CIT v. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steell (P) ltd.

263 ITR 255Supreme Court of India2003#801 most cited

What is CIT v. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steell (P) ltd. authority for?

A subsequent change of law is not a valid ground for exercising the Commissioner's suo motu revisionary power under Section 263. If the Assessing Officer's view is plausible, it cannot be termed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

128

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steell (P) Ltd. · 263 ITR 255 · Section 263 · suo motu revision · subsequent change of law · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · plausible view by AO · Commissioner revision power · Income Tax Act · Supreme Court 2003

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57(iv)Section 148Section 151Section 10(37)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 145b(1)section 145a(b)section 145bsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 141section 282a(1)section 56(2)(viii)section 10(37)section 194laenhanced compensationsanction under section 151

Judgments citing CIT v. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steell (P) ltd.

Sbs Biotech Unit II, Sirmour vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 801CSection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी परेश म. जोशी, "याियक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM &SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 413/Chd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम SBS Biotech Unit II The Pr. CIT-1 Nahan road Mauza Rampur Chandigarh Jattan, Kala Amb, Himachal Pradesh-173030 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABOFS6830P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ajay Jain, C.A राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri…

A T and S India Private Limited, Nanjangud, Mysore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1220/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jan 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit, Kolkata-2 A T & S India Private Limited Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 12A, Industrial Area Nanjangud Chowringhee Square, Vs. H.O, Mysore-571301, Karnataka Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2930J Assessee By : Shri Anup Sinha, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2025

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

…framed by the ld. AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In defense of his argument, the ld. AR relied on the decision of CIT Vs. Max Indian Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) and CIT Vs. G M Mittal Stainless Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 255 (SC). The ld. AR also referred to the decision of CIT VS. Gabriel India Ld. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). Finally, the ld. AR submitted that the jurisdiction invoked by the ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is invalid and bad in law and therefore, may kindly be quashed. AT & S India Pvt. Ld.; A.Y. 2018-19 06. The ld. DR on the other hand strongly rebutted…

Heylands Exports Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1539/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: 21.08.2024
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 36(1)(va)

…Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra), the action of AO cannot be held to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to revenue by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. GM Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd., reported in [2003] 263 ITR 255 (SC) Para Nos.5-8 wherein it was held as under:- 5. In this particular case, the CIT has not recorded any reason whatsoever for coming to the conclusion that the AO was erroneous in deciding that the power subsidy was capital receipt. Given the fact that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court was operative at the material M/s.Heylands Exp…

Adani Wilmar Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 777/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 777/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 Adani Wilmar Limited, The Principal 3 Rd Floor, बनामVs Commissioner Of . Nr. Navrangpura Railway Income Tax-1, Crossing, Ahmedabad. Fortune House, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabca8056G

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…a. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502. b. Hon’ble SC in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83. c. Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT vs G M Mittal Stainless Steel Pvt. Ltd. 263 ITR 255. Asst. Year 2018-19 4 d. Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167. e. Decision of Hon’ble S.C in the case of CIT vs/ Greenworld Corporation, 314 ITR 81(SC). f. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Minal Doshi [2020] 121 taxmann.com 30 g. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case PCIT vs Asian Box Corpo…

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 329/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA” BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos.322 to 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2021-22 Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (PAN: AACCN6360K) Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Patna …… Respondent Appearances by: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, CA, Shri Sunil Kr. Dubey, Advocate & Shri Aman Kr. Dubey, Advocate appeared for Appellant. Shri Rinku Singh, CIT, DR appeared for Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : 24.07.2024 Date of pronouncing the order : 12.09.2024 ORDER Per Ben…

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 328/PAT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA” BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos.322 to 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2021-22 Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (PAN: AACCN6360K) Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Patna …… Respondent Appearances by: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, CA, Shri Sunil Kr. Dubey, Advocate & Shri Aman Kr. Dubey, Advocate appeared for Appellant. Shri Rinku Singh, CIT, DR appeared for Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : 24.07.2024 Date of pronouncing the order : 12.09.2024 ORDER Per Ben…

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 327/PAT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA” BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos.322 to 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2021-22 Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (PAN: AACCN6360K) Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Patna …… Respondent Appearances by: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, CA, Shri Sunil Kr. Dubey, Advocate & Shri Aman Kr. Dubey, Advocate appeared for Appellant. Shri Rinku Singh, CIT, DR appeared for Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : 24.07.2024 Date of pronouncing the order : 12.09.2024 ORDER Per Ben…

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 326/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA” BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos.322 to 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2021-22 Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (PAN: AACCN6360K) Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Patna …… Respondent Appearances by: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, CA, Shri Sunil Kr. Dubey, Advocate & Shri Aman Kr. Dubey, Advocate appeared for Appellant. Shri Rinku Singh, CIT, DR appeared for Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : 24.07.2024 Date of pronouncing the order : 12.09.2024 ORDER Per Ben…

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 325/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA” BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos.322 to 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2021-22 Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (PAN: AACCN6360K) Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Patna …… Respondent Appearances by: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, CA, Shri Sunil Kr. Dubey, Advocate & Shri Aman Kr. Dubey, Advocate appeared for Appellant. Shri Rinku Singh, CIT, DR appeared for Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : 24.07.2024 Date of pronouncing the order : 12.09.2024 ORDER Per Ben…

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 323/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA” BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos.322 to 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2021-22 Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (PAN: AACCN6360K) Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Patna …… Respondent Appearances by: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, CA, Shri Sunil Kr. Dubey, Advocate & Shri Aman Kr. Dubey, Advocate appeared for Appellant. Shri Rinku Singh, CIT, DR appeared for Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : 24.07.2024 Date of pronouncing the order : 12.09.2024 ORDER Per Ben…

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 322/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “PATNA” BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member I.T.A. Nos.322 to 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2021-22 Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd. ………. Appellant (PAN: AACCN6360K) Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Patna …… Respondent Appearances by: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, CA, Shri Sunil Kr. Dubey, Advocate & Shri Aman Kr. Dubey, Advocate appeared for Appellant. Shri Rinku Singh, CIT, DR appeared for Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : 24.07.2024 Date of pronouncing the order : 12.09.2024 ORDER Per Ben…

Exotic Realtors and Developers, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

…y failed to do so. According to him PCIT satisfaction under section 263 must be objectively justifiable and cannot be the mere ipse dixit of the Commissioner 10 as held in case of G.M Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd. by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India [ (2003) 263 ITR 255(SC)] [Note:- Ipse Dixit= “He said it himself”] 13.5 The Ld. AR has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. case reported in 243 ITR 83 (SC). 13.6 Reliance was placed o the judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Deepak Real Estate Developers (I) (P) Ltd. 52 Taxmann.com 75 (Raja…

Advertising Agencies Association of India, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption ), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

ITA 2370/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: ShriAmol Kirtane (CIT-DR.)
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…tative has categorically agreed on this aspect at the time of hearing before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 5. PROPOSITION 5: Section 263 cannot be invoked on the basis of a subsequent Supreme Court judgement [Ref. CIT vs G. M. Mittal Stainless Steel P. Ltd. - (2003) 263 ITR 255 (SC)] 6 ITA No. 2370-Mum-2024 Advertising Agencies Association of India 6. PROPOSITION 6: CIT cannot hold an order to be erroneous merely because he could have written a better assessment order. A perfect assessment is a myth. The Power of review is not invocable to cover up the alleged deficiencies in the assessment order [Ref. Salora Internati…

Zaveri Exports Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2018-19 Zaveri Exports Private Limited, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle – 3(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaacz1286A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate. Revenue By: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 292CSection 38Section 65BSection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Zaveri Exports Private Limited, Vs. The ACIT, Central Circle – 3(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AAACZ1286A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate. Revenue by: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 09.07.2024 Date of pronouncement: 12.07.2024 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order p…

The Mullanpur Garibdas Co-Op Multipurpose Society, Mohali vs. DCIT, C-6(1), Mohali

ITA 645/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT, DR
Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…d have made more enquiries; that he directed the AO to make further fishing and roving enquiries which were even not germain to the facts and issues involved; that the Supreme Court, in the case of 'CIT Versus GM Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Limited', (2003) 263 ITR 255 (SC), has observed that the satisfaction by the Commissioner must be one objectively justifiable and based on material either legal or factual, when available, it cannot be the mere ipse dixit of the Commissioner; that therefore, the Order of the Commissioner exercising jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act could not be held to be sustaina…

The Mullanpur Garibdas Co-Op Multipurpose Society, Mullanpur vs. Pr. CIT-II, Chandigarh

ITA 569/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT, DR
Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…d have made more enquiries; that he directed the AO to make further fishing and roving enquiries which were even not germain to the facts and issues involved; that the Supreme Court, in the case of 'CIT Versus GM Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Limited', (2003) 263 ITR 255 (SC), has observed that the satisfaction by the Commissioner must be one objectively justifiable and based on material either legal or factual, when available, it cannot be the mere ipse dixit of the Commissioner; that therefore, the Order of the Commissioner exercising jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act could not be held to be sustaina…

The Mullanpur Garibdas Co-Op Multipurpose Society, Mohali vs. Pr. CIT-II, Chandigarh

ITA 515/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT, DR
Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…d have made more enquiries; that he directed the AO to make further fishing and roving enquiries which were even not germain to the facts and issues involved; that the Supreme Court, in the case of 'CIT Versus GM Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Limited', (2003) 263 ITR 255 (SC), has observed that the satisfaction by the Commissioner must be one objectively justifiable and based on material either legal or factual, when available, it cannot be the mere ipse dixit of the Commissioner; that therefore, the Order of the Commissioner exercising jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act could not be held to be sustaina…

A3Logics (India) Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40a

…on the date of the passing assessment order dt. 01.02.2021 hence, no fault can be found in his action and in particular, proceeding u/s 263 cannot be invoked in such a case. 5.5.2 Kindly refer CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (P.) Ltd. [2003] 130 Taxman 67/263 ITR 255 (SC) (DPB 48-51) wherein it was held: “In the instant case, the Commissioner had not recorded any reason whatsoever for coming to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer was erroneous in deciding that the power subsidy was capital receipt. Given the fact that the decision of the jurisdictional High Court was operative at the material time, the…

Shashi Ajit Shah, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 86/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Shashi Ajit Shah Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 9(1) Pan:Afvps5230F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. Mrudulatha Devdas, Ca Revenue By: Smt. K Haritha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 01/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.3.2021 Of The Learned Pr.Cit-4, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. There Is A Delay Of 617 Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee For Which The Assessee Has Filed A Condonation Application Alongwith An Affidavit Explaining The Reasons For Such Delay Which Is Due To The Prevailing Covid Period & Subsequently The Death Of The Mother Of The Chartered Accountant. Further, The Assessee Also Filed Medical Certificate Of The Concerned Chartered Accountant Who Underwent Angioplasty After The Death Of His Mother. After Considering The Contents Of The Page 1 Of 10

For Appellant: Smt. Mrudulatha Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Smt. K Haritha, DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ITA 86 of 2023 Shashi Ajit Shah आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-President AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Shashi Ajit Shah Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 9(1) PAN:AFVPS5230F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Smt. Mrudulatha Devdas, CA Revenue by: Smt. K Haritha, DR Date of hearing: 01/08/2023 Date of pronouncement: 04/08/2023 ORDER Per R.K. Panda, Vice-President This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.3.2021 of the learned Pr.…

Parshavnath Builders, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 284/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri MahendraGargieya ,Adv. &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…withdrawal amount elsewhere—Said withdrawal is duly reflected in the cash flow statement and closing cash balance is more than the amount found at the time of search—Thus, addition cannot be sustained” 7.4 in CIT v. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (p) Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 255 (SC) “Precedent—Binding nature of judgment—Decision of the jurisdictional High Court—Where the decision of the jurisdictional High Court has not been set aside or at least has not been appended from it would be binding—In view of this CIT proceeding on the basis of the High Court other than jurisdictional High Court on the basis that jurisdiction…