How many judgments cite CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd.?

93 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (372 ITR 303), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 80G, Section 135, Section 142(1), Section 144B.

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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 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 263 Section 143(3)Section 80G Section 135 Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 115BAA Section 131(1A)

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiry project completion method lack of enquiry malabar industrial section 263(1)section 120 section 144a assessment order erroneous revision under section 263 erroneous and prejudicial section 54f section 153b

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

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Desai (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…icer should have carried out in such cases. Under these facts and ratio decided by the Hon’ble Courts in case of CIT Vs. Green World Corporation 314 ITR 81 (SC), CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231 (Delhi), CIT-8, Bombay v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. 372 ITR 303 (Bombay) and CIT v. Reliance Communication Ltd (2017) 396 ITR 217, we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case of invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Therefore, we set aside the order of the ld. Pr. CIT and restore the assessment order on this issue in the light of the above deliberations. Thus Ground No. 1, 2 and 3 (a)…

Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 386/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…The Assessing Officer was justified in granting the special deduction under section 80-IB. The order of revision disallowing the special deduction was not valid” 19.2. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs., Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd., [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bom.) in which it was held as under : “Held dismissing the appeal, that the order of the Tribunal did record the fact that specific queries were made during the assessment proceedings 135 ITA.Nos.383, 384, 385 & 386/Del./2021 Smt. Abha Bansal, Sh Pankaj Bansal, Sh Basant Bansal And Sh Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon. with regard to the details of…

Shri Basant Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 385/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

Pankaj Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 384/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

Abha Bansal, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Central, Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 383/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

M/S Ruchi J Oil Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT(A)Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 92C

…officer, but neither the query nor the answer was reflected 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”. e) CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom). [Idea Cellular Ltd vs. Dy. CIT (2008) 301 ITR 407 (Bom) Followed] Held “If a query is raised during 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 conclusion that no mind had been applied to it”. f) CIT vs. Krishna Capbox (P) Ltd - [2015] 372 ITR…

M/S. Itt Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 344/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 344/Ahd/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.R

Section 142Section 144Section 263Section 263(1)Section 44A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Convened through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 344/Ahd/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) ITT Corporation India बनाम/ Pr. Commissioner of Private Limited Income Tax-1 Vs. Plot No.731, Manjusar Room No.214, Second GIDC, Savli Road, Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Vadodara - 391775 Income Tax Offoce, Race Course Circle, Baroda, Gujarat 390007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCI7013D .. (अपीला…

Shri. Chandrakant R Agrawal, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT (A)-30, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 380/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodshri Chandrakant R. Agrawal Pr. Commissioner Of 61, Sadhna Daftary Road, Income-Tax (Central) -30, R. No. 541, 5Th Floor, Malad East, Vs. Mumbai – 400097 Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai Pan – Aabpa8047N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 57

…sment order could not lead to a conclusion that the A.O had not enquired into the said aspect. In support of his aforesaid contention the ld. A.R relied on the orders of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of viz. (i) CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (I) Ltd., 372 ITR 303 (Bom); and (ii) CIT Vs. Reliance ITA No.380/Mum/2020 A.Y. 2015-16 5 Shri Chandrakant R. Agrawal Vs. PCIT (Central)-30 Communications Ltd. (2016) 69 taxmann.com 103 (Bom). On the basis of his aforesaid contentions, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that as the PCIT had clearly exceeded his jurisdiction and had dislodged the well reasoned order pas…

Nilkanth Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1853/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…erverse or contrary to record, anything to show that findings recorded by Tribunal were perverse or contrary to record, invoking of revision proceedings was unjustified - Held, yes invoking of revision proceedings  CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bom.) CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bom.) Section 37(1), read with section 263, of the Income Section 37(1), read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure Business expenditure - Allowability of (Brand building expenses) Allowability of (Brand building expenses) - Assessment year 2006-07 07 -…

Jay Precision Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 12, Mumbai

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

ITA 2422/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Uodal Raj Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

…inally, the Ld. counsel relies on (i) CIT v. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bom.), (ii) CIT v. Nirav Modi 77 taxmann.com 78 (SC), (iii) Moil Ltd. v. CIT 396 ITR 244 (Bom.), (iv) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 (Del.), (v) CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. 372 ITR 303 (Bom.). 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submits that the details filed by the assessee before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings indicated that the assessee has netted the receipts against the expenses and only the net figures are shown in Form 3CD as covered u/s 40A(2)(b) and for specified domestic…

Tata Sons Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit 2, 24, Bombay House, Room No.552, Homi Mody Street, Vs. 5Th Floor, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaact4060A M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.R. Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 57

…course of action is permissible as supported by the ratio laid down in the following three decisions by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. 1. CIT vs. Capital India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 2. Idea Celluar Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT 301 ITR 407 3. CIT vs. Fine Jewellery India Ltd. 372 ITR 303 (Bom.- HC) 13. The Ld. A.R. submitted that under these circumstances it could not be said that there was no enquiry made or one of the possible view was not taken by the AO. On the issue of royalty being a capital account or revenue account, the Ld. A.R. submitted that the Ld. PCIT has not raised this issue in the revisionary proceedings. The Ld.…

Laxmi Ventures (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-2014

ITA 2199/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Laxmi Ventures (India) Pvt. The Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax 7, Mumbai, Aaykar 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mahalaxmi , Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400034 Pan: Aaacl1082G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT DR)

Section 133Section 143Section 14ASection 263Section 40Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s Laxmi Ventures (India) Pvt. The Principal Commissioner of Ltd., Income Tax 7, Mumbai, Aaykar 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mahalaxmi , Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400034 PAN: AAACL1082G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Haridas Bhat (AR) Revenue by : Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT DR) Date of Hearing: 05/03/2020 Date of Pronouncement: 20/04/2020 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dat…

Aha Holdings P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 6, Mumbai

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

ITA 1993/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 1993/Mum/2019 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Aha Holdings Private Limited The Pr. Commissioner Of 2Nd Floor, Trade View Building, Income Tax-6, बनाम/ Oasis Complex, Kamala Mills, Room No. 515, 5 Th Floor, Gate No.4, Pandurang Budhkar Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Vs. Marg, Lowe Parel, Karve Road, Mumbai-400 013 Mumbai -400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aafcs6404E अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Hioro Rai, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Harit, Cit Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.01.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, उपाध्यक्ष / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Hioro Rai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT DR

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

…mind to the issue arising before the 13 | P a g e M/s AHA Holdings Private Limited Assessing Officer. In fact this issue was a subject matter of the consideration by this Court in the CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2015] 55 taxmann.com 514/230 Taxman 641/372 ITR 303. In the above case, an identical submission made on behalf of the Revenue was negatived in the context of exercising of power under Section 263 of the Act to hold that if a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and responded to by the assessee, the mere fact that it has not been dealt with in the assessment order would not lead to a c…

M/S. Chandukaka Saraf and Co, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax - (Central), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 759/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vipin K. GujarathiFor Respondent: Mrs. Nandita Kanchan

Section 131Section 132Section 263

…present set of appeals of the assessee it is from A.Y. 2009-10 to 2015-16. The Ld. AR of the assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. in ITA No.296 of 2013 reported in (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom), wherein the Hon‟ble A.Ys.2009-10 to 2015-16 High Court had observed and opined that the Tribunal recorded the fact that specific enquiries were made during assessment proceedings with regard to the details of expenditure claimed under the head “Miscellaneous Expenses” aggregating to Rs.2.94 crores. The assessee had responded to the same a…

Hi-Rock Construction Co., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4327/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Hi Rock Construction Co. Pr. Cit -32 C-11, 2Nd Floor, 903, A, Gurukul Tower, Cst No. 890, J. S. Road, Dahisar (W), Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan: Aaffh6403B Mumbai. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi with Shri Shubham Rathi (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…issue in the assessment order. The ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decisions of CIT vs. Reliance Communication Ltd. [(2016) 76 taxmann.com 226 (SC)], CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)], CIT vs. Fine Jwellery (India) Ltd. [(2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom)], MOIL Ltd. Vs. CIT [(2017) 396 ITR 244 (Bom)], CIT vs. Gera Developments (P) Ltd. [(2016) 387 ITR 691 (Bom)], Pr. CIT vs. Ramchandra Naidu [(2017) 85 taxmann.com 127 (Bom)], CIT vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust [(1998) 171 ITR 698 (All)], CIT vs. Mahendra Bansal [(2008) 297 ITR 99 (All)], CIT vs. Krishna Capbox P. Ltd. [(2015)…

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3925/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri G. Manjunathatata Motors Ltd. Vs. The Cit(Ltu) 29Th Floor, Centre 1 Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street World Trade Centre Hutatma Chowk Cuffe Parade Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 005 Pan/Gir No.Aaact2727Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 35DSection 37(1)

…) (Pune ITAT) * Punjab Wool Syndicate ( 2012) 17 ITR 439 (Chd Trib) • Nirav Modi ( 77 Taxan.com 78 ) (SC) approving Bombay High Court decision reported in 390 ItR 292 (Bom) • MOIL v. CIT [2017] 396 ITR 244 (Bombay) • CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bombay) • Mukesh H Sanghvi (ITA No. 2271/Mum/2014) Dated 11 August 2017(Mum) • S.D.Corporation (P) Ltd. [2019] 175 ITD 164 (Mumbai-Trib.) • Indo Rama Synthetics (I) Ltd. (185 Taxman 277) (Del HC) • Idea Cellular Ltd vs ACIT ( 47 taxmann.com 341) (2014) (Mum ITAT) • CIT vs Priya Village Roadshows Ltd. ( 185 Taxman 44) ( 2009) (Delhi HC) • CiT vs…

M/S.Supras Metals Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 3(3)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1395/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1395/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1395/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) DCIT -3(3)(2), M/s Supras Metals Ltd. Room No.609, 6th floor, बिधम/ 36-37, Mittal Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Nariman Point, Vs. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AABCV0769M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant Shri Rakesh Joshi, AR : by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 15.10.2019 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख /…

Gordon Bruce Serrao, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -28, Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3105/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram a/wFor Respondent: Shri M. Daya Sagar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…riel India Ltd., [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom.); iv) CIT v/s Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., [2008] 323 ITR 632 (Bom.); v) CIT v/s Kiran Hirji Shah, [2015] 231 Taxman 670 (Bom.); 6 Gordon Bruce Serrao vi) CIT v/s Fine Jewellery (I) Ltd., [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bom.); vii) MOIL Ltd. v/sCIT, [2017] 396 ITR 244 (Bom.); viii) CIT v/s Nirav Modi, [2017] 390 ITR 292 (Bom.); ix) CIT v/s Reliance Communication Ltd., [2017] 244 Taxman 55 (SC); x) CIT v/s Paville Fashhions Pvt. Ltd., [2017] 398 ITR 603 (Bom.); xi) CIT v/s Anandlal Becharlal & Co., [1997] 107 ITR 677 (Bom.); xii) CIT v/s Sun Engineering Works Pv…

Acc Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 977/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 263

…ossible view, power under section 263 of the Act cannot be exercised. For this proposition, leaned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Max India Ltd., [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC); ii) CIT v/s Fine Jewellery India Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bom.); 19 ACC Limited iii) MOIL Ltd. v/s CIT, [2017] 396 ITR 244 (Bom.); iv) CIT v/s Ballarpur Industries Ltd., [2017] 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bom.); and v) PCIT v/s Mukesh Kimtani, ITA no.1038 of 2016, (Gom.). 20. Further, he submitted, while exercising powers under section 263 of the Act, learned Commissioner cannot assume the role of the Assess…

Golden Realty & Infrastructure Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 9, Mumbai

Accordingly set aside as dismissed

ITA 2369/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2369/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar BindalFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3

…[2009] Case laws PB-I, ISlTaxmannlll (SC) Page No. 6 14 I.T.A. No. 2369/Mum/2019 M/s Golden Realty & Infrastructure Ltd. c) V. Dhana Reddy & Co. [2018] Case laws PB-I, 100 Taxmann.com 358 (SC) Page No. 32 d) Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2015] Case laws PB-I, 55 Taxmann.com 514 (Bombay) Page No. 35 e) Bismillah Trading Co. 2000 Case laws PB-I, Taxmann.com 1588 (kerala) Page No. 41 (Equivalent citation [2001] 248 ITR 292 (Kerala)) f> Venkata Krishna Rice Co. [1987] Case laws PB-I, 30 Taxmann 528 (Madras) Page No. 54 Equivalent citation [1987] 163 ITR 129 (mad.)) g) Sanspareils Grenlands (P) Ltd New Case Law, [2018…