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.

Anil L Taodarwal, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3498/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3498/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Anil L. Todarwal Pr. Cit-19, Room No. 228, 43, Satyam Industrial Estate, बिधम/ 2Nd Floor Matru Mandir, Subhash Road, Jogeshwari Tardeo Road Vs. (E), Mumbai- 400060 Mumbai-400007 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpt4329D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी /Respondent) :

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Yadav, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 263Section 263(1)Section 40

…in respect of the said issues were not found recorded in the body of the assessment order. The ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (India) ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom) and Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gabrial India Ltd.(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). It was thus submitted by the ld. A.R that the Principal CIT had exceeded his jurisdiction and revised the assessment order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Act. Per contra, the ld. Departmental representative (for short ‘D.R’) submitted that a perusal o…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4086/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…nnot be subject matter of proceedings u/s.263 of the Act merely on the ground that there is another view possible and any further enquiry could be made. He relies on the following case laws to support the contention: (i) CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (I) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom) (ii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (2010) 320 ITR 674 (Delhi) (iv) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (vi) Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) (vii) CIT vs. Malabar Industries (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (v…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4064/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…nnot be subject matter of proceedings u/s.263 of the Act merely on the ground that there is another view possible and any further enquiry could be made. He relies on the following case laws to support the contention: (i) CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (I) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom) (ii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (2010) 320 ITR 674 (Delhi) (iv) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (vi) Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) (vii) CIT vs. Malabar Industries (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (v…

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4063/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…nnot be subject matter of proceedings u/s.263 of the Act merely on the ground that there is another view possible and any further enquiry could be made. He relies on the following case laws to support the contention: (i) CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (I) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom) (ii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (2010) 320 ITR 674 (Delhi) (iv) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (vi) Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) (vii) CIT vs. Malabar Industries (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (v…

Jsw Stel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4062/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…nnot be subject matter of proceedings u/s.263 of the Act merely on the ground that there is another view possible and any further enquiry could be made. He relies on the following case laws to support the contention: (i) CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (I) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom) (ii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (2010) 320 ITR 674 (Delhi) (iv) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (vi) Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) (vii) CIT vs. Malabar Industries (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (v…

Gehna Jewellers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 12, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3530/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…erred therein. In support of his contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Gabrial India Ltd., 203 ITR 108; ii) CIT v/s Geera Development Pvt. Ltd., 387 ITR 691; iii) CIT v/s Fine Jewellery India Ltd., 372 ITR 303; and iv) Priyanka Regency Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, ITA no.2944/Mum./2014, dated 8th February 2017. 7. Learned Departmental Representative justifying the exercise of power under section 263 of the Act by the learned PCIT submitted, the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings has not enquired into the issues on which t…

M/S. Pratibha Sms Jv, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2735/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Marghav Shukla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan,CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 80I

…as reflected in the assessment order, that would not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the order of the Assessing Officer called for any interference and revision. 5.5 Similarly, the Bombay High Court in CIT vs Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. reported in 372 ITR 303 (Bombay) held that if an inquiry is raised during the assessment proceedings and responded to by the assessee, Pratibha SMS Jv. vs Pr. CIT the mere fact that it has not dealt with it in the assessment order would not lead to a conclusion that no mind had been applied to it. 5.6 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Gabriel India Ltd. reported in…

M/S. Pratibha Sms Jv, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2347/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Marghav Shukla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan,CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 80I

…as reflected in the assessment order, that would not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the order of the Assessing Officer called for any interference and revision. 5.5 Similarly, the Bombay High Court in CIT vs Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. reported in 372 ITR 303 (Bombay) held that if an inquiry is raised during the assessment proceedings and responded to by the assessee, Pratibha SMS Jv. vs Pr. CIT the mere fact that it has not dealt with it in the assessment order would not lead to a conclusion that no mind had been applied to it. 5.6 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Gabriel India Ltd. reported in…

Fedex Express Tranportation and Supply Chain Services (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3621/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Fedex Express Transportation The Principal Commissioner Of & Supply Chain Services Income Tax – 9 Room No.214, 2Nd Floor, (India) Private Limited Boomerang, Unit No.801, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Wing-A, 8Th Floor, Mumbai - 400020 Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aabcf6516A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain Revenue By : Shri S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri S. Padmaja (CIT-DR)
Section 119Section 139(5)Section 263

…unts audited in accordance with section 166 read with section 210 of the Companies Act, 1956. 6. The learned AR relied upon the decision of CIT Vs. Nirav Modi 241 Taxmann 255, CIT Vs. Design and Automation Engineers 323 ITR 632, CIT Vs.Fine Jewellery (I) Ltd. 372 ITR 303, Vanshree Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 63 SOT 30, Escorts Mahle Ltd. Vs. DCIT 119 ITD 119 (Delhi), ACIT Vs. Pratap Rajasthan Special Steels Limited 99 TTJ 67 (Jaipur). 7. The learned DR submitted that the AO passed the order mechanically without application of mind on the basis of revised return income without appreciating that contradi…

Mr. Amit Kumar Aggarwal, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, Saharanpur

ITA 1068/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR)
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 263

…cted in the assessment order, that would not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the order of the Assessing Officer called for any interference and revision. 5.3 Similarly, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. reported in 372 ITR 303 (Bombay) has held that if an inquiry is raised during the assessment proceedings and responded to by the assessee, the mere fact that it has not dealt with it in the assessment order would not lead to a conclusion that no mind had been applied to it. 5.4 The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Gabriel India Ltd. reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bombay) has h…

Reliance Money Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3259/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 50

…essing Officer has taken a possible view and the proceedings u/s.263 cannot be invoked. For the above proposition, the appellant relies upon the following decisions:- i. CIT v Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) ii. CIT v Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bom) iii. CIT v Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. [2011] 333 ITR 547 (Del) 30 I . T . A . N o . 3 2 5 9 / M u m / 2 0 1 7 12. The ld.AR therefore submits that the order of the Assessing Officer allowing the mark to market loss is not erroneous. (e) Purchase of equity share capital of Reliance Infrastructure Finance Pvt. Ltd. (RIFPL) 13. The ld. A…

Atc Telecom Tower Corporation P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 9, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2706/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2706/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Atc Telecom Tower Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit-9 (Earlier Known As Essar Telecom Aayakar Bhavan, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) बिधम/ Mumbai-400 020 403, 4Th Floor, Skyline Icon Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Near Mittal Industrial Estate Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaeca9823E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Senior Counsel &For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

…ction under Sec. 263. The ld. A.R in order to fortify his aforesaid contention, relied upon the following judicial pronouncements: (i). Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy (2006) 100 ITD 173 (Mum) (ii). Commissioner Of Income-tax Vs.Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom) (iii). Small Wonder Industries Vs. CIT-24, Mumbai P a g e | 29 ITA No. 2706/Mum/2015 AY: 2008-09 ATC Telecom Tower Vs. Pr. CIT (ITA No. 2464/Mum/2013; dated. 24.02.2017)(Mum) (iv). Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Delhi). 21. That it was further submitted by the ld. A.R that for invoking of the jurisdi…

Metakaps Engineering & Mahendra Construction Co . (Jv), Mumbai vs. CIT 18, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2895/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2895/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Metacaps Engineering & The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-18 Mahendra Construction Co.(J.V) बिधम/ Mumbai B-2, Kamdar Park, Vs. Ghokhale Road Dadar (West), Mumbai-400 028 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaaam8326J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent :

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…P a g e | 1 M/s Metacaps Engineering Vs. CIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2895/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. Metacaps Engineering & The Commissioner of Income-tax-18 Mahendra Construction Co.(J.V) बिधम/ Mumbai B-2, Kamdar Park, Vs. Ghokhale Road Dadar (West), Mumbai-400 028 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. AAAAM8326J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent : अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/ Respondent by : Shri Suman Kumar, D.R.…

M/S Shree Saibaba Construction, Nagpur vs. CIT-IV, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 292/NAG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…sought. We have perused the response in respect of this query which is exhaustive. We find that the assessee has given the details, as are sought under query no.9 in the notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act. If that is so, the judgments, reported in (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom.) and (2016) 138 DTR 81 (Bom.) and on which the learned Counsel for the assessee has placed great reliance would come into play. It is held in the judgments referred to herein above by relying on the judgment in the case of Idea Cellular Ltd. (Supra) that if a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and the query is responded to by…

Priyanka Regency Builders & Developers P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT 10, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2944/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2944/ Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year -2009-10) बिाम/ Priyanka Regency Builders & Commissioner Of Income Tax-10, Room No.574, 5Th Floor, Developers Pvt.Ltd., Vs. Priyanka Complex, Shop No.12- Aayakar Bhavan, A, Plot No.4, Sector-10, M K Road, Sanpada, Mumbai-400020 Navi Mumbai-400705 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Pandit
Section 143(3)Section 263

…is devoid of any basis and without application of mind to the facts on records as the AO has passed assessment order by taking and examining every aspects which was raised by the CIT in the show cause notice. The ld. CIT V/s Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bombay) and CIT v. Gera Developments (P.) Ltd. [2016] 387 ITR 691 (Bombay) and prayed that in view of the ratio laid down in the decision (supra) the proceedings under section 263 initiated by the CIT be quashed and assessment order passed by the AO should be upheld. 6. On the contrary, the ld. DR relied heavily on the order of the CIT by submi…

ITO 27(3)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Radium Creation, Navi Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 220/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Goli Srinivas Rao
Section 10ASection 10BSection 40

…unless it is established on record that the Assessing Officer has not 14 M/s. Radium Creation made any enquiry at all. For such proposition, learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Fine Jewellery India Ltd., [2015] 372 ITR 303; and ii) CIT v/s Nirab Mody, [2016] 138 TTR 81 (Bom.) 16. Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the observations of the learned Commissioner. 17. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. It is well settled principle of law that power under section 263 of the Act can be exercised o…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2756/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…view, the question as to whether the amendment brought in by way of Explanation 2(a) shall have retrospective or prospective application shall not be relevant. 23. We also find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Limited 372 ITR 303 observed that once Assessing Officer had called for the details and the same were filed by the assessee, merely because there was no discussion in the assessment order would not lead to assumption that Assessing Officer had not applied his mind. In the present case before us, many issues discussed by the Commissioner were not finally discussed in…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2755/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…view, the question as to whether the amendment brought in by way of Explanation 2(a) shall have retrospective or prospective application shall not be relevant. 23. We also find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Limited 372 ITR 303 observed that once Assessing Officer had called for the details and the same were filed by the assessee, merely because there was no discussion in the assessment order would not lead to assumption that Assessing Officer had not applied his mind. In the present case before us, many issues discussed by the Commissioner were not finally discussed in…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2754/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…view, the question as to whether the amendment brought in by way of Explanation 2(a) shall have retrospective or prospective application shall not be relevant. 23. We also find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Limited 372 ITR 303 observed that once Assessing Officer had called for the details and the same were filed by the assessee, merely because there was no discussion in the assessment order would not lead to assumption that Assessing Officer had not applied his mind. In the present case before us, many issues discussed by the Commissioner were not finally discussed in…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2753/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…view, the question as to whether the amendment brought in by way of Explanation 2(a) shall have retrospective or prospective application shall not be relevant. 23. We also find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Limited 372 ITR 303 observed that once Assessing Officer had called for the details and the same were filed by the assessee, merely because there was no discussion in the assessment order would not lead to assumption that Assessing Officer had not applied his mind. In the present case before us, many issues discussed by the Commissioner were not finally discussed in…