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 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 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.

International Cargo Terminals & Rail Infrastructure Private Limited (Formerly Known As Boxtrans Logistrics (India) Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-1, Mumbai

ITA 1637/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1637/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AR byFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…AO had not applied his mind to this issue as there was no discussion with respect to the same in the assessment order. The Appellant places reliance on the judgements of the Jurisdictional High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303, CIT vs. Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 292 and MOIL Ltd. vs. CIT (2017) 396 ITR 244 wherein the Court has been consistently taking a view that when the AO had asked for explanation /clarification in the assessment proceedings, and the assessee has responded to the same, the requirement of application of mind by the AO stands fulfilled, even though th…

Sudarshan Zumbarlal Bafna, Ahmednagar vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1272/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1272/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sudarshan Zumbarlal Bafna, Bafna Path, Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar, Pin-413709. Pan : Aavpb3556D .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Vipin GujarathiFor Respondent: Mrs. Nandita Kanchan
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 54F

…the assessee. Therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer is not erroneous and also not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. For this proposition, the Ld. AR has placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (I) Ltd., 372 ITR 303 (Bom.) (ii) CIT Vs.Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) 5.1 The Ld. AR of the assessee further took us to the assessment order and referred to Paras 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 and submitted that it is evident that the Assessing Officer had asked to produce evidences in support of sale consideration, cost of acquisition and proof of deduction u/s.5…

Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd., Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2047/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Laxmi Vara Prasad Gude , D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 41Section 41(1)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Ganesh Benzoplast Pr. CIT-1, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 1st Floor, Mumbai - 400020 Dina Bldg., 53, Vs. M.K. Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 PAN: AAACG1259J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Haridas Bhat, C.A. Revenue by : Shri Laxmi Vara Prasad Gude , D.R. Date of Hearing : 15.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 11.09.2019 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the…

Aruna Baid, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 18, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2423/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Verma
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…be set aside. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– 6 Arun Baid i) Grasim Industries Ltd. v/s CIT, [2010] 321 ITR 92 (Bom.); ii) CIT v/s Nirav Modi, [2017] 390 ITR 292 (Bom.); iii) CIT v/s Fine Jewellery India Ltd., [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bom.); and iv) Small Wonder Industries v/s CIT, ITA no.2464/Mum./2013, dated 24.02.2017. 4. The learned Departmental Representative strongly defending the order passed under section 263 of the Act submitted, the assessment order does not reveal even a semblance of enquiry made by the Assessing Officer. Drawing our attention to the assessment ord…

Mahim Patran P. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT -2, Agra

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 195/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(3)Section 199(1)Section 205Section 263

…any other authority before this Court wherein any otherwise view has been taken. On the contrary, learned counsel for assessee has placed before us a decision of Bombay High Court in Income Tax Appeal No.296 of 2013 (CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd.) [2015] 372 ITR 303/230 Taxman 641/55 taxmann.xom 514 (Bom.) decided on February 3, 2015, wherein also Bombay High Court, following its earlier decision ITA Nos. 195 & 196/Agr/2015 27 in Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom.) has taken a similar view and said as under (page 307 of 372 ITR): "......if a query is raised during assessment proceedin…

Allauddin Noormohamed Kadiwala, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 31(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5105/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathaallauddin Noormohamed Vs. Ito -31(1)(1) Kadiwala 407, Earnest House A/301, New Ekta Chsl Nariman Point Behram Baug, Jogeshwari (W) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 102 Pan/Gir No.Aabpk6147K Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Allauddin Noormohamed Vs. ITO -31(1)(1) Kadiwala 407, Earnest House A/301, New Ekta CHSL Nariman Point Behram Baug, Jogeshwari (W) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 102 PAN/GIR No.AABPK6147K Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by S.M.Makhija & Lipsa A. Chanchlani Revenue by Jothi Lakshmi Nayak Date of Hearing 20/06/2019 Date of Pronouncement 31/07/2019 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER G.MANJUNATHA (A.M): This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the Ld CIT(…

Sajid Nadiadwala, Mumbai vs. CIT 11, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1411/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Hiro Rai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…ring, the learned representative for the assessee has made various 3 submissions, but a pertinent point has been raised, which is based on the ratio of the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd.[2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bom.). It is sought to be emphasized that the Assessing Officer after due application of mind arrived at a conclusion that the amount received by the assessee from NGEPL was in the normal course of business. It was advanced by the NGEPL to the assessee for utilisation towards production of a movie namely “Houseful”. The Assessing Officer after d…

Harish C. Mehta, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-24, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 298/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Ravish Soodharish C. Mehta Pr. Cit-24, Times Square, 602 B, Piramal Chambers, „B‟ Wing, Nr. Marol Mumbai – 400 012 Vs. Metro Station, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 059

For Appellant: Shri Reepal C. Tralshawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivas, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…oresaid view that merely because the A.O had remained silent on a point would not mean that there was no application of mind on his part is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom). Accordingly, in terms of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that as the A.O in the totality of the facts of the case had arrived at a plausible view that no penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) was liable to be imposed on the assessee, and therein dropped the penalty proceedings, therefore, merely because the Pr. CIT was not…

Mags Finvest Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2930/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mags Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Principal Commissioner 11, Silver Arch, Nepeansea Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Road, Mumbai-400006. Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 515, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aadcm6820G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Milin Dattani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manjunath Swamy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/04/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Milin Dattani, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manjunath Swamy, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…plicable to the assessee or not and therefore, the deeming fiction of law applies to the instant case. Mags Finvest Pvt. Ltd. 7 8. The Ld. AR has relied upon the ratio of judgment delivered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [372 ITR 303] but we find the same distinguishable on facts since in that case relevant queries were put to the assessee during assessment proceedings and Ld. AO reached upon a conclusion after due application of mind which we find missing in the instant case. 9. Therefore, for the reasons stated hereinabove and on the facts and circumstance, we are not incli…

M/S. Gayatri Enterprise, Vadodara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 825/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: Aparna M. Agarwal, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)

…ision of the co- ordinate bench in Dilshad Trading Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1994) 49 ITD 348 (Bom.) and CIT vs. Amit Corporation (2012) 21 taxmann.com 64 (Guj); CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) & (2015) CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom). 7. The learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, supported the revisional order of the Pr.CIT and submitted that the Pr.CIT was well within its power to exercise supervisory jurisdiction of review against the palpably wrong order passed by the AO without considering a glaring and obvious payment of stamp duty totally disproportionate qua the cos…

Pravardhan Seeds Priavate Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 667/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Years: 2012-13 Pravardhan Seeds Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaaafcp0118A

For Appellant: Shri C.S. SubramanyamFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…by the A.O can be gathered from the record. We find that our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. 10 I.T.A. No. 667/Hyd/17 Pravardhan Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Fine Jewellery (India) ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom), Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gabrial India Ltd.(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and MOIL Ltd. Vs. CIT-1, Nagpur (2017) 396 ITR 244 (Bom). We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are of a strong conviction that the Principal CIT had traversed beyond the scope of his jurisdiction and revised the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143…

Jitinder Singh Chadha, New Delhi vs. Prcit-18, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. Cit-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpc6181D Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit-18, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble Vice President and Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Judicial Member ITA No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. CIT-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABPC6181D Assessee by : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CA Revenue by : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31.03.2018 of ld. Pr. CIT-18, New De…

Ultratech Cement Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Central - 1, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2999/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhita No. 3000/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ita No. 3001/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, D.R
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(2)Section 80I

…ble. The facts in the case under appeal are that the AO never made an enquiry on claim u/s. 80 IA wrt Jetty and further disallowed a similar claim wrt rail system. Therefore, reliance on this decision is misplaced. 2. CIT Vs. FINE JEWELLERY (INDIA) LTD( 2015) 372 ITR 303(Bom) pp 11 of PB This decision pertains to disallowance by AO treating part of expenditure incurred for building brand as Capital nature. The CIT u/s. 263 held that the entire miscellaneous expenditure for creation of brand was capital expenditure. The High Court held (please see page 12 of PB) that the AO having made specific queries during asse…

Sree Alankar, Ganjam vs. Principal CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/CTK/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-2013

For Appellant: Sri S.K.Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 263

…erference by the Commissioner by issuing notice under section 263. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. [Underlining ours] On further appeal, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court after referring to the decision in CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bom) upheld the order of the Tribunal by observing as under: "Held, dismissing the appeal, that though the Revenue sought to re-argue before the court that no inquiry had been made by the Assessing Officer with respect to the queries set up in the notice issued under section 263 , when his attention was drawn to the order passed by the Tribunal…

Bajinath Melaram, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 18, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1795/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm / I.T.A. No.1795/M/16 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Baijnath Melaram Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income C/O.Mangaldas D. Shah & Co Tax – 18 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Earnest House, 33-A, New Marine Lines Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan/Gir No. : Aaafb2675E (/Appellant) .. Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dhirendra M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri N. P. Singh & B.S.Bist
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 43BSection 44A

…owhere vitiate the order in view of the provision u/s.263 of the Act and in this regard we also found support law settled in 241 taxman 255 (Bom) in case of CIT Vs. Nirav Modi and 385 ITR 592 (Karn) in case of CIT Vs. Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Ltd. and 372 ITR 303 (Bom) CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. and in ITA No.2690/M/2016 in case of Shri Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO Ward 27(1)(1) and in ITA No.987/PN/2013 in case of M/s.Mudhol Land Holding Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT – 1, Pune and in ITA No.1921/M/2015 in case of M/s.Hotel Mayfair Pvt. Ltd.Vs. CIT, Central-I. Taking into account of all the facts and ci…

Milestone Real Estate Fund, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-25, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2509/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K Pradhanmilestone Real Estate Fund 402–A, Hallmark Business Plaza Sant Dhyaneshwar Marg ……………. Appellant Bandra, Mumbai 400 051 Pan – Aaati5880L V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–25(3), Mumbai Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Counsel A/W Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By : Shri Anand Mohan

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Counsel a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan
Section 10Section 115USection 263

…atisfied. In support of his contention, the learned Sr. Counsel relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Max India Ltd., [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC); ii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC); iii) CIT v/s Fine Jewellery India Ltd., [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bom.); iv) M/s. Rallies India Ltd. v/s DCIT, ITA no.3564/Mum./2016, dated 13.04.2017; v) Gehna Jewlers Pvt. Ltd. v/s PCIT, ITA no.3530/Mum./ 2017, dated 22.11.201; and vi) CIT v/s Gabriel India Ltd., [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom.). 11. As regards the merits of the issue, the learned Sr. Counsel submitted, when the assessee is registered as a Venture…

Manoir Petro India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

ITA 2626/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manoir Petro India Limited, Pr. Cit-1 602, B-Wing, Universal Room No.387, बनाम/ Business Park, Chandivali 3Rd Floor, Vs. Farm Road, Off Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aafcm5210J

Section 263

…to be justified. Our attention was invited to various pages of the paper book and also para-4 of the impugned order. Reliance was placed upon the decision in the case of CIT vs Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 404 ITR 1(SC), CIT vs Fine Jewellery India Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303(Bom.), Moil Ltd. vs CIT (2017) 396 ITR 244 (Bom.), Small Wonder Industries vs CIT (ITA No.2464/Mum/2013), order dated 24/02/2017. 2.1. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR, Ms. Sunita Billa, defended the revision order by contending that the Ld. Assessing Officer merely examined the profit & loss account for which our attention was invited to…

General Computer Services International, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 31, Mumbai

ITA 2459/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anant N. Pai, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. Jayant Kumar, CIT, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

…pport of his aforesaid contention relied on 10 General Computer Services International Vs. Pr. CIT-31 the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) & CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (I) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom) and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) & CIT Vs. Greenworld Corporation (2009) 314 ITR 81 (SC). It was further vehemently submitted by the Ld. A.R. that as the A.O after making necessary inquiries and perusing the TP Study Report had formed a view that the transactions en…

Shri Abhimanyu Gupta, Patiala vs. Pr. CIT, Patiala

ITA 771/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263

…may be quashed. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [243 ITR 831. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [372 ITR 303]. Attention was also invited to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 for the proposition that in case the Reviewing Authority is of the view that there is inadequate enquiry then the Reviewing Authority must make enquiry and show that the assessment order is erroneous. Reviewing Authorit…

Kamala Brothers, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)91), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 7134/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Dr. K. Shivaram, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…at same is pertains to inventories by applying his mind. The AO has not discussed in assessment order. Therefore, it is to be presumed that AO has applied his mind. For that proposition he relied upon the decision of CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom.) HC. The Ld. A.R. also submitted that in case of CIT vs. Neha Builders (P) Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 661 (Guj.) wherein it has been held that if the property is used as stock in trade then said property would become or partake character of stock and any income derived from stock would be ‘income from business’ and not ‘income from property’. The…