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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steell (P) ltd.?

128 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steell (P) ltd. (263 ITR 255), spanning 2010 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steell (P) ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 263, Section 56(2)(viii), Section 57(iv), Section 148, Section 151.

CIT v. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steell (P) ltd. (263 ITR 255)

Garud Credit & Holding Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1270/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 35DSection 68

…nance Act, 2012 to be prospective Starpoint (2022) 94 ITR_TRIB The Hon’ble 175 – 205 Construction (P) Ltd. (Trib) 299 (Kol) ITAT, Kolkata Bench vs. PCIT Argument:- Jurisdiction u/s 263 can be assumed based on material on record only CIT vs. G.M. Mittal (2003) 263 ITR 255 The Hon’ble Supreme 206 – 208 Stainless Steel (P) (SC) Court Ltd. PCIT vs. J.K. Tyre & (2022) 6 NYPCTR The Hon’ble High Court 209 – 212 Industries Ltd. 1064 (Cal) of Calcutta Britannia Industries (2022) 36 NYPTTJ The Hon’ble 213 – 230 Ltd. vs. PCIT 1021 (Kolkata) ITAT, Kolkata 'B' Bench Argument:- Before assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 it is necess…

Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir-1, Rajkot vs. Rajeshkumar Govindbhai Patel, Rajkot

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 26/RJT/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Apr 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 142Section 143Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 25 & 26/Rjt/2021 & C.O. Nos. 1 & 2/Rjt/2021 Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 Assistant Commissioner Vs Shri Rajeshkumar of Income Tax, Govindlal Patel Central Circle-1, 4th Floor, Sita Rajkot Apartment, Nr. Pradyuman Police Station Sadar Bazar, Rajkot PAN: ABPPB7559M Shri Rajeshkumar Vs Assistant Govindlal Patel Commissioner of 4th Floor, Income Tax, Sita Apartment Central Circle-1, Nr. Pradyuman Police Rajkot…

Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Cen. Cir-1, Rajkot vs. Rajeshkumar Govindbhai Patel, Rajkot

In the result both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 25/RJT/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Apr 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 142Section 143Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member ITA Nos. 25 & 26/Rjt/2021 & C.O. Nos. 1 & 2/Rjt/2021 Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08 Assistant Commissioner Vs Shri Rajeshkumar of Income Tax, Govindlal Patel Central Circle-1, 4th Floor, Sita Rajkot Apartment, Nr. Pradyuman Police Station Sadar Bazar, Rajkot PAN: ABPPB7559M Shri Rajeshkumar Vs Assistant Govindlal Patel Commissioner of 4th Floor, Income Tax, Sita Apartment Central Circle-1, Nr. Pradyuman Police Rajkot…

Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer vs. CIT(Exemption)/ ITO (Exemption), Jaipur / Jodhpur

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…on record, when the AO passed the subjected order. 3.5 The law is well settled that where the AO acted following the decisions of the judicial High Court his order cannot be termed as erroneous. Kindly refer CIT v. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (P.) Ltd. [2003] 263 ITR 255 (SC), wherein it is held: "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 ba…

Shri Keshoraipatan Sahkari Sugar Mills Limited, Kota vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 208/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. James Kurian (CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

…ssessment order and continued even when Sec.263 order was passed hence, no fault can be found in his action and in particular, proceeding u/s 263 cannot be invoked in such a case. Kindly refer CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (P.) Ltd. [2003] 130 Taxman 67/263 ITR 255 (SC) (DPB 53-56) 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…

Commissioner of Income Tax (C) -II vs. M. K. Foundation

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue

ITA/147/2009HC Calcutta09 Feb 2023

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 9Th February, 2023 Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. …For The Appellant. Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. …For The Respondent. The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’ For Brevity) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th September, 2008 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (The Tribunal) In It(Ss)A No.68/Kol/2006 For The Block Period From 01.04.1990 To 24.08.2000. The Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law: (A) Whether In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Tribunal Was Justified In Law To Cancel

Section 2(22)(e)Section 260ASection 263

…ecision and assume jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Max India Ltd. reported in 213 CTR 266 (SC) and CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Pvt. Ltd. reported in 263 ITR 255 (SC). After considering the submissions made on either side and paragraph 10 of the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has noted that the undisputed and admitted facts. Thereafter it proceeded to consider as to how a deeming provision should be construed and by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. C.P. Sarathy Muda…