CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi

296 ITR 292High Court2008#697 most cited

What is CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi authority for?

An assessment order cannot be revised under Section 263 for being erroneous due to a perceived lack of enquiry if the Assessing Officer has already conducted an enquiry, applied their mind, and accepted the assessee's explanation.

145

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi · Section 263 · revision of assessment order · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · lack of enquiry · Assessing Officer's application of mind · enhanced compensation · Section 56(2)(viii) · Section 28 Land Acquisition Act

Sections most often in play

Section 57(iv)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 10(37)Section 263Section 143(3)Section 45(5)Section 145ASection 28

Issues it is cited on

section 145bsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 145a(b)section 10(37)enhanced compensationsection 145acompulsory acquisitionlack of enquirysection 264section 143(3a)

Judgments citing CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi

Renu Poddar, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 188/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev SoganiFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 54Section 54F

…g the assessment again and again for small issues. It is submitted that the work of assessment cannot be completed with surgical precision. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi- 296 ITR 292 (Raj) wherein it was held that jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be invoked for making short enquiries or to go into the process of assessment again and again [CLC 24]. 13. In view of above legal and factual position it is submitted the provisions of section 263 have been wrongly invoked. 11 Smt. Renu Poddar vs. Pr. CIT, Jaipur 14. Without prejudice…

Baljeet Yadav, Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 120/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ied his mind, once such application of mind, was discernible from record, proceeding under section 263 would not fall into area of Commissioner having a different opinion. 6 Shri Baljeet Yadav, Jaipur. (iv) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi, 296 ITR 292 (Raj.). Revision – Erroneous and prejudicial order – Lack of proper enquiry – Tribunal has found that the AO framed the assessment after due application of mind and holding enquiries into all aspects which according to the CIT, have not been enquired into – This is a finding of fact – No presumption can be drawn that the AO had not applied his m…

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…

Ashutosh Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271BSection 44ASection 54E

…nding of the Tribunal was found perverse. Considering the material on record, it could be said that finding of the Tribunal was perverse. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in cancelling the order under section 263.” 6.2 Also refer CIT v/s Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292(Raj.) The record of proceedings clearly shows that the AO has framed his assessment after due application of mind and holding enquiries into all areas, which, according to the CIT have not been at all enquired into and the AO has acted merely on furnishing evidence on one single date. The Tribunal noticed that as per the record of the proceedings…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 37/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…rd, it could be said that finding of the Tribunal was perverse. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in cancelling the order under section 263.” 20 ITA 35 to 37/JP/2021_ Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs Pr.CIT 7.2 Also refer CIT v/s Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292(Raj.) The record of proceedings clearly shows that the AO has framed his assessment after due application of mind and holding enquiries into all areas, which, according to the CIT have not been at all enquired into and the AO has acted merely on furnishing evidence on one single date. The Tribunal noticed that as per the record of the proceedings…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palasana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 36/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…rd, it could be said that finding of the Tribunal was perverse. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in cancelling the order under section 263.” 20 ITA 35 to 37/JP/2021_ Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs Pr.CIT 7.2 Also refer CIT v/s Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292(Raj.) The record of proceedings clearly shows that the AO has framed his assessment after due application of mind and holding enquiries into all areas, which, according to the CIT have not been at all enquired into and the AO has acted merely on furnishing evidence on one single date. The Tribunal noticed that as per the record of the proceedings…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palsana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 35/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…rd, it could be said that finding of the Tribunal was perverse. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in cancelling the order under section 263.” 20 ITA 35 to 37/JP/2021_ Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs Pr.CIT 7.2 Also refer CIT v/s Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292(Raj.) The record of proceedings clearly shows that the AO has framed his assessment after due application of mind and holding enquiries into all areas, which, according to the CIT have not been at all enquired into and the AO has acted merely on furnishing evidence on one single date. The Tribunal noticed that as per the record of the proceedings…

Rajhans Metals, Na

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

ITA 933/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Oct 2021AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(C)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.933/AHD/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Rajhans Metals, Vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Valsad, Near Shriram Quarry, At & Post – Alipore, Taluka – Chikhali, Navsari. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFR9543N (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Revenue by : Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 27/08/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 22/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: In this…

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…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Desai (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…nother plausible view about the manner of inquiry. Powers of Section 263 of the Act cannot be exercised for want of enquiry in a particular manner. [Pg. 4-5 of the order] 11 ITA 04/JP/2021_ Shree Cement Ltd. Vs Pr.CIT (2) CIT -vs.- Ganpat Ram Bishnoi (2008) 296 ITR 292 (Raj): Held that when enquiry has been conducted and AO has reached a particular conclusion, then jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be invoked for making short enquiries or to go into the process of assessment again and again merely on the basis that more enquiry ought to have been conducted to find something. [Para 11, Pg. 3 of the order]. (3) Om Pra…

Shri Atul Kochar, Jaipur vs. Prcit-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 211/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Amrish Bedi (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

…cing the Assessing Officer to go through the assessment process against and again – this proposition is not authorized by the law and in support, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Vishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.). It was further submitted that the ld. Pr. CIT has erred in assuming revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 by merely referring to Clause (a) to Explanation 2 to Section 263, introduced by Finance Act, 2015. It was submitted that said Explanation 2 to section 263 inserted vide Finance Act, 2015, cannot be said to have overridden the law, as laid…

Prakash Pandharinath Bakre, Indore vs. Pr.CIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 272/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…e interest of Revenue. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Lata Phulwani – ITA No. 246/JP/20 wherein the Hon’ble Bench placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ganpat Ram Vishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of D.G. Housing Projects Ltd 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). In view of the above factual and legal position, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263. Thus, the entire such proceedings initiated by the ld. PCIT deserves to the quashed. 10. Per contra, the ld. CIT/DR relied on the…

Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt Ltd. 76, Dhuleshwar Garden, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 941/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…e interest of Revenue. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Lata Phulwani – ITA No. 246/JP/20 wherein the Hon’ble Bench placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ganpat Ram Vishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of D.G. Housing Projects Ltd 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). In view of the above factual and legal position, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263. Thus, the entire such proceedings initiated by the ld. PCIT deserves to the quashed. 10. Per contra, the ld. CIT/DR relied on the…

M/S. Om Prakash Badaya (HUF), Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT, Alwar

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

ITA 217/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agrawal (AR)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (ACIT-DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

…e re-verification – cannot be said that that order of AO was without making proper enquiry – AO having taken one of the possible view – cannot be said that assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. CIT Vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi, 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) Revision: S. 263 of Income tax Act, 1961: A.Y. 1993-94: Powers of Commissioner: No power to make short enquiries or to go into process of assessment again and again: Finding that AO made assessment after relevant enquiries: Jurisdiction assumed by Commissioner unsustainable. ITANo.217/JP/2020 18 OM Prakash Badaya It is thus submitted tha…

Smt. Lata Phulwani, Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Oct 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Amrish Bedi (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 54F

…r want of an enquiry, then it is incumbent upon the ld. PCIT to give a concluding finding and reasons that the order is not sustainable in law. An identical issue was considered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Vishnoi, 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) in para 7 to 12 as under :- “ 7. In this connection, it would be relevant to refer to the material which was relied by the Tribunal to set aside the order of the CIT. The Tribunal noticed that as per the record of the proceedings; on 16-10-1995, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to produce documents or material in relation to 1…

Laxmi Ventures (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-2014

ITA 2199/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Laxmi Ventures (India) Pvt. The Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax 7, Mumbai, Aaykar 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mahalaxmi , Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400034 Pan: Aaacl1082G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT DR)
Section 133Section 143Section 14ASection 263Section 40Section 68

…g financials of the Bhilai Unit and after due application of mind did not make any addition in respect of the said unit. The Ld. counsel relied on the following cases: 1. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). 2. CIT Vs. Gnat Ram Bishnoi (2008) 296 ITR 292 (Raj) 3. Girdhari Lal B. Rohra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2004) 86 TTJ 0177. 4. Unilever PLC vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (2007) 18 SOT 0136. 5. Mrs. Khatiza S. OOmerbhoy vs. Income Tax Officer (2006) 101 TTJ 1095 (mum) 6. MOIL Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (High Court of Bombay (20107) 396 ITR 0244 (Bom) 7. Commissioner of…

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

…ry jurisdiction is bad in law. The Ld. A.R. relied on a series of decisions in defence of his arguments namely; 1. CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (2018) 101 CCH 0194 2. CIT vs. Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 3. CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi (2008) 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) 4. Girdhar Lal B. Rohra vs. CIT (2004) 86 TTJ 0177 5. Moil Ltd. vs. CIT 396 ITR 0244 (Bom) 6. Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 78 CCH 0108 Mum HC (2010) 229 CTR 0347 : (2010) 188 Taxman 0327 7. CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 0303 8. CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 0282 9. CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd.…

ACIT Cir 7(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Laxmi Venture (India) Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6379/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Circle-7(1)(2) M/S. Laxmi Venture India Room No.130, First Floor, बनाम/ Ltd., 36/40, Mahalaxmi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bridge Arcade, Vs. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 037 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacl1982G यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Haridas Bhat याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Ms. Aarju Garodia ुनवाई की तायीख / 12/03/2018 Date Of Hearing : आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 12/03/2018

Section 263Section 73

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ, जे, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI श्री जोगगन्दय स िंह, न्मायमक दस्म एवुं श्री एन. के. प्रधान, रेखा दस्म, के भक्ष Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 ACIT, Circle-7(1)(2) M/s. Laxmi Venture India Room no.130, First Floor, बनाम/ Ltd., 36/40, mahalaxmi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bridge Arcade, Vs. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 037 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAACL1982G यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee by Shri Haridas Bhat याजस्व की ओर से /…