CIT v. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd.

366 ITR 593High Court2014#839 most cited

What is CIT v. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. authority for?

An assessment order is not "erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer conducted appropriate inquiries and applied their mind, as evidenced by assessment records and order sheets. The question of non-application of mind is a factual one, with a legal presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.

124

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. · Section 263 · revision under Section 263 · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · application of mind by Assessing Officer · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · Section 143(3) · scope of Section 263 · presumption under Section 114 · PCIT revision powers · Assessing Officer enquiry

Also reported as

46 Taxmann.com 215225 Taxmann 17

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 142(1)Section 1961Section 115BBESection 144BSection 147Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 44aesection 114inadequate enquiryprejudicial to interest of revenuelack of enquirymalabar industrialrevision u/s 263section 263(1)erroneous and prejudicialkelvinatorprincipal commissioner of income-taxsection 69b

Judgments citing CIT v. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd.

Anjani Agarwal, Kolkata vs. PCIT (Central) Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 403/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Pcit (Central) Kolkata-2, Anjani Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle-4(3), 1D, Ashoka, 14, Ashoka Road, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Alipore H.O. Vs. 110, Shantipally, Kolkata- Kolkata-700027, West Bengal 700107, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aehpa0038H Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(x)

…his argument relied on the decision of JL Morison (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.786/Kol/2010, which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court as reported in Commissioner of Income-tax, Central - I, KolKata vs. J. L. Morrison (India) Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 593 (Calcutta) dated 15-05-2014. The ld. AR also relied on the decision of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2023] 146 taxmann.com 246 (Calcutta)[25-08-2022], Commissioner of Income- tax vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi), PCIT Vs V. Con Integrated Solutions (P) Ltd (2025) 173 taxmann.com 773(P&H) which…

Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Rajkot vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

ITA 276/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 274 To 276/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Vs. The Pcit-1, Umakant Udhyognagar, Near Rajkot 360001 Gandhiya Estate, Mavdi Plot, Rajkot-360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpz0156C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 274 to 276/RJT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 to 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Vs. The PCIT-1, Umakant Udhyognagar, Near Rajkot 360001 Gandhiya Estate, Mavdi Plot, Rajkot-360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACPZ0156C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. AR राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of Hearing : 26/08/2025 घोषणाक"ता…

Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Rajkot vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

ITA 275/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 274 To 276/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Vs. The Pcit-1, Umakant Udhyognagar, Near Rajkot 360001 Gandhiya Estate, Mavdi Plot, Rajkot-360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpz0156C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 274 to 276/RJT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 to 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Vs. The PCIT-1, Umakant Udhyognagar, Near Rajkot 360001 Gandhiya Estate, Mavdi Plot, Rajkot-360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACPZ0156C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. AR राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of Hearing : 26/08/2025 घोषणाक"ता…

Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Rajkot vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

ITA 274/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 274 To 276/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Vs. The Pcit-1, Umakant Udhyognagar, Near Rajkot 360001 Gandhiya Estate, Mavdi Plot, Rajkot-360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpz0156C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 274 to 276/RJT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 to 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Vs. The PCIT-1, Umakant Udhyognagar, Near Rajkot 360001 Gandhiya Estate, Mavdi Plot, Rajkot-360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACPZ0156C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. AR राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of Hearing : 26/08/2025 घोषणाक"ता…

Milan Saini, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17Section 250(6)Section 28

…404 ITR 318 (Del HC) (viii) CIT vs. Shard Sinha [2016] 237 Taxman 111 (Del HC) (ix) PCIT vs. Pawa Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.: [2023] 457 ITR 392 (Del HC) (x) CIT v. Ambadi Enterprises Ltd.: (2004) 267 ITR 702 (Mad) (xi) CIT v. J. L. Morrison (India) Ltd. [2014] 366 ITR 593 (Cal) b. Section 28(ii)(e) of the Act provides that any compensation received/ receivable in connection with the termination or the modification of the terms and conditions of any contract relating to the business shall be taxable as business income; importantly, the said provision was introduced prospectively w.e.f. assessment year 2019-20. The…

M/S. Parishram Builders, Veraval vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 98/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.98/Rjt/2021 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Parisharam Builders The Pr. Commissioner Of बनाम Krunal Complex, Income Tax, Rajkot-1, 1St Floor, Junagadh Road, Veraval Vs. Rajkot Gujarat-362266 Pan : Aacfp5403G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…the impugned revision order is indeed unsustainable in law. It is not a case in which adequate enquiries has not been carried out.” [Emphasis given] M/s. Parisharam Builders ITA No.98 /RJT/2021 (AY : 2015-16) 10 (2) CIT vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 593 (Cal) “85. Whether the assessment order dated March 28, 2008, was passed without application of mind is basically a question of fact. The learned Tribunal has held that the assessment order was not passed without application of mind. The records of the assessment including the order-sheets go to show that appropriate enquiry was made and the Ass…

Radheshyam Paper Mills Private Limited, Lilapar Road, Lilapar vs. PCIT-Rajkot-1, Income Taxdepartment, Office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhavan Ring Road Race Course Rajkot

In the result, appeal OF the assessee is allowed

ITA 243/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Raiyani, Ld.A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi, Ld.CIT-D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 69Section 69B

…he Commissioner, cannot render an order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.” 15. The aforesaid position gets further strength from the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 593 (Cal), the relevant finding of which is applicable to the facts of the present assessee is quoted below : “85. Whether the assessment order dated March 28, 2008, was passed without application of mind is basically a question of fact. The learned Tribunal has held that the assessment order was not passed without application of mind. The records of…

Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri vs. P.C.I.T., Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 490/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM] I.T.A. Nos. 487 to 489/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2016-17 & I.T.A No. 490/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sushil Mitruka Vs. Pr. CIT, Siliguri G-208, City Centre, Office Block, P.O. Matigara-734010, Siliguri, Darjeeling (PAN: ACCPA9340F) Appellant Respondent Date of conclusion of Hearing 19.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.07.2025 For the Appellant Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Madanappa Raghuvir, CIT DR ORDER Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM The captioned four a…

Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri vs. P.C.I.T., Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 489/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM] I.T.A. Nos. 487 to 489/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2016-17 & I.T.A No. 490/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sushil Mitruka Vs. Pr. CIT, Siliguri G-208, City Centre, Office Block, P.O. Matigara-734010, Siliguri, Darjeeling (PAN: ACCPA9340F) Appellant Respondent Date of conclusion of Hearing 19.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.07.2025 For the Appellant Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Madanappa Raghuvir, CIT DR ORDER Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM The captioned four a…

Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri vs. P.C.I.T., Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 488/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM] I.T.A. Nos. 487 to 489/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2016-17 & I.T.A No. 490/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sushil Mitruka Vs. Pr. CIT, Siliguri G-208, City Centre, Office Block, P.O. Matigara-734010, Siliguri, Darjeeling (PAN: ACCPA9340F) Appellant Respondent Date of conclusion of Hearing 19.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.07.2025 For the Appellant Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Madanappa Raghuvir, CIT DR ORDER Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM The captioned four a…

Sushil Mitruka, Siliguri vs. P.C.I.T., Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 487/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM] I.T.A. Nos. 487 to 489/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2016-17 & I.T.A No. 490/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sushil Mitruka Vs. Pr. CIT, Siliguri G-208, City Centre, Office Block, P.O. Matigara-734010, Siliguri, Darjeeling (PAN: ACCPA9340F) Appellant Respondent Date of conclusion of Hearing 19.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.07.2025 For the Appellant Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Madanappa Raghuvir, CIT DR ORDER Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM The captioned four a…

Soham Papers Private Limited, Morbi vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 371/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…f the Commissioner, cannot render an order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.” 19.The aforesaid position gets further strength from the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 593 (Cal), the relevant finding of which is applicable to the facts of the present assessee is quoted below : “85. Whether the assessment order dated March 28, 2008, was passed without application of mind is basically a question of fact. The learned Tribunal has held that the assessment order was not passed without application of mind. The records o…

Shamji Nathu Vaishya, Veraval vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 327/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…f the Commissioner, cannot render an order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.” 19.The aforesaid position gets further strength from the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 593 (Cal), the relevant finding of which is applicable to the facts of the present assessee is quoted below : “85. Whether the assessment order dated March 28, 2008, was passed without application of mind is basically a question of fact. The learned Tribunal has held that the assessment order was not passed without application of mind. The records o…

Kishor Veljibhai Fofandi, Veraval vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 326/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…f the Commissioner, cannot render an order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.” 19.The aforesaid position gets further strength from the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 593 (Cal), the relevant finding of which is applicable to the facts of the present assessee is quoted below : “85. Whether the assessment order dated March 28, 2008, was passed without application of mind is basically a question of fact. The learned Tribunal has held that the assessment order was not passed without application of mind. The records o…

Deepmala Marine Exports, Veraval vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 324/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…f the Commissioner, cannot render an order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.” 19.The aforesaid position gets further strength from the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 593 (Cal), the relevant finding of which is applicable to the facts of the present assessee is quoted below : “85. Whether the assessment order dated March 28, 2008, was passed without application of mind is basically a question of fact. The learned Tribunal has held that the assessment order was not passed without application of mind. The records o…

Chunilal Govind Vanik, Veraval vs. Pr. CIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 323/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…f the Commissioner, cannot render an order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.” 19.The aforesaid position gets further strength from the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 593 (Cal), the relevant finding of which is applicable to the facts of the present assessee is quoted below : “85. Whether the assessment order dated March 28, 2008, was passed without application of mind is basically a question of fact. The learned Tribunal has held that the assessment order was not passed without application of mind. The records o…

Bharatkumar Kalyanjibhai Bhindi, Junagadh vs. PCIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 312/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhasr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 324/Rjt/2024 322/Rjt/2024 323/Rjt/2024 312/Rjt/2024 326/Rjt/2024 327/Rjt/2024 329/Rjt/2024 331/Rjt/2024 335/Rjt/2024 371/Rjt/2024

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…of the Commissioner, cannot render an order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.” 19.The aforesaid position gets further strength from the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 593 (Cal), the relevant finding of which is applicable to the facts of the present assessee is quoted below : “85. Whether the assessment order dated March 28, 2008, was passed without application of mind is basically a question of fact. The learned Tribunal has held that the assessment order was not passed without application of mind. The records of…

Alliance Nirmaan Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 263

…s that of the Commissioner, cannot render an order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The aforesaid position gets further strength from the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 593 (Cal), the relevant finding of which is applicable to the facts of the present assessee are given below: "85. Whether the assessment order dated March 28, 2008, was passed without application of mind is basically a question of fact. The learned Tribunal has held that the assessment order was not passed without application of mind. The records of…

Nature Commercial Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 853/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM] I.T.A. No. 853/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s Nature Commercial Pvt. Ltd. H. No. 175, Ground Floor, Gali No. 4, Near Shamsham Bhumi, East Delhi- 110032. (PAN: AACCN6158K) Appellant Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata. Respondent Date of conclusion of Hearing 14.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 22.05.2025 For the Appellant Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocates For the Respondent Shri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR ORDER Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM The appeal filed by the assessee is against…

Denish Khodidas Patel, Rajkot vs. Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.356/Rjt/2024 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Denish Khodidas Patel Vs. The Pr.Cit-1 Raag Mahavir Society, Street Rajkot No.2, Nirmala Convent School Road, Rajkot – 360005, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agipp1382Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Respondent By Shri Sanjay Punglia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06/03/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

Section 147Section 263Section 50C

…id not reach the right conclusions as a result of his enquiry, the impugned revision order is indeed unsustainable in law. It is not a case in which adequate enquiries has not been carried out.” [Emphasis given]” (2) CIT vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 593 (Cal) “85. Whether the assessment order dated March 28, 2008, was passed without application of mind is basically a question of fact. The learned Tribunal has held that the assessment order was not passed without application of mind. The records of the assessment including the order-sheets go to show that appropriate enquiry was made and the Asse…