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.

Bhawani Conclave Pvt. Ltd., Howra vs. PCIT-5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 481/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey & Dr. M. L. Meena]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40a(2)(b)

…e AO’s action of non- recording about his enquiry while framing the assessment order on these three items does not make the order bad for lack of enquiry. For this, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of J. L. Morrison 366 ITR 593(Cal). In the light of the aforesaid discussion we hold that the Ld. Pr. CIT has erroneously assumed jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, therefore, the impugned order of the Ld. Pr. CIT is quashed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 15th September, 2021. (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Memb…

M/S. Origami Cellulo Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 394/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR-III)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92A(2)Section 92C

…s held by the Bangalore ITAT in Texport Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT. Reliance was also placed on the following decisions:- Eveready Industries India Ltd. v. PCIT (ITA No.805/Kol/2019) Malabar Industries Ltd. v. CUT [20000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) CIT v. J.L. Morrison (I) Ltd. 366 ITR 593 CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 Page 5 of 31 8. The ld. AR accordingly prayed that the impugned order of the PCIT should be quashed. 9. On the other hand, the ld. DR submitted that apart from the reasons mentioned in para 2 hereinabove for scrutiny, there were payments to related persons specified in section 40A(2)(b) duly reported in audi…

M/S P.S. Srijan Height Developers, Kolkata vs. PCIT-II, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 421/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Vp & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 263

…order is not the result of non-application of mind or wrong assumption of facts or without any enquiry. Useful reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs J.L. Morrison (I) Ltd (366 ITR 593), wherein their Lordships explaining the difference between ‘lack of enquiry’ and ‘inadequate enquiry’ held as follows:- "86. Whether the assessment order dated 28th March, 2008 was passed without application of mind is basically a question of fact. The learned Tribunal has held that the assessment order was 8 P. S. Srijan Height Developers , AY…

Shree Kumar Bangur, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-29, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as indicated above

ITA 365/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 234BSection 24Section 263

…acts, the AO had allowed the claim of the assessee and, therefore, there is no error on the part of the AO and it cannot be said that there was no enquiry and he referred to Hon’ble Calcutta High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. J. L. Morrison India Ltd. 366 ITR 593 wherein the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held at Para 88 & 89 as under: “88. The Assessing Officer was required to examine the return filed by the assessee in order to ascertain his income and to levy appropriate tax on that basis. When the Assessing Officer was satisfied that the return, filed by the assessee, was in accordance with law, he…

Decent Enclave (P) Ltd. (Formerly Known As Drishti Auto Part Accesories (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-4, Kolkata

ITA 39/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

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

…time of examination by the CIT. Nothing bars/prohibits the CIT from collecting and relying upon new/additional material/evidence to show and state that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. 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 vs. 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 is d…

M/S Kbr Township Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO-4(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 396/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 396/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Kbr Township Pvt. Ltd……………...................…..……………………………………………….…..Appellant Room No. 4 Martin Burn Building 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aabck 0777 A] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Kolkata.....................................................................………..Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…vidence to show and state that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. J. L. MORRISON (INDIA) LTD. 366 ITR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. J. L. MORRISON (INDIA) LTD. 366 ITR 593 As regard the submission on behalf of the Revenue that power under Section 263 As regard the submission on behalf of the Revenue that power under Section 263 As regard the submission on behalf of the Revenue that power under Section 263 of the Act can be exercised even in a case of the Act can be exercised even in a case where the issue is debata…

Nextgen Vyapaar, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1176/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2021AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…aterial/evidence to show and state that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. J. L. MORRISON (INDIA) LTD. 366 ITR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. J. L. MORRISON (INDIA) LTD. 366 ITR 593 As regard the submission on behalf of the Revenue that power under Section 263 of the As regard the submission on behalf of the Revenue that power under Section 263 of the 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 cas…

M/S Metal Craft Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-12(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 800/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2021AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

…aterial/evidence to show and state that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. J. L. MORRISON (INDIA) LTD. 366 ITR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. J. L. MORRISON (INDIA) LTD. 366 ITR 593 As regard the submission on behalf of the Revenue that power under Section 263 of the As regard the submission on behalf of the Revenue that power under Section 263 of the 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 cas…

Enkay Traffin (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-4, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1177/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2021AY 2012-13
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

…aterial/evidence to show and state that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. J. L. MORRISON (INDIA) LTD. 366 ITR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. J. L. MORRISON (INDIA) LTD. 366 ITR 593 As regard the submission on behalf of the Revenue that power under Section 263 of the As regard the submission on behalf of the Revenue that power under Section 263 of the 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 cas…

K R Satyanarayana vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the orders passed by the Commissioner of

ITA/192/2015HC Karnataka21 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(2)Section 154Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 50CSection 80C

…enquiries as required by Explanation 2(a) of Section 263 of the Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'CALCUTTA DISCOUNT CO. VS. ITO', (1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC), 'CIT VS. J.L. MORRISON (INDIA) LTD.', 8 (2014) 366 ITR 593 (CAL), 'CIT VS. SUNSCAM AUTO LTD.', (2011) 332 ITR 167 (DEL), 'CIT VS. ARVIND JEWELLERS', (2003) 259 ITR 502 (GUJ), 'CIT VS. DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK', (2010) 323 ITR 206 and 'CIT VS. MARKETING AND ADVERTISING CO.', (2012) 341 ITR 180. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the assessee neither in the r…

Nilkanth Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1853/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…anth Dealcom Pvt. Ltd Nilkanth Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. this issue has been settled by various Courts of law. The relevant case this issue has been settled by various Courts of law. The relevant case- -law are provided as under:-  J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 593 (Cal.) J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 593 (Cal.) Section 4, read with Section 263, of the Income Section 4, read with Section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Income Income - Chargeable as - Assessment year 2006 Assessment year 2006-07 - Assessee entered into an agreement with a German Assessee entered into an agreement with a German…

Padam Kumae Jain, Ranchi vs. CIT, Central, Patna

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

ITA 289/RAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Ran/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Padam Kumar Jain Vs. Cit, Central, Cr Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna – 800001. Ratanlalsurajmal Compound, Main Road, Ranchi – 834001, Jharkhand "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abrpj 0001 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Chaudhury & Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…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 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…

Gouri Shankar Goyal, Siliguri vs. I.T.O.Ward-1(3), Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 517/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.517/Kol/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2014-15) Gouri Shankar Goyal Vs. Pcit, Siliguri

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…f 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 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 o…

M/S. Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 355/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 35A

…s. DLF Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 555 (Delhi), decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Spectra shares and Scrips Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 35(AP) and decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 593 (cal.) and submitted that there should be an essential element of “unsustainability” in the order of the AO, and not mere prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue or a mere erroneous view, which can be revised u/s 263 of the Act. 92. 4.6 The appellant relies on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Globus Infocum Ltd. vs. C…

M/S. Y.R. Traders (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Kolkata - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1006/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1006/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…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 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…

Sanjay Kumar Surana, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-12, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 902/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, V.P (Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm ]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…herefore, the order passed by the AO can neither be held as erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue as discussed above. For this purpose, we rely upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT-vs- J.L. Morrision (India) Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 593 (Cal.), the relevant portion of which 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 the assessment including the order- sheets go to s…

M/S Patron Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-10(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1614/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…time of examination by the CIT. Nothing bars/prohibits the CIT from collecting and relying upon new/additional material/evidence to show and state that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. 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 vs. 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 is…

M/S. Eveready Industries India Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 805/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…and when it can be termed as erroneous for usurpation of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. For better understanding of this aspect, we can take help of the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs J.L. Morrison (I) Ltd (366 ITR 593), wherein their Lordships explained the difference between the two as follows:- "86. Whether the assessment order dated 28th March, 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…

Dipanjan Basak, Kolkata vs. ACIT(It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

ITA 1316/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.Ta No.1303/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Mahesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It&Tp), C/O Ibm India Private Limited Global Kolkata Process Services-1A, Tax Team Hr Delivery Centre ‘D1’, 4Th Floor, Manyata Business Park, Outer Ring Road, Nagawara, Karnataka-560045. (Pan:Apspk6683A) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1307/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Smt. Lisa Das Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bl-353, Sector-2, Salt Lake, Kolkata- (It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata. 700 091. (Pan: Amqpd7668B) Appellant Respondent I.Ta Nos.1309/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Samir Kumar Nayak Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), Sales Tax Office Lane, Balasore, Kolkata. Odisha-756001. (Pan: Afcpn5619M) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1310/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Balakalyan Chowdary Marathu Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 2/423-C, Mangalamitra, Rajampet, Kolkata. Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh-516115 (Pan: Asrpm6979R) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1312/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Biswajit Swain Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 60/4A, Haran Banerjee Lane, Kolkata. Konnagar, Hooghly, West Bengal- 712235 (Pan: Aysps1745C) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1313/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Azharul Haque Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Flat 6, Building 1, Sayed Ismail Lane, Tax (It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. Ays- 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…ctually erroneous. 11. In order to understand the difference between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate inquiry" and when it can be termed as erroneous, let us look at the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs J.L. Morrison (I) Ltd (366 ITR 593), wherein on similar facts & circumstances, their Lordships explained the difference between the two as follows:- "14. The case of the CIT in his notice dated 26th November, 2009 under Section 263 of the Act reads as follows :-- "1. During the said A.Y., you have received a sum of Rs.18.00 Crore from M/s. Beierdorf AG., Germany (BDF) as one-tim…

Azharul Haque, Kolkata vs. ACIT(It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

ITA 1313/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.Ta No.1303/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Mahesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (It&Tp), C/O Ibm India Private Limited Global Kolkata Process Services-1A, Tax Team Hr Delivery Centre ‘D1’, 4Th Floor, Manyata Business Park, Outer Ring Road, Nagawara, Karnataka-560045. (Pan:Apspk6683A) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1307/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Smt. Lisa Das Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bl-353, Sector-2, Salt Lake, Kolkata- (It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata. 700 091. (Pan: Amqpd7668B) Appellant Respondent I.Ta Nos.1309/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Samir Kumar Nayak Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), Sales Tax Office Lane, Balasore, Kolkata. Odisha-756001. (Pan: Afcpn5619M) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1310/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Balakalyan Chowdary Marathu Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 2/423-C, Mangalamitra, Rajampet, Kolkata. Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh-516115 (Pan: Asrpm6979R) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1312/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Biswajit Swain Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It&Tp), 60/4A, Haran Banerjee Lane, Kolkata. Konnagar, Hooghly, West Bengal- 712235 (Pan: Aysps1745C) Appellant Respondent I.Ta No.1313/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 Azharul Haque Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Flat 6, Building 1, Sayed Ismail Lane, Tax (It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata. Ays- 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…ctually erroneous. 11. In order to understand the difference between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate inquiry" and when it can be termed as erroneous, let us look at the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs J.L. Morrison (I) Ltd (366 ITR 593), wherein on similar facts & circumstances, their Lordships explained the difference between the two as follows:- "14. The case of the CIT in his notice dated 26th November, 2009 under Section 263 of the Act reads as follows :-- "1. During the said A.Y., you have received a sum of Rs.18.00 Crore from M/s. Beierdorf AG., Germany (BDF) as one-tim…