How many judgments cite CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.?

205 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. (341 ITR 293), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 32, Section 132, Section 153A, Section 142(1).

CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.

341 ITR 293High Court2012#443 most cited

What is CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. authority for?

A Commissioner can revise an assessment order under Section 263 if it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. This includes cases where the Assessing Officer fails to make further inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements in the return.

205

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd. · Section 263 · lack of enquiry · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · Commissioner revisionary power · Assessing Officer duty to inquire · revision of assessment order · 2012 Karnataka High Court

Also reported as

17 Taxmann.com 203237 CTR 141

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 32 Section 132 Section 153A Section 142(1)Section 14A Section 37

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

csr expenditure section 135 lack of enquiry malabar industrial application of income disallowance under section 14a erroneous and prejudicial capital expenditure section 40(a)section 40(a)(ia)liable to tax disallowance u/s 14a

Judgments citing CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.

M/S United Breweries Ltd vs. C.I.T

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 782/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. B. R Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Anitha R, CAFor Respondent: Smt Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 194C(2)Section 244ASection 263Section 40

…s not discussed anything on the impugned issues in both the years and hence the assessment orders are rendered erroneous and in support of this proposition, the DR relied upon the decision of Jurisdictional High court in the matter of Infosys Technologies Ltd 17 Taxmann.com 203. The Ld D.R also furnished a copy of assessment order passed by the AO in pursuance of revision order passed by Ld CIT and submitted that the AO has made the additions pointed out by Ld CIT. 09 We have considered the rival contentions and submissions including the decisions relied upon by both the sides. At the time of argument the Ld. A…

Indian International Centre, New Delhi vs. CIT(E), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3110/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11 India International Centre, Vs. Cit (E), 40, Max Muller Marg, Room No.2620, Lodhi Estate, Civic Centre, New Delhi. Jl Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Pan: Aaati0660C

For Appellant: Shri Angadh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(15)Section 263

…as to be brought to tax, which the AO has failed to do. Thus, the order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4.3. Support is drawn from the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of Infosys Technologies Ltd. reported in 341 ITR 293 (Kar) wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed that 'The provision is intended to plug leakages to the revenue by erroneous orders passed by the lower authorities, whether by mistake or in ignorance or even by design' The decision of the Hon'ble Full Bench of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Jawahar Bhattacharjee reported in 341 ITR 4…

Vijaya Bank, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 1163/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Vijaya Bank, Head Office, Central Accounts Dept. 41/2, M.G. Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aaacv 4791 J Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Large Tax Unit, Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.Ananthan, Ca. Respondent By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr). Date Of Hearing : 30/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/12/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee-Bank-Bank, Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short].

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s.Vijaya Bank, Head Office, Central Accounts Dept. 41/2, M.G. Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant PAN:AAACV 4791 J Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Large Tax Unit, Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri S.Ananthan, CA. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR). Date of hearing : 30/10/2018 Date of pronouncement : 05/12/2018 O R D E R Per INTURI RAMA RAO, AM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee-bank-bank, directed against the order of the ld. Commissi…

M/S Preet Land Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mohali vs. Pr. CIT-2, Chandigarh

ITA 736/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Ao During Original Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri. Parikshit AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri. Jagjivan Kumar Garg

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ion and findings should be forthcoming in the order. 10.4 There is no such activity conducted by the Assessing Officer in the instant case. This proposition has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT Vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. 341 ITR 293. Similarly in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. In the instant case the Assessing Officer has presumed without any basic enquiry that the details filed or in order, to…

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 467/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 467/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 43Section 43B

…CIT v. Force Motors Ltd.: ITA No. 5296 of 2010 (Bom) • CIT v. Sundaram Industries Ltd 240 ITR 335 (Mad) • Gujarat State Export Corporation Ltd. v. CIT: 209 ITR 649 (Guj.) • CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.: 205 Taxman 59 (Kar) 162 • Assam Brook Ltd. v CIT: 267 ITR 121 (Cal) • DCIT v. Max India Ltd (2007) 112 TTJ (Asr.) 726 (Bom); • American Express International Banking Corporation v CIT 258 ITR 601. The Ld. AR further submitted that the aforesaid issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2004-O5, 2005-…

Gumpro Drilling Fluids Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 15, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2868/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids Vs Pr. Cit-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5Th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, Lbs M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcg2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri L.K.S. Dahiya Cit-Dr

Section 120Section 144ASection 263Section 35

…pon the Commissioner to revise the order. The provision is intended to plug the leakage of the revenue by the erroneous and prejudicial order. Our view find support from the ratio laid down in following decisions:- i. CIT vs Infosys Technologies ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 293 (Karn.), 21 ii. CIT vs Jawahar Bhattacharyaji (2012) 341 ITR 434 (Guwahati) (FB), iii. CIT vs Leisure wear Exports Ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 166 (Del.), iv. CIT vs Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 366 (Del.), v. R.A. Himmatsinghka & Company vs CIT (2012) 340 ITR 253 (Pat.) vi. CIT vs Rajeev Agnihotri (2011) 332 ITR 608 (P & H), vii. CIT v…

Anand Prasad Jaiswal, Cuttack vs. Principal CIT, Cuttack

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 343/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CITDR

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कटक "यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM Anand Prasad Jaiswal, Vs. Principal Commissioner Prop-Anand Steel & Pipes, of Income Tax, Cuttack- At-Piligrim Road, College 753008 Square, Cuttack-753003 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/TAN No. : AGGPJ 3815 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri K.K.Bal, AR राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Saad Kidwai, CITDR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 21/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement 06/09/2018 आदेश / O R D E R…

Adambandh Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT - 8, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1206/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. S.S.Godara[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Vs Cit, Adambandh Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Kol-8, 54/1, Rafi C/O-S.L.Kochar, Advocate, 86, Ahmed Kidwai Road, Canning Street, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata-700016. Pan-Aaaaa2455 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Anil Kochar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2018 Order

Section 143Section 143(1)(e)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C”, KOLKATA BEFORE SH. J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2011-12] vs CIT, Adambandh Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Kol-8, 54/1, Rafi C/o-S.L.Kochar, Advocate, 86, Ahmed Kidwai Road, Canning Street, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata-700016. PAN-AAAAA2455 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Anil Kochar, Advocate Respondent by Sh. G.Mallikarjuna, CIT DR Date of Hearing 04.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement 24.08.2018 ORDER PER J.SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed ag…

M/S Rassco Steels Ltd., Kolkata vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 904/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & M.Balaganesh, Am]

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…id presumption, is thus converted into a conclusive proof of the fact that the order was passed by the assessing officer after due application of mind. Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.I.T., ITA No. 116 /Coch/ 2012; CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka); S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; Hindusthan Tin Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 275 ITR 43 (Del), distinguished. 12. We note that the AO has not accepted the return of income which was filed by the assessee showing gross profit rate of 2.5% on the undisclosed sales. We note that the AO had…

Manoir Petro India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

ITA 2626/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manoir Petro India Limited, Pr. Cit-1 602, B-Wing, Universal Room No.387, बनाम/ Business Park, Chandivali 3Rd Floor, Vs. Farm Road, Off Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aafcm5210J

Section 263

…n the Commissioner to revise the order. The provision is intended to plug the leakage of the revenue by the erroneous and prejudicial order. Our view find support from the ratio laid down in following decisions:- i. CIT vs Infosys Technologies ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 293 (Karn.), 23 Manoir Petro India Limited ITA No.2626/Mum/2015 & C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 ii. CIT vs Jawahar Bhattacharyaji (2012) 341 ITR 434 (Guwahati) (FB), iii. CIT vs Leisure wear Exports Ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 166 (Del.), iv. CIT vs Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 366 (Del.), v. R.A. Himmatsinghka & Company vs CIT (2012) 340 ITR 253 (Pa…

V.R. Powerequipments Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 289/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 May 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…e, therefore, the expenditure incurred by the assessee for obtaining the ISO Certificate is of revenue expenditure. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. 349 ITR 582 (Kar.) and submitted that an identical issue has been decided by the Hon’ble High Court in treating the said expenditure as an allowable revenue expenditure. 3.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has relied upon the impugned order of the Pr. CIT and submitted that the ISO Certificate expenses have been incurred to derive benefit of enduring nat…

Saigal Sea Trade, Mumbai vs. CIT -18, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2511/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

Section 142(1)Section 263

…on the Commissioner to revise the order. The provision is intended to plug the leakage of the revenue by the erroneous and prejudicial order. Our view find support from the ratio laid down in following decisions:- i. CIT vs Infosys Technologies ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 293 (Karn.), ii. CIT vs Jawahar Bhattacharyaji (2012) 341 ITR 434 (Guwahati) (FB), iii. CIT vs Leisure wear Exports Ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 166 (Del.), iv. CIT vs Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 366 (Del.), v. R.A. Himmatsinghka & Company vs CIT (2012) 340 ITR 253 (Pat.) vi. CIT vs Rajeev Agnihotri (2011) 332 ITR 608 (P & H), vii. CIT vs DL…

M/S/ Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 816/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

…id presumption, is thus converted into a conclusive proof of the fact that the order was passed by the assessing officer after due application of mind. Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.I.T., ITA No. 116 /Coch/ 2012; CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka); S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; Hindusthan Tin Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 275 ITR 43 (Del), distinguished. (Paras 90-92, 102) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SOHANA WOOLLEN MILLS 296 ITR 238 (P&H HC) A reference to the provisions of s. 263 shows that jurisdiction thereunder can be exerc…

M/S/ Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 815/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

…id presumption, is thus converted into a conclusive proof of the fact that the order was passed by the assessing officer after due application of mind. Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.I.T., ITA No. 116 /Coch/ 2012; CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka); S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; Hindusthan Tin Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 275 ITR 43 (Del), distinguished. (Paras 90-92, 102) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SOHANA WOOLLEN MILLS 296 ITR 238 (P&H HC) A reference to the provisions of s. 263 shows that jurisdiction thereunder can be exerc…

M/S/ Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 814/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

…id presumption, is thus converted into a conclusive proof of the fact that the order was passed by the assessing officer after due application of mind. Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.I.T., ITA No. 116 /Coch/ 2012; CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka); S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; Hindusthan Tin Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 275 ITR 43 (Del), distinguished. (Paras 90-92, 102) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SOHANA WOOLLEN MILLS 296 ITR 238 (P&H HC) A reference to the provisions of s. 263 shows that jurisdiction thereunder can be exerc…

M/S/ Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 813/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

…id presumption, is thus converted into a conclusive proof of the fact that the order was passed by the assessing officer after due application of mind. Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.I.T., ITA No. 116 /Coch/ 2012; CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka); S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; Hindusthan Tin Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 275 ITR 43 (Del), distinguished. (Paras 90-92, 102) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SOHANA WOOLLEN MILLS 296 ITR 238 (P&H HC) A reference to the provisions of s. 263 shows that jurisdiction thereunder can be exerc…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3609/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3608/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

M/S. Castron Technologies Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Hqrs.-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 945/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judical Member] I.T.A. No. 945/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Castron Technologies Ltd……...……………………...………………………….......… Appellant 14, Bentinck Street Room No.8 1St Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aabcc 0646 G] A.C.I.T. Hqrs.- (1), Kolkata….…….………………………………………….……………....Respondent Ayakar Bhawan P-7, Chowringhee Square Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Siddharta Jhaharia, Fca & Shri Sujoy Sen, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 8Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 04Th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 263(1)

…id presumption, is thus converted into a conclusive proof of the fact that the order was passed by the assessing officer after due application of mind. Meerut Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.I.T., ITA No. 116 /Coch/ 2012; CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd., 341 ITR 293 (Karnataka); S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984; A. A. Doshi vs. JCIT, 256 ITR 685; Hindusthan Tin Works Ltd. Vs. CIT, 275 ITR 43 (Del), distinguished. (Paras 90-92, 102) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SOHANA WOOLLEN MILLS 296 ITR 238 (P&H HC) A reference to the provisions of s. 263 shows that jurisdiction thereunder can be exerc…

Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corp. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, both set of cross appeals for the respective assessment years are disposed off with above directions

ITA 380/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P C ParwalFor Respondent: Shri Varindar Mehta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 380 & 381/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 cuke M/s Rajasthan State Industrial ACIT Vs. Development & Investment Corp. Circle-6, Ltd., Jaipur. Udyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C- scheme, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AABCR 4695 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 511 & 512/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k…