatta, reported in (2018) 168 ITD 499(Kol.-trib.) 11. Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment and order in the case…

SANDEEP HOODA,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT - 7, NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 30

ITA 397/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasandeep Hooda, Vs. Pr. Cit-7, C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacph5453J

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 27Section 48Section 50Section 500(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 50c(2)

…in the assessment order, that would not by itself lead to the conclusion that the order of the Assessing Officer called for interference and revision." 11.3 Hon Bombay High court in Income Tax Appeal No. 296 of 2013 (CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bom)) decided on February 3, 2015, following its earlier decision in Idea Cellular Ltd. V. Deputy CIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom) has taken a similar view that : “. . . if a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and responded to by the assessee, the mere fact that it is not dealt with in the assessment order would not lead to a conclus…

MATRABHAV TRUST,MUMBAI vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-17, MUMBAI

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

ITA 872/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalematrabhav Trust Vs. Pr. Cit – 17 5Th Floor, Sunteck Room No. 120, 1St Floor, Centre, 37 40 Kautilya Bhavan G Subhash Road, Vile Block, Bandra Kurla Parle (East) Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadtm5199F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Rakesh Joshi.Ar Respondent By : Shri .A.B. Koli.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 17, Mumbai U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Rakesh Joshi.ARFor Respondent: Shri .A.B. Koli.DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

….IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Matrabhav Trust Vs. Pr. CIT – 17 5th Floor, Sunteck Room No. 120, 1st Floor, Centre, 37 40 Kautilya Bhavan G Subhash Road, Vile Block, Bandra Kurla Parle (East) Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AADTM5199F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri.Rakesh Joshi.AR Respondent by : Shri .A.B. Koli.DR Date of Hearing 21.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 27.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The assessee h…

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

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” Bench, Mumbai Shri M. Balaganesh (AM) & Mrs. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) I.T.A. No. 832/Mum/2020 (A.Y. 2015-16) Vs. Principal Learning Curve Edutech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner of 301, 3rd Floor, A-Wing Income Tax-7 Mafatlal Chamber Room No. 125 Marathon Futurex I.T. 1st Floor, Aayakar Park, Lower Parel East Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400 013. Road Mumbai-400 020. PAN : AACCL1246N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nitesh Joshi Department by Shri Salil Mishra Date of Hearing 30.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 31.05.2022 O R D E R Per M.Balaganesh (AM) :- This appeal is…

TAQA NEYVELI POWER COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, , CHENNAI-3

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 149/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…t terms of variousjudicial pronouncements. Further, Non-mentioning of issue under consideration in the assessment order cannot lead to a conclusion that Ld. AO had not applied his mind as held by Hon’ble Bombay High court in CIT V/s Fine Jewellery India Ltd. (372 ITR 303) as well as Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 537) wherein it was held that once inquiry was made, a mere non-discussion or non- mention thereof in the assessment order cannot lead to an assumption that AO did not apply his mind or that he has not made any enquiry on the subject matter. Similarwas stated to the be the de…

THE INDIAN HOTELS CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 950/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri K. K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 36

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company PCIT-1 Room No.330, 3rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACT3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue by: Shri Surendra Kumar (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 17/03/2022…

SACH ELECTRO MECH PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 392/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 145ASection 14ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 40A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Hearing in Virtual Court) Sach Electro Mech Private Limited Pr. Commissioner of Income C/2, Maheshwari Apartment, Tax-2, Vs. Nanpura, Timaliawad, Room No. 227, 2nd Floor, Surat. Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, PAN : AAICS 8963 M Surat-395001 APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by Shri H. P. Meena, CIT-DR Date of hearing 21/01/2022 Date of pronouncement 06/04/2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Thi…

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

…: 1. 395 ITR 1 (SC) CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex 2. 295 ITR 282 (SC) CIT v Max India Ltd. 3. 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 t…

DCIT 10(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. KDD INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 3408/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vikas Awasthyआ.अ. सं. 3408/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Gurbinder SinghFor Respondent: Shri Lalchand Choudhary
Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 37(1)

…ue is liable to be dismissed on the ground of consistency. The ld. AR further submitted that on merits, the issue is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Taparia Tools Ltd. v/s JCIT, 372 ITR 605 (SC) and CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. 372 ITR 303 (Bom.). The ld. AR pointed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid decision held that accounting treatment of any expenditure would not determine the allowability, if the expenditure is otherwise revenue in nature and the claim has been made by the assessee in its return of income. The ld. AR asserted that the Hon’ble Supreme Cou…

Showing 1–20 of 93 · Page 1 of 5

CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (372 ITR 303) — Cited in 93 Judgments | BharatTax