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.

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 6021/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri K.N. Charry

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 14ASection 35DSection 43BSection 92C

…8 (Bom), CIT v. Force Motors Ltd.: ITA No. 5296 of 2010 (Bom), CIT v. Sundharam 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), Assam Brook Ltd. v CIT: 267 ITR 121 (Cal), DCIT v. Max India Ltd (2007) 112 TTJ (Asr.) 726, this 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, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. 8.1. On this aspect, Ld. DR submitted that in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited…

Reliance Money Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3259/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh

Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 50

…ting penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act qua the reduction of claim qua depreciation from Rs.8,66,52,484 to Rs.80,25,356/- . The Pr. CIT also relied on the certain case laws to set aside the order of the AO: i) CIT V/s Infosys Techlologies Ltd (2012) 341 ITR 293(Kar); ii) CIT V/s Shree Manjunatheshware Packing Products and Camphor works (1998 231 ITR 53(SC) and iii) Tara Devi Agrawal V CIT (1973)88 ITR 323 (SC) Ultimately, the ld. Pr. CIT has held that the assessment made by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on all the accounts for the reasons that the deductions were al…

Saregama India Limited, Kolkata vs. CIT-I, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1254/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Sept 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 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. ITA No.1254/Kol/2014 Saregama India Ltd. A.Y.2009-10 14 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…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-Cir-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3494/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Procter & Gamble Cit-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp6332M

Section 263Section 80I

…R 83 (SC), Swaroop Vegetables Products Industries Ltd. vs CIT 187 ITR 412 (All.), Raj laxmi Mills Ltd. 121 ITD 343 (SB)(ITAT)(Chennai) and SRM Systems and Software Pvt. Ltd. 2010-TIOL-646-HC-MAD-IT. Reliance was also placed in CIT vs Infosys Technologies Ltd. 341 ITR 293 and CIT vs Jawahar Bhattacharya Ji 341 ITR 434 (Gauh.-FB). It is also noted that in Kapil Ratan Associates vs CIT (2015) 55 taxman.com 60 (Mum. ITAT) order dated 14/01/2015, identically, supports the case of the Revenue. We have perused these orders and considered the ratio laid down therein. Likewise, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Rajmandir…

Kanhaiyalal Dudheria vs. JCIT

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 782/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Kalamadar, Standing Counsel

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 80G

…same should be allowed as deduction. Reliance was placed on the co-ordinate bench decision in the case of ACIT vs. Jindal Power Ltd. (70 taxmann.com 389) and the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs.Infosys Technologies Ltd. (360 ITR 714). On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for Revenue submitted that the expenditure cannot be allowed as deduction ITA Nos.782 & 1495/Bang/2016 Page 5 of 8 u/s 37(1) as the expenditure was towards charity. It is nothing but application of income and reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble MP High Court in the case…

M/S. Kanhaiyalal Dudheria, Sandur vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1495/BANG/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri B.S.Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Kalamadar, Standing Counsel

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 80G

Irshad Iqbal Sorathia, Sirsi vs. ITO, Sirsi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1143/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri Manoj D PUkale, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ll constitute information available with the CIT as per the provisions of Section 263. Hence we do not find any substance or merit in this objection raised by the assessee. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Infosys Technology Ltd. 341 ITR 293 has held that a finding of the Assessing Officer should be supported by a reason however brief it may be if the assessing authority fails in giving the reason then such order definitely constitute an order not merely erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of revenue and consequently, the CIT could be justified in exercising the jurisdic…

Embassy Brindavan Developers, Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 42/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Sitaraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT –DR-I

Section 143(3)Section 263

…1 Lacs being brokerage to Daulat Chhabria and Rs.28.09 Lacs being brokerage to Sadhawani International. 5. He also placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements:- a) Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs CIT 67 ITR 84(SC) b) CIT Vs Infosys Technologies Ltd. 341 ITR 293(Kar.) c) Swarup Vegetable Products Vs CIT 187 ITR 412(Alld.) d) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that there is no dispute on this aspect that the property in question was always shown by the assessee in the previous years as stock-in trade and this is not the case of the…

Raptakos Brett and Co.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2251/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2251/Mum/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनधम/ M/S Raptakos Brett & Co.Ltd. The Principal Commissioner Of 253, Dr.Annier Besant Road, Income Tax, Vs. Room No.559, 5Th Floor, Worli, Mumbai-400030 Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aaacr1772R अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Appellant By Shri Yogesh Thar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Shri B Pruseth सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :22.12.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.2.2015, Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Setting Aside The Assessing Order & Directing The Ao To Withdraw The Deduction Allowed By The Ao In Respect Of Advance To Subsidiary Written Off & Charged To The Profit & Loss Account.

Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 256Section 263

…araogi V/s CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) (c) Decision of Full Bench of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT V/s Jawahar Bhattachagee (341 ITR 434), (d) the decision of Hon’ble Karnatak High Court in the cae of CIT V/s Infosys Technologies Ltd reported in 17 Taxmann.com 203 (Kar) and (e) the Decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajyalakshmi Mill Ltd V/s ITO 313 ITR(AT) 182. 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us including the orders of authorities below and the case laws relied upon by both the parties. We find from the record av…

Rajhans Metals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT -9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2716/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri K. Krishna Murthy, DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D ” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Rajhans Metal Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The CIT-9, 3, Shifley Industrial Estate, Room No. 315, 3rd Floor, Off. S.V. Road, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, Goregaon (west), Mumbai Mumbai-400062 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K.K. Ved, AR Revenue by: Shri K. Krishna Murthy, DR Date of Hearing : 06/12/2016 Date of pronouncement: 16/12/2016 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year i…

Sri. R. Lokesh, Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1520/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raomr. R. Lokesh Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, No. 107, Ii Main Road, Bangalore – Iii, Chikkadugodi, Tavrekere Post, C. R. Buildings, Bangalore-560029. Queen’S Road, Pan : Aazpl 5461 F Bangalore – 560001. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G. R. Reddy, CIT-DR-I

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

…not offered the said amount of Rs.74,19,860/- as income and AO had failed to cause necessary enquiry on this aspect while passing impugned order and placing reliance on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. 341 ITR 293 and Thalibai Jain Vs. ITO 101 ITR 1 held that such order is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore set aside to the file of the AO for denovo examination of the issue after affording an opportunity to be heard to the assessee. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us in the present appeal. The lear…

M/S Ilc Industries, Hospet vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 847/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Verma, CIT - DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 37(1)

…ITA.847 & 848/Bang/2015 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'A', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A Nos.847 & 848/Bang/2015 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/s. ILC Industries Limited, D 6/7, Near Industrial Estate, Dam Road, Hospet 583 203 .. Appellant PAN : AABCI0361A v. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. Zain Ahmed Khan, CA Revenue by : Shri. Sunil Kumar Verma, CIT - DR Heard on : 28.09.2016 Pronounced on : 09.12.2016 O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOU…

M/S Bhadra Education Trust, Davangere vs. CIT, Davangere

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 607/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Shreehari Kulsa, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CIT - III

Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA.607/Bang/2014 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'C', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.607/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/s. Bhadra Education Trust, No.4120/1m 10th cross, Siddaveerappa Layout, Davangere .. Assessee PAN : AABTB4465H v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Davangere .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. Shreehari Kulsa, CA Revenue by : Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CIT - III Heard on : 27.09.2016 Pronounced on : 23.11.2016 O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This is an appeal filed by…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…T.C.(A).No.57 of 2006 (Mad.) v. CIT vsJayendrakumarHiralal: 327 ITR 147 (Guj.) vi. CIT vs. Karnataka Financial Corporation: 326 ITR 355 (Kar.) vii. Infosys Technologies Ltd. v. JCIT: 109 TTJ 631 (Bang. Trib.) -affirmed by the Karnataka High Court reported at 360 ITR 714 viii. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.: ITA No.: 3925/D/02 (Del.Trib.) ix. CIT v. Deversons Industries Ltd. 290 ITR (AT) 287 (Ahd) x. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 96 ITD 186 (Bom.) Display of name/Publicity expense (i) CIT v. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd.: 115 ITR659 (Del.) (ii) CIT v. Lake Palace Hotels & Motels (P) Ltd.: 293 ITR 28…

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

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

ITA 2340/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2011-12 India Habitat Centre, Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Lodi Road, Vs. Pratyakash Kar Bhavan, E- New Delhi - 110003 2, Block, 26Th Floor, Dr. (Pan: Aaati0499M) Shyama Prasad Mukherjeemarg, Civic Centre, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi – 110 002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Ananthraman, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Satpal Gulati, CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…16.3.2016 by holding the assessment order dated 24.3.2014 passed u/s. 143(3) 6 of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue by citing the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Infosys Technologies Ltd. reported in 341 ITR 293 (Kar.). Thereafter, Ld. CIT(E) set aside the assessment with the directions to the AO to examine the issue in details in view of the Memorandum of Association and Dissolution clause. 4. Against the above order of the Ld. CIT(E) dated 15/16.03.2016 passed u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act, the assessee appealed before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of…

M/S Ramgad Minerals and Mining Ltd., Hospet vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Gulbarga

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

ITA 1484/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Ramgad Minerals & Mining Ltd., Abheraj Baldota Road, Hospet-583203. … Appellant Pan:Aaacr 8532 R Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Bellary. … Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. R.Prathibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 40a

…e are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court has rightly held that the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263(l) was justified. ” Even the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. (341 ITR 290) upheld assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 by the CIT to set aside assessment order passed without making any enquiry and accepting the claim. The following Explanation has been inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1/6/2015 by way of Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act: “Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby decla…

M/S. State Bank of Mauritius Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Dy DIT (Int Tax) 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 3139/MUM/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2016AY 2000-2001

For Appellant: Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri T.R. Paite-Sr.AR

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “एल मुंबई एल एल” खंडपीठ एल खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“L”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अिमत शु"ल "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amit Shukla,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./3139/Mum/2008,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2000-01 वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./3140/Mum/2008,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2001-02 वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./3141/Mum/2008,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessmen…

Real Trade Technologies, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 28, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2929/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…r enquiries as warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case would render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Ld D.R also relied upon the decision rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd (341 ITR 293)(Kar). The Ld D.R also relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabh Bachchan (Civil Appeal No.5009 of 2016 dated 11-05-2016. However, after hearing Ld A.R, we noticed that the said decision was not applicable to the present case, as it has been rendered in a different context. In effect, the Ld D.R con…

Apple India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 824/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Apple India Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Concorde Tower ‘C’ Ub City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001. … Appellant Pa No.Aaacv 7566 R Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(1), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)

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

…e, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court has rightly held that the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263(l) was justified. ” 5.2 Even the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. (341 ITR 290) upheld assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 by the CIT to set aside assessment order passed without making any enquiry and accepting the claim. In light of the above legal position, we uphold assumption of jurisdiction by the Principal Commissioner u/s 263 of the Act in the facts of the present case. The proposition canvassed by the learned AR of…

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

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5720/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. Additional Cit, Plot No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, Range-6, Vasant Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacm0829Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Neeraj Jain, Rohit Jain, Adv. Romit Katyal & Ms. Tejasvi Jain, Cas Department By:Shri Amrendra Kumar, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: S/Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. NeerajFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

…)   CIT vs Force Motors Ltd.: ITA No. 5296 of 2010 (Bom)  CIT v Sundharam Industries Ltd 240 ITR 335 (Mad);  Gujarat State Export Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT: 209 ITR 649 (Guj.)  CIT vs Infosys Technologies Ltd.: 205 Taxman 59 (Kar) Assam Brook Ltd. vs CIT: 267 ITR 121 (Cal) DCIT v Max India Ltd (2007) 112 TTJ (Asr.) 726  The aforesaid issue is also covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the Tribunal in the appellant’s own case for the AY’s 2001- 02, 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07. 19.1 The Learned CIT(DR) on the other hand tried to justify the orders of the authorities below on the issue…