How many judgments cite CIT v. Greenworld Corporation?

197 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Greenworld Corporation (314 ITR 81), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Greenworld Corporation come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(2).

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 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(2)Section 68 Section 115BBE

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiry revision u/s 263 malabar industrial lack of enquiry section 263(1)revision under section 263 assessment order erroneous section 120 section 144a erroneous and prejudicial section 119 section 263

Judgments citing CIT v. Greenworld Corporation

Rashleela Enterprises Private Limited, Jaipur vs. The PCIT (Central), Jaipur

ITA 461/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153DSection 263

…reft of such satisfaction and / or finding that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and that it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and that too, based on tangible materials on record, is impermissible rendering the resultant order void. 314 ITR 81 (SC) CIT Vs. Green World Corporation The Income-tax Officer, while passing an order of assessment performs a judicial function. A revision application lies before the Commissioner. It is trite that the jurisdiction exercised by the revisional authority pertains to his appellate jurisdiction. The jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised only…

DCIT 14.1.1, Mumbai vs. Aadi Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3215/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawaldcit – 14(1)(1), Vs. M/S.Aadi Industries Ltd 320/7, Siddhivinayak Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Housing Society, Aayakar Bhavan, Hingwals Lane, M.K.Road, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai -400020. Mumbai – 400075. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8256G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr Respondent By None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 07.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: “ The Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec143(3) R.W.S263 U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 143(3)

…d in notice issued u/s. 263 of the Act are different than the issue raised in the revision proceedings in this regard he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Greenworld 6 M/s Aadi Industries Ltd, Mumbai Corporation [2019] 314 ITR 81 (SC). He also brought to our notice decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that jurisdiction u/s. 263 can be exercised only when both the following conditions are satisfied that (i) the order of the Assessing Officer should be erroneous and (ii) it is to be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. These conditions are conjunc…

Exotic Realtors and Developers, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

…prudent officer, particularly in the matter of inquiries or verifications as well as in stating his analysis and findings. The decisions of the Apex Court in Sirpus Raper Mill Limited Vs. CWT (77 ITR 6) (SC) and CIT, Shimla Vs. Green World Corporation (2009) 314 ITR 81 (SC) hold that it is the absolute discretion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to revise an order passed by the Assessing Officer. The only condition is that he/she needs to apply his/her own mind and arrive at a definite conclusion, which is what has been done here. In the instant case, there is no evidence that the Assessing Officer…

Veena Shah, Panipat vs. Pr CIT, Rohtak

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1222/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 10(37)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…ourt in the case of Ghanshyam Das HUF [2009] 182 Taxman 368 as the instant case was squarely covered. Reliance was placed on the decisions in the cases of Synergy 5 Waste Management (P.) Ltd.[2016] 49 ITR(Tribunal) 8 (Delhi) and Greenworld Corporation [2009] 314 ITR 81 (SC). 4.2 The Ld. Counsel contended that the Ld. PCIT’s opinion that the decision in the case of Mahender Pal Narang over rules the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Ghanshyam Das HUF (Supra) was incorrect & amounted to per incuriam. Further, it was argued that the dismissal of SLP in the case of Mahender Pal Narang was not reasoned out (e…

Sampark Management Cousultancy LLP, Noida vs. Pr, CIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1879/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18 Sampark Management Vs. Pr.Cit, Noida, Consultancy Llp, Noida. A-178, Sector – 40, Noida, Uttar Pradesh- 201 301. Pan Acsfs9969E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of Revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law”. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the above observation in CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation (2009) 181 Taxman 111 (SC) / (2009) 314 ITR 81 (SC). The Hon’ble Apex court observed as under:- “Section 263 provides for a revisional power. It has its own limitations. An order can be interfered with suo-moto by the said authority not only when an order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous but also when it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Both the conditions precedent…

Roop Kumar Chopra, Jaipur vs. PCIT Jaipur 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Him By The Assessee In Compliance To The Notice Notices Issued To Him U/S 142(1) As Well As U/S 143(2) Of The Act By The Ao As Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue For The Purpose Of Section 263 Of The Act & Consequently Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed Dated 01-01-2021 To Be Made Afresh Made Is Most Arbitrarily, Unjust, Untenable & Liable To Be Vacated.’’

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…finding that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and that it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and that too, based on tangible materials on record, is impermissible rendering the resultant order void. 3. CIT Vs. Green World Corporation 314 ITR 81 (SC) The Income-tax Officer, while passing an order of assessment performs a judicial function. A revision application lies before the Commissioner. It is trite 18 ROOP KUMAR CHOPRA VS PR. CIT-1, JAIPUR that the jurisdiction exercised by the revisional authority pertains to his appellate jurisdiction. The jurisdiction under section 263 can be ex…

M/S. Rdc Ventures, Mumbai vs. PCIT-27, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1915/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Rdc Ventures Vs. Principal Commissioner Office No.-110 Of Income Tax-27 Ridhhisidhhi Premises Room No. 401, 4 Th Floor, Society, Near Sahakar Tower No. 6, Vashi Talkies Tilak Nagar, Railway Station, Chembur (West) Mumbai- Commercial Complex, 400089 Vashi, Navi Mumbai -400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aakfr0914Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Dhran Gandhi Respondent By : Sanyogita Nagpal Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2024

For Appellant: Dhran GandhiFor Respondent: Sanyogita Nagpal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…umbai has no power to exercise his supervisory power u/s 263 of the Act. He also referred the various judicial pronouncements: “i. (1996) 57 ITD 328 (Bom) Trustees of Parsi Panchayat Funds & Properties vs. DIT ii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabrial India Ltd.; 314 ITR 81(SC) CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation iii. 152 TTJ (Mumbai) 265 Essar Steel Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT iv. ITA(TP) no. 3121and 3122/Mum./2013 Tata Communications Limited vs. DCIT dated 20.12.2013 v. 132 taxmann.com 231 (Del) Abha Bansal vs. PCIT) vi. (1996) 57 ITD 328 (Bom) Trustees of Parsi Panchayat Funds & Properties vs. DIT] vii. Hon'ble Telangana High C…

Anju Ahuja, New Delhi vs. PCIT Circle 49(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 273/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Kanwar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.273/DEL/2023 Assessment Year 2017-18 Anju Ahuja, Principal Commissioner of Income 3704/17, Hardhian Singh Road Vs. Tax, Karol Bagh, Circle-49(1), New Delhi New Delhi TAN/PAN: ATWPK1908N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Nitin Kanwar, Adv. Shri Rajeev Kumar, Adv. Shri Rohit Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent by: Mr. Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 26 09 2023 Date of pronouncement: 20 12 2023 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A…

Farman Khan, Chaksu vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 7(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 590/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CITa

Section 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

…has arrogated the role assigned, to the AO, by the CBDT circular, dated 26.04.2016. This assumption of the role of AO by the Range JCIT is contrary to the established law. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT, Shimla Vs Greenworld Corporation, 314 ITR 81, that when a statute provides for different hierarchies providing for forums in relation to passing of an order as also appellate or original order, by no stretch of imagination a higher authority can interfere with independence which is basic feature of any statutory scheme involving adjudicatory 10 FARMAN KHAN VS ITO, WARD 7(3), JAIPUR process.…

Vivek Lawrence, Kochi vs. ACIT Central Circle -1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 972/COCH/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin07 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasvivek Lawrence Principal Cit Geo Riverside (Central), Near St. Alosius School Kochi Vs. Palluruthy, Kochi 682006 [Pan:Abrpl4407E] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Gopalakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…d again by the Hon'ble Apex Court, is not a judicial, but an administrative body, whose powers are clearly defined under the Act. It cannot, therefore, interfere in the exercise of judicial work by the Revenue authorities (CIT v. Greenworld Corporation [2009] 314 ITR 81 (SC); J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CBDT [1972] 83 ITR 335 (SC)). It is one thing to relax the rigor of the procedural law to mitigate ‘genuine hardship’ to any person or class of persons, and quite another to interpret the law. The interpretation being placed by the AO on the BI, besides being contrary thereto, is, with respect, outside the legal compe…

Abis Export India Pvt. Ltd., Rajnandgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 194/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 194/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Abis Export India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ib, Corporate House, Indamara, Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aacca2881J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Bikram Jain, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 22/08/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am: The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Dated 28.03.2023 For A.Y.2018-19. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. On The Fact & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax—Raipur-1 Has Erred In Holding The Assessment Order Passed By The National E-Assessment Centre (Neac) On 01.03.2021 As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue As The Order Was Passed Without Making Any Enquiry On The Issues Of Applicability Of Section 14A Of The I. T. Act, 1961. The Assessment Order Passed By The Neac Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Therefore The Order U/S 263 Passed By The Ld. Cit Is Unjustified, Unwarranted & Uncalled. 2. The Assessee Reserves The Right To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Of Appeal At Any Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 801ASection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी र"वश सूद, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी अ"ण खोड़"पया, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 194/RPR/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Abis Export India Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income IB, Corporate House, Indamara, Tax, Circle-1(1), Bhilai Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 PAN: AACCA2881J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Bikram Jain, CA राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" त…

Jai International, Udaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 23/JODH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: The Date Of Hearing. 4. That The Hon’Ble Pcit Has Not Given Any Specific Instance About Rejecting The Details Submitted By Us In Response To Their Query. 5. That The Hon’Ble Pcit Has Not Given Any Specific Reason/Speaking Order Contradicting Case Laws Submitted By Us. The Hon’Ble Pcit Only Says That The Facts Are Different.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Jai International Vs PCIT, G-1/202 G-1/202, Udyog Udaipur Vihar, Sukher (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AAAFJ 7582 Q Assessee By Sh. Anil Sharma, C.A. Revenue By Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR Date of hearing 04/07/2023 Date of 26/09/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur dated 04.02.2021 [here in after (ld. PCIT)] for assessment year 2015-16…

Shri Amritpal Singh (Prop), Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 425/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 110Section 263Section 54D

…in supervisory jurisdiction to re-examine what has already been examined by the assessing officer.Assessee places reliance upon the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India inCommissioner of Income Tax vs. Greenworld Corporation reported in (2009) 314 ITR 81 : (2009) 224 CTR 113 : 181 Taxman 111 : 23 DTR 185,wherein it has been observed that `It cannot be said that assessing authority exercising quasi-judicial function keeping in view scheme contained in act, would lose its independence to pass an independent order of assessment and even merits of decision in assessment proceedings shall be discussed…

Raj Kumar Karanwal, Muzaffarnagar vs. Pr.CIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 644/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year 2010-11 Shri Raj Kumar Karanwal, Vs. Pr. CIT 194/A, Bhahmpuri, Dehradun. Muzaffarnagar-251001. PAN ADQPK8099N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Sankalp Malik, Advocate Shri Sanjay Malik, Advocate Department by: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 10.08.2023 Date of 11.09.2023 pronouncement: O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun (“PCIT”…

Gunjan Bhageria, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 909/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 285B

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 909 /DEL/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Gunjan Bhageria Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax B-375, (Central) Delhi-1 New Friends Colony, New Delhi PAN : AACPB3751B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Sh. Arvind Kumar, Adv. Department represented by Sh. T. James Singson, CIT, DR Date of hearing 13.07.2023 Date of pronouncement 06.09.2023 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The assessee has come in appeal against the order dated 31.03.2022 p…

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

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1051/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1050 & 1051/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mumbai Postal Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Ward 17(2)(1) Society Limited, Gpo Room No. 115, 1 St Floor, Building, Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai – 400001 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajm0032G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…etely different way and concluded that the original assessment order suffered inherent deficiencies. This interpretation is farfetched, absurd and simply amounts to change of opinion to support proposed action u/s 263, We rely on CIT Vs Greenworld Corporation 181 Taxmann 111 (SC) Refer Annexure 5. iv. The judgment of the Bombay High Court in Quepem Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. vs. ACIT (2015) 377 ITR 272 (Bom) - Refer Annexure 7- was relied upon by the assessee in written submissions besides the decisions in other cases. There is no reason to believe that the AO did not consider and follow all these ref…

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1050/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Shri Suresh George, Alappuzha vs. The ADIT International Taxation, Thiruvananthapuram-3, Thiruvanathapuram

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 794/COCH/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jun 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeysuresh George Asstt. Director Of Income Tax Kurichyiel House International Taxation Payippad, Harippad Vs. Thiruvananthapuram Alappuzha 690 556 [Pan:Affpg5853B]

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Verma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194JSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

…ise interfere with the discretion of the first appellate authority. That is, operates within the framework of law. The law in the matter is well-settled, toward which, we may for ready reference, cite some decisions, as in CIT v. Greenworld Corporation [2009] 314 ITR 81 (SC); Kerala Financial Corporation v. CIT [1994] 210 ITR 129 (SC). The cited Board Circular does not refer to the provision of law under which the stated income of the non-resident seafarer is tax-exempt, so that 9 Suresh George vs. Asst. DIT impliedly it is so for the reason of having been neither accrued nor arisen in India nor deemed to be so,…

M/S Torrent Roofing System, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

ITA 84/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143Section 263Section 40(1)(ia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 84/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/sTorrent Roofing Systems, V. Income Tax Officer, C/o Sachin K Malhotra Ward-4, Hoshiarpur (Adv.), Phagwara Road, Hoshiarpur [PAN: AAHFT 1660L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 12.05.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of…