CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd.

361 ITR 505High Court2014#864 most cited

What is CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd. authority for?

Disallowance under Section 14A for expenses relating to exempt income is required while computing book profit under Section 115JB. An Assessing Officer's order is erroneous for revision under Section 263 if the view taken was not plausible, legally unsustainable, and incorrect, requiring a recorded finding.

121

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Goetze India Ltd · CIT v Goetze (India) Ltd · Section 14A · Section 115JB · book profit computation · MAT disallowance · Section 263 · erroneous assessment · revision power · Delhi High Court

Also reported as

44 Taxmann.com 138225 Taxmann 133

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 115JBSection 37(1)Section 8DSection 142(1)Section 143(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

minimum alternate taxinadequate enquirysection 10(33)section 115jaresulting companysection 115jb(2)scheme of arrangementlack of enquirymalabar industrialgoing concernamalgamationrevision u/s 263

Judgments citing CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd.

Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 198/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…(Trib) 0626 (Mum) and held that addition required to be made in the book profit could be calculated as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The ld. DRP thereafter made reference to decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Geotze India Ltd., 361 ITR 505. According to the ld. DRP, this decision has been considered by the Special Bench in the case of Vireet Investment P. Ltd. (supra) but placed reliance upon Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services P. Ltd. ACIT, 361 ITR 0531 (Bom) and held that DRP is not bound by the ratio laid down by the Special Bench. The discussion mad…

Shivam Readymix Private Limited, Neemuch vs. The PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 69C

…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. 412/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 cuke Shivam Readymix Private Limited The PCIT (Central), Vs. 25, Jawahar Nagar, Kamal Chowk, Jaipur. Meemuch-458441, Madhya Pradesh. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAMCS9840B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Tarun Mittal…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1) (1) Ahmedabad, Vejalpur Ahmedabad vs. Inductotherm (India) Private Limited, Ahmedabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 598/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Ms. Chandni Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 195Section 40Section 92C

…tation of taxable income, should not be automatically applied to the computation of book profits under MAT unless specifically provided for. The Bench, in the earlier year relied on consistent judicial precedents, including Goetze (India) Ltd. vs, CIT [(2014) 361 ITR 505 (Del)] and DCIT vs. Viraj Profiles Ltd. [(2016) 161 ITD 393], which had held that Section 14A of the Act disallowance cannot be added to the book profit under Section 115JB of the Act. These rulings were based on the clear distinction between the normal tax computation and the computation under MAT. The Bench, in the earlier year, also held that…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle - 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Radha Madhav Investments Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3341/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Dy. Commissioner of Vs. Radha Madhav Income Tax Circle– Investments Pvt. Ltd. 3(3)(1), 122, Maker Chambers III, Room no. 609, Nariman Point, Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai–400021 M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai–400020 PAN/GIR No. AAACR4063M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Madhur Agrawal Revenue by Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr. AR Date of Hearing 06/05/2024 Date of Pronouncement 04/07/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (J.M): 1. This appeal is directed against th…

Worley India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commission of Income Tax 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 554/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

…case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income tax has to come to the conclusion and himself decide that the order is erroneous, by conducting necessary enquiry, if required and necessary, before the order under section 263 is passed. In such cases, the order of the Assessing Officer will be erroneo…

The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 178/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent by : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 270A

…alculated as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax ITA Nos.139&178/Ahd/2023 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT/ACIT Asst.Year– 2018-19 Rules. The ld. DRP thereafter made reference to decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Geotze India Ltd., 361 ITR 505. According to the ld. DRP, this decision has been considered by the Special Bench in the case of Vireet Investment P. Ltd. (supra) but placed reliance upon Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services P. Ltd. ACIT, 361 ITR 0531 (Bom) and held that DRP is not bound by the ratio laid down by the Special Bench. The discussion mad…

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited, Vadodara vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 139/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent by : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadaw, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 270A

…alculated as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax ITA Nos.139&178/Ahd/2023 Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. DCIT/ACIT Asst.Year– 2018-19 Rules. The ld. DRP thereafter made reference to decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Geotze India Ltd., 361 ITR 505. According to the ld. DRP, this decision has been considered by the Special Bench in the case of Vireet Investment P. Ltd. (supra) but placed reliance upon Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services P. Ltd. ACIT, 361 ITR 0531 (Bom) and held that DRP is not bound by the ratio laid down by the Special Bench. The discussion mad…

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Cirecle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 318/AHD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri M. J. Shah, A.R. & Shri Jimi Patel , A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…(Trib) 0626 (Mum) and held that addition required to be made in the book profit could be calculated as per Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules. The ld. DRP thereafter made reference to decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Geotze India Ltd., 361 ITR 505. According to the ld. DRP, this decision has been considered by the Special Bench in the case of Vireet Investment P. Ltd. (supra) but placed reliance upon Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vodafone India Services P. Ltd. ACIT, 361 ITR 0531 (Bom) and held that DRP is not bound by the ratio laid down by the Special Bench. The discussion mad…

Edisons Infrapower Multiventures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax Range -6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1208/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleedisons Infrapower & Vs. Pr. Cit, Range – 6, Multiventures Pvt Ltd Room No.501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1633J Appellant .. Respondent Essel Corporate Vs. Pr.Cit, Range – 6, Resources Pvt Ltd Room No. 501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aabce0473D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Jay Bhansali.ARFor Respondent: Shri Jogendra Singh.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

…d (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the ITA No. 1207 & 1208/Mum/2023 Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income tax has to come to the conclusion and himself decide that the order is erroneous, by conducting necessary enquiry, if required and necessary, before the order under section 263 is passed. In such cases, the order of the Assessing Officer will be erroneo…

Essel Corporate Resources Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the asssessee are allowed

ITA 1207/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleedisons Infrapower & Vs. Pr. Cit, Range – 6, Multiventures Pvt Ltd Room No.501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aaace1633J Appellant .. Respondent Essel Corporate Vs. Pr.Cit, Range – 6, Resources Pvt Ltd Room No. 501, 18Th Floor, A-Wing, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Marathon Futurex, Nm Bhavan, M.K.Road, Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400013. Pan/Gir No. : Aabce0473D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Jay Bhansali.ARFor Respondent: Shri Jogendra Singh.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

…d (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the ITA No. 1207 & 1208/Mum/2023 Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income tax has to come to the conclusion and himself decide that the order is erroneous, by conducting necessary enquiry, if required and necessary, before the order under section 263 is passed. In such cases, the order of the Assessing Officer will be erroneo…

Ellora Inratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

….T.A. No.258/Del/2019 24 erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue by such lapse on the part of the AO. This is the position of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in several cases including CIT .v. Goetze (India) Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 505 (Del); ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd, 343 ITR 329; CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Del). In this backdrop, a question would arise whether, firstly, the action of the AO is unsustainable in law or not, owing to such assertions on mere inadequacy and secondly, whether the mandate under s.68 of the Act for extent of inquiry by way of cross…

Laxmi Narayan Agarwal, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…the statute. The CIT should show that the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. The action of the CIT in directing the AO to conduct enquiry in a particular manner is contrary to the law interpreted by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd 361 ITR 505. If such course of action is permitted, the CIT can find fault with each and every assessment order without making any enquiry or verification in order to establish that the assessment order is not sustainable in law. Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd vs. Pr CIT (ITAT Delhi) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 S. 263 Revision: Explanation 2 to s. 263 inserted w.e.f. 0…

Allied Photographics India Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1083/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S Alliedphotographics Vs. Pr.Cit-1, India Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Room No.330, Kasturi Buildings, 3Rd Floor, Jamshedji Tata Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, M.K. Road, Mumbai -400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. : Aabca2068A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitish Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Smiti Samant. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-1, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Nitish Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Smiti Samant. DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

…case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income tax has to come to the conclusion and himself decide that the order is erroneous, by conducting necessary enquiry, if required and necessary, before the order under section 263 is passed. In such cases, the order of the Assessing Officer will be erroneo…

M/S. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2741/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80I

…l, 2005 from any business carried on, or services rendered, by an entrepreneur or a Developer, in a Unit or Special Economic Zone, as the case may be.” 13. As noticed by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central- II) Vs. Goetze (India) Limited [2014] 361 ITR 505 (Del), Sub-section (1) to Section 115JB of the Act begins with a non obstante expression, which gives an overriding effect to the said section. Sub-section (2) states that every assessee being a company shall prepare a Profit and Loss account for the previous year in accordance with the provisions of Part II and III of Schedule VI of the Companie…

M/S. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3568/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80I

…l, 2005 from any business carried on, or services rendered, by an entrepreneur or a Developer, in a Unit or Special Economic Zone, as the case may be.” 13. As noticed by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central- II) Vs. Goetze (India) Limited [2014] 361 ITR 505 (Del), Sub-section (1) to Section 115JB of the Act begins with a non obstante expression, which gives an overriding effect to the said section. Sub-section (2) states that every assessee being a company shall prepare a Profit and Loss account for the previous year in accordance with the provisions of Part II and III of Schedule VI of the Companie…

M/S. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5118/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Kanchan Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 80I

…l, 2005 from any business carried on, or services rendered, by an entrepreneur or a Developer, in a Unit or Special Economic Zone, as the case may be.” 13. As noticed by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central- II) Vs. Goetze (India) Limited [2014] 361 ITR 505 (Del), Sub-section (1) to Section 115JB of the Act begins with a non obstante expression, which gives an overriding effect to the said section. Sub-section (2) states that every assessee being a company shall prepare a Profit and Loss account for the previous year in accordance with the provisions of Part II and III of Schedule VI of the Companie…

Ga Infra Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…the statute. The CIT should show that the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. The action of the CIT in directing the AO to conduct enquiry in a particular manner is contrary to the law interpreted by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd 361 ITR 505. If such course of action is permitted, the CIT can find fault with each and every assessment order without making any enquiry or verification in order to establish that the assessment order is not sustainable in law. Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd vs. Pr CIT (ITAT Delhi) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 (Case law compilation pages 137-173) S. 263 Revision: Expl…

Vivek Agnihotri, Mumbai vs. ITO 16 (1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 4493/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalevivek Agnihotri Vs. Ito – 16(1)(5), 1505/1506, Amarnath Aayakar Bhavan, Tower, Yari Road, M.K.Road, Versova, Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400061. Pan/Gir No. : Adypa6052B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ankush Kapoor.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 01.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Prcommissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Ms.Kinjal Bhuta.ARFor Respondent: Mr. Ankush Kapoor.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 50C

…case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income tax has to come to the conclusion and himself decide that the order is erroneous, by conducting necessary enquiry, if required and necessary, before the order under section 263 is passed. In such cases, the order of the Assessing Officer will be erroneo…

Dharmendra Mehta, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Avadhesh Kumar (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 44A

…the statute. The CIT should show that the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. The action of the CIT in directing the AO to conduct enquiry in a particular manner is contrary to the law interpreted by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd 361 ITR 505. If such course of action is permitted, the CIT can find fault with each and every assessment order without making any enquiry or verification in order to establish that the assessment order is not sustainable in law. Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd vs. Pr CIT (ITAT Delhi) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 S. 263 Revision: Explanation 2 to s. 263 inserted w.e.f. 0…

World Trade Park Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT - 5, Mumbai

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

ITA 1364/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleworld Trade Park Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit -5 4Th Floor, Wtp, Jln Room No. 515, 5Th Marg, Jaipur, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajasthan – 302107 Mk Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr8969E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Sahai.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Dr.Kishordhule.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-52, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sahai.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Dr.KishorDhule.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 271B

…case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income tax has to come to the conclusion and himself decide that the order is erroneous, by conducting necessary enquiry, if required and necessary, before the order under section 263 is passed. In such World Trade Park Ltd., Mumbai. cases, the order of the As…