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 367,154 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

Bharat Diamond Bourse, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Exemption)-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for assessment years 2009-10

ITA 916/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bharat Diamond Bourse, Dy. Cit (Exemption)-1, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Bandra East, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacb 2358 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. R.K Sinha &For Respondent: Mr. S.G. Menon, DR
Section 11Section 12Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 25Section 254Section 263

…urt of Delhi in the case of Deputy Director of Income Tax (E) Vs Petroleum sports promotion Board reported in (2014) 88 CCH 0128 (Delhi). The Ld. counsel also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Greenwood Corporation reported in 314 ITR 81 (SC). Bharat Diamond Bourse 8. The Ld. DR on the other hand relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and submitted that assessment order has been held erroneous by the CIT(E), both on the ground of erroneously allowing donation paid as expenditure and assessed income less than the returned income. He submitted that Assessing Officer has not examined…

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 942/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…IT and established that it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Ld. CIT has failed in this aspect. This is in line with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial co. Ltd., 243 ITR 83(SC) and CIT Vs. Green World Corporation 314 ITR 81 (SC). Therefore, in our view, no doubt, the assessment order is erroneous but not prejudicial to the revenue considering the case law submitted before us. As per the Hon'ble AP High court, seeds cannot be produced without basic agricultural activities. The assessee has sold the seeds and must have carried out the agricultural activities in order t…

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 941/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…IT and established that it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Ld. CIT has failed in this aspect. This is in line with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial co. Ltd., 243 ITR 83(SC) and CIT Vs. Green World Corporation 314 ITR 81 (SC). Therefore, in our view, no doubt, the assessment order is erroneous but not prejudicial to the revenue considering the case law submitted before us. As per the Hon'ble AP High court, seeds cannot be produced without basic agricultural activities. The assessee has sold the seeds and must have carried out the agricultural activities in order t…

Hotel Owner'S Credit Co-Operative Society, Mysuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Mysuru

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

ITA 368/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Rampriya Das CAFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57(2)Section 80Section 80P

…views are possible and the AO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The same is view is expressed by the Honorable SC in the case of CIT Vs Green World cooperation 314 ITR 81. 7. In the instant case the ITO has taken one of the two possible views in the matter of allowability of deduction in respect of interest. However The Pr.CIT has not considered the views of Honourable supreme court in issuing directions to ITO in this case. 8. The decision of the Supreme Court in Totgar's Co- operative Sales Society Ltd. v.ITO 32…

Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 62/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.58 & 59/SRT/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The PCIT (Central), FP 56-57, TP 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAIFH9885N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.60 to 62/SRT/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 to 2017-18) Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Vs. The PCIT (Central), D-1002, Swastik Tower, Sarthana Surat. Jakatnaka, Varachha Road, S…

Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 61/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.58 & 59/SRT/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The PCIT (Central), FP 56-57, TP 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAIFH9885N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.60 to 62/SRT/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 to 2017-18) Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Vs. The PCIT (Central), D-1002, Swastik Tower, Sarthana Surat. Jakatnaka, Varachha Road, S…

Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 60/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.58 & 59/SRT/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The PCIT (Central), FP 56-57, TP 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAIFH9885N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.60 to 62/SRT/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 to 2017-18) Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Vs. The PCIT (Central), D-1002, Swastik Tower, Sarthana Surat. Jakatnaka, Varachha Road, S…

Hilton Group, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 59/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.58 & 59/SRT/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The PCIT (Central), FP 56-57, TP 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAIFH9885N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.60 to 62/SRT/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 to 2017-18) Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Vs. The PCIT (Central), D-1002, Swastik Tower, Sarthana Surat. Jakatnaka, Varachha Road, S…

Hilton Group, Surat vs. PCIT, (Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 58/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.58 & 59/SRT/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The PCIT (Central), FP 56-57, TP 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAIFH9885N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.60 to 62/SRT/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 to 2017-18) Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Vs. The PCIT (Central), D-1002, Swastik Tower, Sarthana Surat. Jakatnaka, Varachha Road, S…

Ramesh Kumar Gordhan Kathiriya, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 192/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.58 & 59/SRT/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The PCIT (Central), FP 56-57, TP 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAIFH9885N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.60 to 62/SRT/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 to 2017-18) Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Vs. The PCIT (Central), D-1002, Swastik Tower, Sarthana Surat. Jakatnaka, Varachha Road, S…

Ramesh Kumar Gordhan Kathiriya, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 191/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.58 & 59/SRT/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The PCIT (Central), FP 56-57, TP 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAIFH9885N (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.60 to 62/SRT/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16 to 2017-18) Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Vs. The PCIT (Central), D-1002, Swastik Tower, Sarthana Surat. Jakatnaka, Varachha Road, S…

Kamal Vyas, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 17, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal stand allowed

ITA 303/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…that other view is a better view, would not enable CIT to exercise power u/s. 263 of the Act. In the light of the above the appeal was dismissed", c. In case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Shimla Vs. Greenwortd Corporation [2009] 181 Taxmann 111 (SC)/[2009J 314 ITR 81 (SC)/[2009 224 CTR 113 (SC) "Section 263, read with section 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interests of revenue - Assessment year 2000-01 - Whether an order of assessment passed by /TO can be interfered with only because another view is possible -Held, no As regards submission [C] above, learned counsel sub…

Mohan Sukumaran, Raigarh(Cg) vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 141/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

…ed under s.250 / s.251. It may further be pertinent to observe that for the purposes of directions contemplated under s.150(1) of the Act, the authority concerned is expected to examine the records of the proceedings as held in CIT vs. Green World Corporation 314 ITR 81 (SC). 9.4 In this backdrop, we find palpable merit in the plea of the assessee that neither under s.251 of the Act nor under s.150(1) of the Act, the CIT(A) is entitled to issue directions to the AO to reopen the assessments of the earlier years for the purposes of disallowances towards service tax claims without showing necessity of such directi…

Mohan Sukumaran, Raigarh(Cg) vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 140/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR

…ed under s.250 / s.251. It may further be pertinent to observe that for the purposes of directions contemplated under s.150(1) of the Act, the authority concerned is expected to examine the records of the proceedings as held in CIT vs. Green World Corporation 314 ITR 81 (SC). 9.4 In this backdrop, we find palpable merit in the plea of the assessee that neither under s.251 of the Act nor under s.150(1) of the Act, the CIT(A) is entitled to issue directions to the AO to reopen the assessments of the earlier years for the purposes of disallowances towards service tax claims without showing necessity of such directi…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Maharaji Education Trust, Ghaziabad

The appeal are dismissed

ITA 5138/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita M. Biswas[CIT]–
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…ITR 110 (Del); vii. CIT Vs. Supreme Polypropolene (P) Ltd.ITA No.266/2011 (Del); viii. CIT vs. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd 378 ITR 351 (Del.); ix. Hindustan Lever Ltd. Reported in [2004] 137 TAXMAN 479 (BOM.); x. CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation 314 ITR 81 (SC); xi. M/s Synfonia Tradelinks P Ltd vs ITO (supra) (Del) 24. He further submitted that the reasons for re-opening must be complete, self-explanatory and relevant based on the relevant material in possession of the Assessing Officer. He relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT 398 ITR 198 (Del.…

R.N. Khemka Enterprises (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 7244/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 131Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…. Sarthak Securities Co. P. Ltd. vs ITO 329 ITR 110 (Del.) vii. CIT vs Suprme Polypropolene (P) Ltd. viii. CIT vs Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd. 378 ITR 351 (Del.) ix. Hindustan Lever Ltd. [2004] 137 Taxman 479 (Bom.) x. CIT vs Greenworld Corporation 314 ITR 81(SC) 15. The learned counsel for the assessee in his next plank of argument submitted that non-identification of nature of alleged accommodation entries, mode of payments and the parties acted as entry provider entities make such recording of reasons insufficient for initiating the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. 16. Referring to the decision of…

M/S Radhishwari Devlopers P Ltd, Indore vs. Pr CIT -2 Indore, Indore

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

ITA 493/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jul 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…it cannot be treated as an erroneous 69 M/s. Radheshwari Developers Pvt. Ltd. order prejudicial to the Revenue, unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law”. 36. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Green World Corporation 314 ITR 81(SC) has held that “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 when both the fo…

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

…hall apply if the order has been passed without making enquiries or verification which a reasonable and prudent officer should have carried out in such cases. Under these facts and ratio decided by the Hon’ble Courts in case of CIT Vs. Green World Corporation 314 ITR 81 (SC), CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 332 ITR 231 (Delhi), CIT-8, Bombay v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. 372 ITR 303 (Bombay) and CIT v. Reliance Communication Ltd (2017) 396 ITR 217, we are of the considered view that it is not a fit case of invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Therefore, we set aside the order of the ld. Pr. CIT and…

Virendra Singh Bhadauria, Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-3, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

For Appellant: Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…CIT 414 ITR 485 (Mad) Pr. CIT V. Abhijit Bhandari CIT Vs. Escorts Ltd. 338 ITR 0435 (Del) CIT Vs. Deepak Mittal 324 ITR 411 (P & H) CIT Vs. Nirmal Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. 309 ITR 0067(Guj) Gupta International Vs. ITO 002 ITR (Trib) 0428 (Del) Green World Co. 314 ITR 81 (SC) CIT Vs. Paul Bros. 216 ITR 548 CIT Vs. Gokul Das Exports 333 ITR 214 Smt. Anita Malpotra V/s. ITO (2007) 109 TTJ (ASR) 76 India Heritage Foundation’s Vs. Dy. Director of Income Tax 149 TTJ 908 (Bangalore) relevant para 11 page 915 of the order. EON Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 343 ITR 366 (Del) 5. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR has 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

…fficer 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. ITANo.217/JP/2020 17 OM Prakash Badaya 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 that the jurisdiction exercised by the revisional authority pertains to his appellate jurisdiction. The jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised only when both the following conditi…