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.

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Food Industries Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Incometax-1, Jaipur

ITA 191/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us On The Following Grounds In This Appeal;

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 191/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Food Principal Commissioner of Industries Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax-1, Jaipur 603 Elements Mall, 6th Floor Ajmer Road, Jaipur- 302021. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAHCR 1374 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh v…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 190/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 263

…e money deposited with him and, therefore the addition u/s 68 cannot be sustained in the absence of anything to establish that the sources of the creditors deposits flew from the appellant itself.” 3.2.3 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…

Rekha Shekhawat, Kota vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanajy Dhariwal, CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271A

…th the law prevailed on the date of the passing assessment order 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 33 35), CIT, LTU, Bangalore vs. Canara Bank [2021] 123 taxmann.com 207 (Karnataka). In view of the facts & circumstances, judicial guidelines and the statutory provisions,the additional income declared during survey of Rs. 28,95,300/- could not be subjected to S. 115BBE of the Act, hence there was no error in the assessment order. 6. Su…

Nekkanti Systems Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 637/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Nekkanti Systems Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward – 16(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaccn1440J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Vs. Nekkanti Systems Private Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(1), Pan : Aaccn1440J. Hyderabad. Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao. Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Are The Two Connected Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue For A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Against The Orders Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad Dt.29.03.2019 U/S 263 Of The Act & Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Hyderabad Dt.23.01.2019 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, Respectively.

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar – CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…. B) CIT Vs. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) C) Ultratech Cements Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan - (2020) 117 taxmann.com 807 (SC). D) CIT Vs. Smt. Neena Krishna Menon – (2021) 123 taxmann.com 205. E) CIT Vs. GM Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd. – (2003) 263 ITR 255 (SC) F) CIT Vs. Canara Bank – (2021) 123 taxmann.com 207 G) Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO – (2016) 70 taxmann.com 227. 6. On the other hand, ld.DR for the Revenue had submitted that the action on the part of the ld.PCIT was in accordance with the law as the Assessing Officer at the time of framing the original assessment order has not examined the is…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Nekkanti Systems Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 484/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Nekkanti Systems Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward – 16(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaccn1440J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Vs. Nekkanti Systems Private Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(1), Pan : Aaccn1440J. Hyderabad. Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao. Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Are The Two Connected Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue For A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Against The Orders Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad Dt.29.03.2019 U/S 263 Of The Act & Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Hyderabad Dt.23.01.2019 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, Respectively.

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar – CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…. B) CIT Vs. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) C) Ultratech Cements Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan - (2020) 117 taxmann.com 807 (SC). D) CIT Vs. Smt. Neena Krishna Menon – (2021) 123 taxmann.com 205. E) CIT Vs. GM Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd. – (2003) 263 ITR 255 (SC) F) CIT Vs. Canara Bank – (2021) 123 taxmann.com 207 G) Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO – (2016) 70 taxmann.com 227. 6. On the other hand, ld.DR for the Revenue had submitted that the action on the part of the ld.PCIT was in accordance with the law as the Assessing Officer at the time of framing the original assessment order has not examined the is…

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 57/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)
Section 263Section 5

…itors deposits flew from the appellant itself." 4.3. 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 b…

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Developement Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 56/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)
Section 263Section 5

…itors deposits flew from the appellant itself." 4.3. 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 b…

Sach Electro Mech Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 392/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 145ASection 14ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 40A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Hearing in Virtual Court) Sach Electro Mech Private Limited Pr. Commissioner of Income C/2, Maheshwari Apartment, Tax-2, Vs. Nanpura, Timaliawad, Room No. 227, 2nd Floor, Surat. Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, PAN : AAICS 8963 M Surat-395001 APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by Shri H. P. Meena, CIT-DR Date of hearing 21/01/2022 Date of pronouncement 06/04/2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Thi…

Satyam Textile Park, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 91/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263Section 271DSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.90 & 91/SRT/2021 (AY 2016-17 & 2017-18) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Satyam Textile Park, The Principal Block No.430,Moje Hathoda, Commissioner of Income Vs TA-Magrol, Surat – 394380. Tax (Central), Surat. PAN: ACXFS 1576 L Assessee / appellant Revenue /respondent Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 25.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMB…

Satyam Textile Park, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 90/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263Section 271DSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.90 & 91/SRT/2021 (AY 2016-17 & 2017-18) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Satyam Textile Park, The Principal Block No.430,Moje Hathoda, Commissioner of Income Vs TA-Magrol, Surat – 394380. Tax (Central), Surat. PAN: ACXFS 1576 L Assessee / appellant Revenue /respondent Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 25.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMB…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 94/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.92, 93 & 94/SRT/2021 A.Y: 2014-15 to 2016-17 (Hearing in Virtual Court) M/s.Amrut Sarovar, The Principal Commissioner Block No. 514-515, of Income Tax – Central, Vs. Opposite Girnar Hotel, Surat. At & PO Kather, Taluka-Kamrej, Surat. PAN: ABGFA 2065 C Applicant /assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 21.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 93/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.92, 93 & 94/SRT/2021 A.Y: 2014-15 to 2016-17 (Hearing in Virtual Court) M/s.Amrut Sarovar, The Principal Commissioner Block No. 514-515, of Income Tax – Central, Vs. Opposite Girnar Hotel, Surat. At & PO Kather, Taluka-Kamrej, Surat. PAN: ABGFA 2065 C Applicant /assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 21.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 92/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.92, 93 & 94/SRT/2021 A.Y: 2014-15 to 2016-17 (Hearing in Virtual Court) M/s.Amrut Sarovar, The Principal Commissioner Block No. 514-515, of Income Tax – Central, Vs. Opposite Girnar Hotel, Surat. At & PO Kather, Taluka-Kamrej, Surat. PAN: ABGFA 2065 C Applicant /assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 21.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act…

Annu Agrotech Private Limited, Kota vs. Pr.CIT, Udiaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Cuke Annu Agrotech Private Limited, Pr.Cit, S-47/48, S-47/48, Vs. Udaipur. Commercial Shops, Ipia 324005, Rajasthan, India. Pan No.: Aagca 5903 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Gargieya(Adv.) & Shri Devang Gargieya (Itp) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 27/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15 /09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya(Adv.) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…money deposited with him and, therefore the addition u/s 68 cannot be sustained in the absence of anything to establish that the sources of the creditors deposits flew from the appellant itself.” 3.2.3 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 jurisdictio…

Satya Narayan Dhoot, Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/JODH/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Sept 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Mohit Soni (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Sanchita Kumar (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…nd High court order is erroneous as such action is contrary to the provision of law and also highly disregarding the law laid down by Hon’ble Courts. 6. It was submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s G.M Mittal Stainless Steel (P) LTD 263 ITR 255 has held that “if at the time of when the power under section 263 was exercised the decision of the jurisdictional High Court had not been set aside by this court or at least had not been appealed from, it would not be open to the commissioner to have proceeded on the basis that the High Court order was erroneous and the Assessing officer who had…

M/S Sutures India Pvt Ltd vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result the substantial questions of law are

ITA/115/2010HC Karnataka13 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 80HSection 80I

…4) 208 ITR 481 (MADRAS), 'CIT VS. MILLIPORE INDIA P. LTD.', 341 ITR 219 (KAR.), 'ACIT VS. MICRO LABS LTD.', (2016) 380 ITR 1, 'MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. 7 LTD. VS. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC), 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. G.M.MITTAL STAINLESS STEEL (P.) LTD', 263 ITR 255 (SC) AND 'CIT VS. M/S SARAVANA DEVELOPERS IN ITA NOS.68/2014 C/W 67/2017 (KARNATAKA). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the controversy is pending before the larger bench of the Supreme Court, which is evident from perusal of 380 ITR 1 (SC) and therefore, hearing of this appeal should be deferred till th…

Sh. Varinder Kumar Gupta, Patiala vs. Pr. CIT, Patiala

In the result appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 754/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 754/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Varinder Kumar Gupta, The Ito, Ward -5, बनाम # 278, Urban Estate, Phase-1 Patiala Patiala "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Anppg 8996Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 64(1)

…d. Even we find that the Ld. PCIT has directed the A.O. to make further fishing and roving enquiries which even do not germane from the facts and issues involved. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (P) Ltd.” (2003) 263 ITR 255 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 mere ipse dixit of the Commissioner. 14. In view of the above discussion the order of the Commissioner exercising jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act cannot be held to be su…

Rampuria Industries & Investments Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 651/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2020AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 43(5)(d)

…6) 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum)  Gabriel India Ltd. (Bom) 203 ITR 108 Gabriel India Ltd. (Bom) 203 ITR 108  Malabar Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) (2000) 243 ITR 83 Malabar Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (SC) (2000) 243 ITR 83  CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel P. LTd. (SC) (2003) 263 ITR 255 Stainless Steel P. LTd. (SC) (2003) 263 ITR 255 Stainless Steel P. LTd. (SC) (2003) 263 ITR 255  CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation (SC) (2009) 314 IR 81 CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation (SC) (2009) 314 IR 81  CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (SC) (2007) 295 ITR 282 CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (SC) (2007) 295 ITR 282  Medicare TPA Service (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT…

Gangadharam Appliances Limited, Kanchipuram vs. DCIT Company Circle 2(2), Chennai

ITA 1503/CHNY/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1185/Chny/2012 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2002-203. Gangadharam Appliances Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner By Successors Butterfly Of Income Tax, Gandhimathi Appliances Ltd, Company Range Ii(2) No.377, Old No.272, Chennai 600 034. Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan Aaacg 1793P]

For Appellant: Mr. R. Meenakshisundaram, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…herein it has been held that in writing off of debts as bad, crediting individual debtors is not mandatory. Malabar Industrial Company Limited Vs Commissioner of Income tax (243ITR 83), Commissioner of Income tax Vs G.M Mittal Stainless Steel Private Limited (263 ITR 255) and Commissioner of Income tax vs MAX India Limited (295 ITR 83(SC). 6. As far as the writing off of stock as obsolete is concerned, the Commissioner of Income Tax should have found that when the stocks are written off as absolute, they cease to be stock in trade and hence, the proposition canvassed by him for revising the assessment under Sect…

Gangadharam Appliances Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

ITA 1185/CHNY/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1185/Chny/2012 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2002-203. Gangadharam Appliances Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner By Successors Butterfly Of Income Tax, Gandhimathi Appliances Ltd, Company Range Ii(2) No.377, Old No.272, Chennai 600 034. Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. [Pan Aaacg 1793P]

For Appellant: Mr. R. Meenakshisundaram, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…herein it has been held that in writing off of debts as bad, crediting individual debtors is not mandatory. Malabar Industrial Company Limited Vs Commissioner of Income tax (243ITR 83), Commissioner of Income tax Vs G.M Mittal Stainless Steel Private Limited (263 ITR 255) and Commissioner of Income tax vs MAX India Limited (295 ITR 83(SC). 6. As far as the writing off of stock as obsolete is concerned, the Commissioner of Income Tax should have found that when the stocks are written off as absolute, they cease to be stock in trade and hence, the proposition canvassed by him for revising the assessment under Sect…