CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd.

333 ITR 547High Court2011#1503 most cited

What is CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. authority for?

The Commissioner cannot exercise revisional power under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer (AO) has adopted one of the courses permissible in law or where two views are possible and the AO has adopted one of them. A regular assessment made under Section 143(3) carries a presumption of application of mind, and the CIT must demonstrate how the AO's order is unsustainable in law and prejudicial to revenue, not merely disagree with the view.

76

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. · 333 ITR 547 · Section 263 · revisional power · Assessing Officer permissible view · application of mind · Section 143(3) assessment · erroneous and prejudicial · Commissioner of Income Tax

Also reported as

194 Taxmann 17594 TTJ 108

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 10(37)Section 145A(b)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57(iv)Section 147Section 148
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 8d(2)(ii)section 141section 282a(1)ready for usesection 194lasection 35(1)(i)section 35(1)(iv)section 2(13)section 35(1)(ii)section 145a(b)section 145bsection 45(5)

Judgments citing CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd.

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. xii) 263 ITR 255 (SC) CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Ltd. PROPOSITION IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ORDER OF AO IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE i) 142 ITR 778 (Pat) CIT vs. Shanti Lal Aggarwala ii) 96 ITR 310 (Al…

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. xii) 263 ITR 255 (SC) CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Ltd. PROPOSITION IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ORDER OF AO IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE i) 142 ITR 778 (Pat) CIT vs. Shanti Lal Aggarwala ii) 96 ITR 310 (Al…

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. xii) 263 ITR 255 (SC) CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Ltd. PROPOSITION IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ORDER OF AO IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE i) 142 ITR 778 (Pat) CIT vs. Shanti Lal Aggarwala ii) 96 ITR 310 (Al…

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. xii) 263 ITR 255 (SC) CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Ltd. PROPOSITION IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ORDER OF AO IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE i) 142 ITR 778 (Pat) CIT vs. Shanti Lal Aggarwala ii) 96 ITR 310 (Al…

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. xii) 263 ITR 255 (SC) CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Ltd. PROPOSITION IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ORDER OF AO IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE i) 142 ITR 778 (Pat) CIT vs. Shanti Lal Aggarwala ii) 96 ITR 310 (Al…

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. xii) 263 ITR 255 (SC) CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Ltd. PROPOSITION IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ORDER OF AO IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE i) 142 ITR 778 (Pat) CIT vs. Shanti Lal Aggarwala ii) 96 ITR 310 (Al…

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. vii) 294 ITR 121 (Chennai) CIT vs. Mepco Industries Ltd. viii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT vs. Munjal Castings ix) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT x) 325 ITR 343 (P&H) CIT vs. Tek Chand Saini xi) 333 ITR 547 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. xii) 263 ITR 255 (SC) CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel Ltd. PROPOSITION IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ORDER OF AO IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE i) 142 ITR 778 (Pat) CIT vs. Shanti Lal Aggarwala ii) 96 ITR 310 (Al…

DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT - 1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

…lex • 6.2 Keeping into consideration the principle as propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial (supra), it has been further held by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. in 333 ITR 547 that where the AO adopts one of the courses permissible in law or where two views are possible and the AO has adopted one of the views, the Commissioner cannot exercise his power u/s 263 of the Act. Similar principle has also been reiterated in the following cases: 259 ITR 502 (Guj), CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers • 395 ITR 1 (SC), CIT vs. Quality Stee…

ABROAD VITRIFIED PVT LTD,MORBI vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 144/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.144/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…t be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. We also draw support from the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. [2011] 333 ITR 547 [2010] 194 Taxman 175 where it has been held that when a regular assessment is made u/s 143(3) a presumption can be raised that the order has been passed upon on application of mind. Before us, Revenue has not brought any material on record to demonstrate that the view taken by the AO was an impermissible view and was contrary to law or was upon…

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)

…decision in the case of Mahender Pal Narang (Supra) was not applicable in this case. To buttress his contention, the Ld. Counsel placed emphasis on the decisions in the case of Pawan Kumar [2024] 159 taxmann.com 61 (Delhi - Trib.) and Saluja Exim Ltd. [2010] 329 ITR 603 (P & H High Court) wherein after considering the above-mentioned case laws had been held that this issue, being debatable; being two views were possible, could not make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue for invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. 6 4.3 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the interest received un…

SHREE ALEKH,BHAVNAGAR vs. PCIT AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…50 ITR 266 (Guj) Rayon Silk Mills vs CIT – 221 ITR 155 @ 158-159 (Guj Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT – [2003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. – [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers – 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products – 333 ITR 547 @ 557-558 (Del)” 5.1 The Ld. AR further summited that it is settled law that if two views are possible as regards to a particular issue and Assessing Officer adopts either of two such views, then the CIT cannot invoke jurisdiction under Section 263. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:- Assessment Year: 2017-18 Page 6 of 7 “Malabar I…

KAUSTUBH GUPTA ,MEERUT vs. PR. CIT , GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1125/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Kaustubh Gupta, 412/3, Versus Pr. C.I.T., Mangal Pandey Nagar, Ghaziabad. Meerut. Pan: Aabcs3651B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Waseem Arshad, Cit/Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.12.2023 Order Per Saktijit Dey, Vice-

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Waseem Arshad, CIT/DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…rvices Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 442 ITR 385 (Mad). (iv). CIT vs. Neerav Modi, 390 ITR 292 (Bom) (v). ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd., 343 ITR 329 (Del) (vi) Eicher Motor Ltd. vs. CIT, 125 taxmann.com 432 (ITAT Delhi) (vii). CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., 333 ITR 547 (Del). (viii). Meerut Roller flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 420 ITR 216 (All) (ix). CIT vs. Smt. D. Valliammal, 230 ITR 695 (Mad.) (x). CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 6. Learned Departmental Representative submitted, in course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has not at all enquired into the genuineness of purchase…

THE LAKE PALACE HOTELS & MOTELSPRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PCIT,CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 52/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Sept 2023AY 2017-18
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43

…1 3 Pr. VIT PTC India Financial Services Ltd. (2022) 6 NYP CTR 1006 (Delhi) 62-64 4 Pr. CIT vs. Era Infrastructure India Ltd. (2022) 327 CTR (Del) 489 65-66 5 CIT vs. J. L. Morrison (India) Ltd. 270 CTR (Cal) 405 67-68 6 CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. 333 ITR 547 (Del) 69-71 7 CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC) 72-74 5.2 The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the written submission and case law so relied upon submitted that the issue that the PCIT is raising has already been raised by the ld. AO vide notice dated 24.11.1019 in Point no. 7 (APB-14) wherein ld. AO asked as under: 7. Submit detai…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-01, DELHI vs. SPICEJET LTD. , DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 881/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 37(1)Section 40

…rior court then the same cannot be termed as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In support of this proposition, learned senior counsel relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. reported in 333 ITR 547 (Del). It was further clarified by him that in reply to show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act issued by the learned CIT the appellant had specifically pointed out that as per the decision of this Bench of the ITAT in the case of Sahara Airlines (supra) payment for supplementary lease rent is exempt u/s 10(15A) of the Act, however, the learned CIT…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-01, DELHI vs. SPICEJET LTD., HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 880/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vizay Vasanta, CIT DR
Section 37(1)Section 40

…rior court then the same cannot be termed as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In support of this proposition, learned senior counsel relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. reported in 333 ITR 547 (Del). It was further clarified by him that in reply to show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act issued by the learned CIT the appellant had specifically pointed out that as per the decision of this Bench of the ITAT in the case of Sahara Airlines (supra) payment for supplementary lease rent is exempt u/s 10(15A) of the Act, however, the learned CIT…

NISARG ASSOCIATES ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT MUMBAI-20, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 755/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenisarg Associates V. Ld. Pr.Cit – Mumbai – 20 Room No. 418, Piramal Chambers 1304, Ashok Heights, Near Nicco Circle Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 Nikolas Wadi Road, Gundavalli Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400069 Pan: Aahfn4619F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By Shri Ronak G. Doshi & : Shri Chaitanya D. Joshi Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ects examined during the course of 20 Nisarg Associates assessment proceedings, for the above contention he relied on the following case laws: - (i). CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.[(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay HC)] (ii). CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. [(2011) 333 ITR 547 (Delhi HC)] (iii). CIT v. v. Nirma Chemicals Works (P.) Ltd [(2009) 309 ITR 67 (Gujarat HC)] (iv). State Bank of India v. ACIT (2018) (411 ITR 664)(Bom HC) 17. With regard to Ground No. 2 which is in respect of disallowance of remuneration/salary and interest paid to partners (Partnership firms), Ld. AR submitted that Partnership firm can be a p…

LABDHI JEWELLERD PVT. LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 106/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

…cals Works (P.) Ltd. 309 ITR 67 (Guj)  Rayon Silk Mills vs. CIT 221 ITR 155 (Guj)  Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT 263 ITR 437 (P&H)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom)  CIT vs. Vikas Polymears 341 ITR 537 (Del)  CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products 333 ITR 547 (Del) 9. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that if two views are possible, revision under section 263 is not justified as the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible view thus, the Assessing Officer is merely on different view could not ITA Nos.104 & 106/SRT/2022 (A.Y 17-18) K.N.Diamond & Labdhi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd have taken on differen…

K. N. DIAMOND,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

…cals Works (P.) Ltd. 309 ITR 67 (Guj)  Rayon Silk Mills vs. CIT 221 ITR 155 (Guj)  Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT 263 ITR 437 (P&H)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom)  CIT vs. Vikas Polymears 341 ITR 537 (Del)  CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products 333 ITR 547 (Del) 9. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that if two views are possible, revision under section 263 is not justified as the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible view thus, the Assessing Officer is merely on different view could not ITA Nos.104 & 106/SRT/2022 (A.Y 17-18) K.N.Diamond & Labdhi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd have taken on differen…

M/S ARENA ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , MUMBAI-17

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 862/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Arena Enterprise V. Pcit –Mumbai-17 Cts No. 20, Arena Space, Village Majas Room No. 120, 1St Floor Jvlr, Behind Majas Depot Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai - 400060 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aanfa3473E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Mrugakshi Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…led before him, the order cannot be regarded to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Reliance was placed in this regard on the following cases:- (i). CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., 333 ITR 547 (Del) (ii). 7 ITA.Nos. 170 TO 173/PNJ/2014 (ASST. YEARS: 2006-07 & 2010-11) (iii). CIT vs. Anand Food Products, 39 taxmann.com 187 (AP) (iv). CIT vs. Amit Corporation, 21 taxmann.com 64 (Guj) (v). CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Del) (vi). CIT vs. MeshanaDist Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd., 263 ITR 645 (Guj) (vii). PyarelalJaiswal vs. CIT…

SAMIR YOGENDRABHAI PARIKH,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 102/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh. The Pr.Cit, Alka Society, Chhapara Road, Valsad. Vs. Dist.-Navsari-396445, Gujarat. Pan No. Abgpp 6727 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

…Guj) (iii) Rayon Silk Mills Vs CIT 221 ITR 155 @ 158-159 (Guj) (iv) Hari Iron Trading Co. Vs CIT (2003) 263 ITR 437 (P&H) (v) CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (vi) CIT Vs Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del) (vii)CIT Vs Honda Siel Power Products 333 ITR 547 @ 557-558 (Del) 7. The ld. Senior Counsel submits that the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice dated 30/01/2019 for seeking details of profession, tax audit report and annual account. The copy of said show cause notice is placed on record. The assessee vide his reply dated 19/04/2019 furnished complete details of profession, computation of…

Showing 1–20 of 76 · Page 1 of 4

CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. (333 ITR 547) — Cited in 76 Judgments | BharatTax