CIT v. Greenworld Corporation

314 ITR 81Supreme Court of India2009#472 most cited

What is CIT v. Greenworld Corporation authority for?

The Commissioner can revise an assessment order under Section 263 only if the Assessing Officer's order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Assessing Officer must have applied their mind and taken a possible view for the revision to be invalid.

197

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Greenworld Corporation · Section 263 · erroneous assessment · prejudicial to revenue · commissioner revision powers · adequate enquiry · possible view · judicial function · appellate jurisdiction · conditions for revision

Also reported as

181 Taxmann 111

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 143(2)Section 68Section 115BBE
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263malabar industriallack of enquirysection 263(1)revision under section 263assessment order erroneoussection 120section 144aerroneous and prejudicialsection 119section 263

Judgments citing CIT v. Greenworld Corporation

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3133/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…oneous order cannot be the subject matter of revision unless it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue as well. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the following decisions:- a. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (243 ITR 83(SC» b. CIT vs. Green World Corp. (314 ITR 81 (SC» c. CIT vs. DLF (350 ITR 555 (Del» 6.4 It was the further contention that if an AO acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessments, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by CIT simply because according to him the order should have been written more elaborately in view of the following case laws:- a. CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (200…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3132/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…oneous order cannot be the subject matter of revision unless it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue as well. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the following decisions:- a. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (243 ITR 83(SC» b. CIT vs. Green World Corp. (314 ITR 81 (SC» c. CIT vs. DLF (350 ITR 555 (Del» 6.4 It was the further contention that if an AO acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessments, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by CIT simply because according to him the order should have been written more elaborately in view of the following case laws:- a. CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (200…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2756/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. Nos. 2750 to 2756/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2012-13) Sterling Biotech Limited, 43, Atlanta Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Appellant Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – (Central)-1, Mumbai 400 020 Respondent PAN: AABCS1946H आवेदक क" ओर से / By Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/By Revenue : Shri Manjunathaswamy, D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.06.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2755/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. Nos. 2750 to 2756/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2012-13) Sterling Biotech Limited, 43, Atlanta Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Appellant Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – (Central)-1, Mumbai 400 020 Respondent PAN: AABCS1946H आवेदक क" ओर से / By Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/By Revenue : Shri Manjunathaswamy, D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.06.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2754/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. Nos. 2750 to 2756/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2012-13) Sterling Biotech Limited, 43, Atlanta Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Appellant Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – (Central)-1, Mumbai 400 020 Respondent PAN: AABCS1946H आवेदक क" ओर से / By Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/By Revenue : Shri Manjunathaswamy, D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.06.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2753/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. Nos. 2750 to 2756/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2012-13) Sterling Biotech Limited, 43, Atlanta Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Appellant Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – (Central)-1, Mumbai 400 020 Respondent PAN: AABCS1946H आवेदक क" ओर से / By Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/By Revenue : Shri Manjunathaswamy, D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.06.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2752/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. Nos. 2750 to 2756/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2012-13) Sterling Biotech Limited, 43, Atlanta Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Appellant Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – (Central)-1, Mumbai 400 020 Respondent PAN: AABCS1946H आवेदक क" ओर से / By Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/By Revenue : Shri Manjunathaswamy, D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.06.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2751/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. Nos. 2750 to 2756/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2012-13) Sterling Biotech Limited, 43, Atlanta Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Appellant Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – (Central)-1, Mumbai 400 020 Respondent PAN: AABCS1946H आवेदक क" ओर से / By Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/By Revenue : Shri Manjunathaswamy, D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.06.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2750/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. Nos. 2750 to 2756/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2012-13) Sterling Biotech Limited, 43, Atlanta Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Appellant Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – (Central)-1, Mumbai 400 020 Respondent PAN: AABCS1946H आवेदक क" ओर से / By Assessee : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. राज"व क" ओर से/By Revenue : Shri Manjunathaswamy, D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 15.06.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.…

Ayyazuddin J, Khan, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT- 22

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2881/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2881/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ayyazuddin J. Khan Ito-22(3)-1, Block No. 103, Aggarwal Upavan, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway बनाम/ Plot No. 11, Sector – 19, Nerul, Station, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 706 Navi Mumbai-400 073 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Atxpk 4365 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kishore K. Poddar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri H. N. Singh

For Appellant: Shri Kishore K. PoddarFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 263

…d that even the identity as not been conclusively proved in the present case, i.e., not to speak of capacity and genuineness of the loans, toward which there is no evidence on record. Coming to the decision in the case of CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation [2009] 314 ITR 81 (SC), relied upon by the assessee before us, we consider the same as misplaced. The said decision holds that the assessment by the A.O. should not be interfered with in case another view is possible. Where the A.O. has taken one of the two views, equally possible, his order is not liable for revision, as is again well settled per a series of decis…

People Infocom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. C.I.T. Cir.7, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 People Infocom Private Ltd. Cit-7, C/O- Samria & Co. Room No.611, बनाम/ Chartered Accountants, 6Th Floor, Vs. 2E, Court Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, 35, New Marine Lines, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aadcp5658H (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 263Section 51

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ सी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, के सम" । Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member Assessment Year-2007-08 People Infocom Private Ltd. CIT-7, C/O- Samria & Co. Room No.611, बनाम/ Chartered Accountants, 6th Floor, Vs. 2E, Court Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, 35, New Marine Lines, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 PAN No.AADCP5658H (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri R.S.Samria Shri M.Dayasagar CIT-DR राज"व…

M/S. India Habitat Centre, New Delhi vs. DIT (E), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2390/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2010-11 India Habitat Centre, Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Lodi Road, Vs. Pratyakash Kar Bhavan, E- New Delhi - 110003 2, Block, 26Th Floor, Dr. (Pan: Aaati0499M) Shyama Prasad Mukherjeemarg, Civic Centre, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi – 110 002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Ananthraman, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…view that the AO has made the detailed enquiries on the issue of ‘principle of mutuality’ and passed the order dated 07.3.2013 u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act as per law. 8.3 We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Green World Corporation 314 ITR 81 (SC) has held as under:- “The jurisdiction u/s. 263 can be exercised only when both the following conditions are satisfied: i) The order of the AO should be erroneous; and ii) It should be prejudicial to the Revenue interest. These conditions are conjunctive. An order of assessment passed by the AO should not be interfered with only because a…

Krunal Pravinchandra Gala, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1 Thane, Pune

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1312/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 263Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ए, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI "ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, के सम" । Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member ITA NOs.1312 & 1313/MUM/2012 Assessment Years- 2008-2009 & 2009-10 Krunal Pravinchandra Gala CIT-Central, Prop: M/s Hemal Builders, Room No.309, “C” Wing, बनाम/ 4 A-9, Siddhi Group, PMT Building, Swargate, Vs. Lake City Mall, Kapurwadi Pune-411037 Junction, Majiwade Naka, Thane (W)-400607 PAN No. AGLPG2012M (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) "नधा"रती क" ओर से…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6786/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…arma, 335 ITA NOS. 6785&6786/DEL/2015 (AYRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12) KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED VS. ACIT ITR 83 (Del.). (iv) CIT vs. R.K. Construction Co. 313 ITR 65 (Guj.). (v) CIT vs. DLF Ltd., 350 ITR 555 (Del.). (vi) CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation, 314 ITR 81 (SC). (vii) CIT vs. Munjal Castings, 303 ITR 23 (P&H.) (viii) Spectra Shares and Scrips Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 354 ITR 35 (AP). (ix) Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs. CIT, 51 taxmann.com 255 (Ahmedabad Trib.). (x) CIT vs. P.D. Abraham, 53 taxmann.com 217 (SC). (xi) Sterling Construction & Investments vs. ACIT 374 ITR 474 (Born) (xii) CIT V/s Fine Jewellery…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6785/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…arma, 335 ITA NOS. 6785&6786/DEL/2015 (AYRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12) KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED VS. ACIT ITR 83 (Del.). (iv) CIT vs. R.K. Construction Co. 313 ITR 65 (Guj.). (v) CIT vs. DLF Ltd., 350 ITR 555 (Del.). (vi) CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation, 314 ITR 81 (SC). (vii) CIT vs. Munjal Castings, 303 ITR 23 (P&H.) (viii) Spectra Shares and Scrips Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, 354 ITR 35 (AP). (ix) Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs. CIT, 51 taxmann.com 255 (Ahmedabad Trib.). (x) CIT vs. P.D. Abraham, 53 taxmann.com 217 (SC). (xi) Sterling Construction & Investments vs. ACIT 374 ITR 474 (Born) (xii) CIT V/s Fine Jewellery…

M/S. the Rama Co-Op L/C Society Ltd., Sonepat vs. ACIT, Sonepat

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 3914/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Ms. Suchitra Kamble :

For Respondent: Shri T.Vasanthan DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 80PSection 80P(2)

…ed to appreciate that initiation of proceedings was based on the directions issued by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax and therefore the same were invalid being contrary to judgment of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation reported in 314 ITR 81 1.2 That further more since there was no fresh material on record that surfaced after the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and as such in terms of judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Orient Craft Ltd. reported in 354 ITR 536, the action was otherwise invalid and hence unsustainable. 1.3. That the learned Commissioner of In…

Estrela Batteries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 2, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2122/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2010-11
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…istration. At the same time, if another view is possible revision is not permissible. Our view is fortified by the decision from Himachal Pradesh Financial Corpn. (186 Taxmann 105)(HP), Bismillah Trading Co. (248 ITR 292)(Ker.) and CIT vs. Green World Corpn. (314 ITR 81)(SC). For invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 the assessment order must contain grievous error which is subversive of the administration of Revenue. Further, exact error must be disclosed by the Commissioner as was held in CIT vs. G.K. Kabra (211 ITR 336)(AP). Section 263 of the Act enables the Commissioner to have a look at the orders or pr…