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.

Bhaskar Arvind Kumar Hingad, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT-24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 692/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.692/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Bhaskar Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-24(1) Hingad 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Flat No. 1, Ratnakar Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Building, 26 Narayan Mumbai-400012. Dhabolkar Road, Mumbai- 400006. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacph2812F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2014- 15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…any infirmity in the above conclusion of the Tribunal.” 18 A.Y. 2014-15 Bhaskar Arvind Kumar Hingad 17. Gainful reference may also be made to the following observations made by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd (366 ITR 593) :- “As regard the submission on behalf of the Revenue that power under section 263 of the Act can be exercised even in a case where the issue is debatable, it was held that the case of CIT v. M.M. Khambhatwala was not applicable. The observation that the Commissioner can exercise power under section 263 of the Act even in a case were the issue i…

M/S Anu Cashews, Kollam vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kollam

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

ITA 700/COCH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 The Assistant M/S. Anu Cashews, Commissioner Of Parameswar Nagar, Income Tax, Kollam. Circle – 1, Pan: Aadfa7642K Vs. Kollam. Appellant Respondent : Shri G. Surendranath Rao, Assessee By Ca : Smt J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. Revenue By Ar Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 10/10/2019 Passed By Ld.Pcit, Thiruvananthapuram U/S. 263 Of The Act On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Against Law & Facts. 2. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Concluding That The Ao Had Completed The Assessment Without Verification & Application Of Mind. During The Original Assessment Proceedings The Ao Had Sought All Information On The Deduction Claimed Under Chapter Via. He Had Issued A Notice U/S 142(1) Dated 23.05.2017, In Which Inter Alia He Had Called For Reconciliation Of The Large Deduction Claimed U/S 80(Ia) With The Books Of Account

For Respondent: Shri G. Surendranath Rao
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…ried on by the assessing officer during the original assessment proceedings, it cannot be held that there is a non application of mind by the Ld.AO.  CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)  CIT vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. reported in 366 ITR 593 (Calcutta High Court)  NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT-V 45 reported in 392 ITR 426 (Del HC)  CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. reported in 256 ITR 1 (Del HC) 6. Assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in case of CIT vs. Accel Transmatic Systems Ltd. reported in [2010] 230 CTR 206 (Kerala) wherein the Hon’ble Court has h…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 5 vs. M/S Trimex Fiscal Services Pvt Ltd

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed and the order

ITAT/56/2021HC Calcutta25 Aug 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

…iness should be carried out. The commercial expediency has to be seen from the view point of the businessmen. Even under Rule 11 UA(2), though power has been 4 (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 5 (2014) 366 ITR 593 (Cal) 6 (2022) 135 taxmann.com 55 (Bom) 7 (2021) 130 taxmann.com 294 (SC) 8 (2019) 111 taxmann.com 287 (SC) ITAT NO. 56 OF 2021 Page 10 of 25 given to the assessing officer to substitute his own value in the place of the value determined, it would require recording of by the assessing officer to tinker with such valuation adopted by…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 1 vs. M/S Abc Papers Limited

Appeal is dismissed by upholding the order dated 07

C.A. No.-004252-004252 - 2022Supreme Court18 Aug 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 143Section 260A

…st deal with the order passed by the Assessing Officer, Delhi dated 30.12.2010, against which an appeal was decided by CIT (Appeals) – IV, New Delhi on 16.02.2012, against which the ITAT, New Delhi disposed of an 24 (2003) 126 Taxman 18 (Cal). 25 (2005) 272 ITR 321 (Cal). 26 (2014) 47 Taxmann.com 372 (Cal). 27 (2019) 415 ITR 294 (Bom). 28 (2013) 356 ITR 586 (Gau). Page 27 of 28 appeal on 11.05.2017, against which an appeal was filed in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana which it disposed of by order dated 07.02.2019, against which Civil Appeal No. 4252 of 2022 was filed before this Court. The sai…

Britannia Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 177/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Britannia Industries Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of 5/1A, Hungerford Street, Income-Tax Vs. Shakespeare Sarani, Circle-1 Kolkata-700 017 Kolkata (Pan: Aabcb2066P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca Respondent By : Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revisionary Order Of Ld. Pr. Cit, Kolkata-1 Vide Order No. Itba/Rev5/2021- 22/1040498620(1) Dated 09.03.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 U/S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sudipta Guha, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35Section 35(1)

…ionary proceeding invoked u/s. 263 of the Act and the order passed thereon is devoid of any merit, is baseless and bad in law. He also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court of Calcutta in the case of CIT v. J L Morrison & Co. Ltd. 366 ITR 593 (Cal). 11. Per contra, Ld. CIT, DR supported and placed reliance on the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT and submitted that the revisionary proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act have been rightly invoked since AO failed to conduct proper enquiry on both the issues stated in the show cause notice. Ld. CIT, DR further submitted that Ld. Pr. CIT has merely remit…

Kolkata Marine & Engineering Services (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

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

ITA 131/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…rated the submissions made by the assessee before the ld. PCIT during the revisionary proceedings. Reference was also made to paper book containing 89 pages dated 08.03.2022. Reliance was also placed on the following decisions: i) CIT Vs JL Morrison (I) Ltd (366 ITR 593) (Cal HC) (Head Notes) ii) K.R. Satyanarayan Vs CIT (126 taxmann.com 22) (Kar HC) Page 4 of 10 I.T.A. No.: 131/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kolkata Marine & Engineering Services Private Limited. iii) CIT Vs Suresh Paul Bansal (2 taxmann.com 260) (Del HC) iv) Chandravadan Desai Vs CIT (ITA Nos. 122-125/K/21) (ITAT Kol) v) CIT Vs Inbuilt Me…

Shri Nitin A Shirgurkar, Belgavi vs. Pr. CIT, Hubbali

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe

ITA 77/PAN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 194A(3)(iv)Section 263Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 77/PAN/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Nitin A. Shirgurkar Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubballi 17, Tridal 2nd Cross, Hindwadi Belagavi Karnataka - 590011 [PAN: AGVPS5635G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Pramod Vaidhya, Advocate Respondent by Rajan Kumar, CIT, D/R Date of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 13.05.2022 ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, J.M.: The captioned appeal is filed against the order of the Learned Principal Commission…

Facit Sales(P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kol-5, Kolkata

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

ITA 406/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

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

…emed fit and satisfied himself regarding the genuine receipt of Rs.5,00,000/- through banking channel on sale of shares of the company. Adequate enquiry was made and reliance was placed on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. (2004) 366 ITR 593 (Cal). ii) CIT vs. R.K. Construction (2009) 313 ITR 65 (Guj). iii) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (2010) 194 Taxman 504 (Del). iv) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). v) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom). vi) CIT vs. Deepak Mittal, 324 ITR 311 (P&H). vii) Smt. Juthika Kar vs. ITO [ITA No.1128/Kol/2009, order dated 1…

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

…did 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…

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

…did 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…

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

…did 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…

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

…did 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…

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

…did 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…

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

…did 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…

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

…did 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…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Canton Vinimay Pvt Ltd

ITAT/125/2021HC Calcutta13 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 127Section 256(1)Section 256(2)Section 260A

…the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.B.C. India Ltd. reported in [2003] 126 Taxman 18 (CAL) and the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd reported in [2005] 272 ITR 321 (Cal) and the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, 4 Kolkata-IV Vs. Akzo Nobel India Ltd. reported in [2014] 47 Taxman.com 372 (Cal). Mr. S. N. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Principal Commissioner while exercising his power under Section 127 of the Act has transferred all the assessment…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata vs. M/S Sagar Fintrade Pvt. Ltd.(Now Merged With M/S. Lucky Holding Private Ltd )

ITAT/126/2021HC Calcutta13 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 127Section 256(1)Section 256(2)Section 260A

…the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.B.C. India Ltd. reported in [2003] 126 Taxman 18 (CAL) and the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd reported in [2005] 272 ITR 321 (Cal) and the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, 4 Kolkata-IV Vs. Akzo Nobel India Ltd. reported in [2014] 47 Taxman.com 372 (Cal). Mr. S. N. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Principal Commissioner while exercising his power under Section 127 of the Act has transferred all the assessment…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Canton Vinimay Pvt Ltd(Now M/S. Lucky Holdings Pvt Ltd)

ITAT/131/2021HC Calcutta13 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 127Section 256(1)Section 256(2)Section 260A

…the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.B.C. India Ltd. reported in [2003] 126 Taxman 18 (CAL) and the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd reported in [2005] 272 ITR 321 (Cal) and the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, 4 Kolkata-IV Vs. Akzo Nobel India Ltd. reported in [2014] 47 Taxman.com 372 (Cal). Mr. S. N. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Principal Commissioner while exercising his power under Section 127 of the Act has transferred all the assessment…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Pavitra Trexim Pvt Ltd

ITAT/196/2019HC Calcutta13 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 127Section 256(1)Section 256(2)Section 260A

…the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.B.C. India Ltd. reported in [2003] 126 Taxman 18 (CAL) and the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd reported in [2005] 272 ITR 321 (Cal) and the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, 4 Kolkata-IV Vs. Akzo Nobel India Ltd. reported in [2014] 47 Taxman.com 372 (Cal). Mr. S. N. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Principal Commissioner while exercising his power under Section 127 of the Act has transferred all the assessment…

Kaushalya Dealers (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 419/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Kaushalya Dealers Pvt. Ito, Ward-4(4), Kolkata Ltd. 498/H/4, Karl Mark Vs. Sarani, Kolkata – 700 023. Pan: Aadck8028Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit (Dr). Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2021 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revisionary Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 29.05.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Hereinafter Referred To As The Pcit] Relevant To Ay 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Revisionary Jurisdiction Exercised By Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Of The Act & Also The Consequent Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act On The Ground That Revisionary Jurisdiction As Well As The Consequent Order Is Invalid & Nullity As Necessary Conditions Envisaged In Section 263 Of The Act Have Not Been Satisfied Before Invoking The Revisionary Jurisdiction. The Fact In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed A Return Of Income On 28.09.2015 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 69,040/- Which Was Processed U/S 2 Kaushalya Dealers (P) Ltd. 143(1) Of The Act. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Assessment Was Framed Vide Order Dated 05.09.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessing The Income At Rs. 69,040/- After Taking Into Account The Various Contentions/Replies Of The Assessee Filed During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sudipta Guha, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 50C

…wrong assumption of facts or incorrect application of law and therefore the revisionary powers have been invalidly exercised. The case of the assessee finds support from the decision of jurisdiction High Court in the case of CIT vs J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. 366 ITR 593 (Kolkata) wherein the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that where all the requisite evidences are on records and same were duly examined by the AO, then the order of the AO was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue after following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. 2…