How many judgments cite CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee?

99 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (341 ITR 434), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 147, Section 143(1).

CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee

341 ITR 434High Court2012#1144 most cited

What is CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee authority for?

An assessment order is erroneous for the purpose of Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to apply mind to relevant material, proceeds on an incorrect assumption of facts, or makes an incorrect application of law.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,369 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee · Section 263 · revision u/s 263 · erroneous and prejudicial · non-application of mind · incorrect assumption of facts · incorrect application of law · assessment order erroneous · lack of enquiry · Section 80IA deduction

Also reported as

209 Taxmann 17420 Taxmann.com 652249 CTR 529

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 147 Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 263(1)malabar industrial revision u/s 263 deduction under section 80ia lack of enquiry erroneous and prejudicial mere change of opinion non-application of mind section 80ia section 80i section 263 section 26

Judgments citing CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee

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

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

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

Section 142(1)Section 263

…10 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxviii. CIT v. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. [2013] 214 Taxman 408/29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxix. CIT v. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583/[1993] 69 Taxman 281 (Cal.) (para 20), xl. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434/209 Taxman 174/24 taxmann.com 215 (Gau.) (FB) (para 20) and xli. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) (para 27). 5.1. So far as, the cases relied upon by the assessee like CIT vs Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. and CIT vs Nirav Modi ((supra)) are concerned, no doubt these cases throw light on 20 M/s Trancfex Studios Pvt Ltd. the is…

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

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…10 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxviii. CIT v. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. [2013] 214 Taxman 408/29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxix. CIT v. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583/[1993] 69 Taxman 281 (Cal.) (para 20), xl. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434/209 Taxman 174/24 taxmann.com 215 (Gau.) (FB) (para 20) and xli. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) (para 27). 2.5. We have perused the assessment order and found that the assessee made purchases from M/s Navratana Impex, who was declared as a hawala dealer by the Sales Tax Authority. This aspect was not disputed by the ass…

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

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

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

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…10 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxviii. CIT v. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. [2013] 214 Taxman 408/29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxix. CIT v. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583/[1993] 69 Taxman 281 (Cal.) (para 20), xl. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434/209 Taxman 174/24 taxmann.com 215 (Gau.) (FB) (para 20) and xli. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) (para 27). 2.5. We have perused the assessment order and found that the assessee made purchases from M/s Navratana Impex, who was declared as a hawala dealer by the Sales Tax Authority. This aspect was not disputed by the ass…

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1(1), Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3198/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

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

…10 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxviii. CIT v. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. [2013] 214 Taxman 408/29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxix. CIT v. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583/[1993] 69 Taxman 281 (Cal.) (para 20), xl. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434/209 Taxman 174/24 taxmann.com 215 (Gau.) (FB) (para 20) and xli. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) (para 27). 2.8. So far as, the cases relied upon by the assessee are concerned, we find that these cases may not help the assessee as these cases are based upon the facts of each case where the assessment order was neither erron…

Startech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 22, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3898/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Startech Engineers, Pr. Commissioner Of G-12, Sinhgarjane Soc. Income Tax-22, बनाम/ Maratha Colony, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Vs. Santracruz (E), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaxfs3063J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri D.C.Saboo & Shri Shyam Saboo राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Manjunatha Swamy-Dr

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

…10 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxviii. CIT v. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd. [2013] 214 Taxman 408/29 taxmann.com 291 (Delhi) (para 20), xxxix. CIT v. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583/[1993] 69 Taxman 281 (Cal.) (para 20), xl. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434/209 Taxman 174/24 taxmann.com 215 (Gau.) (FB) (para 20) and xli. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) (para 27). 2.5. So far as, the cases relied upon by the assessee like Shri Narayan Tatu Rane vs Income Tax Officer (ITA NO.2690/Mum/2016), Small Wonder Industries vs CIT (ITA No.2464/Mum/2013), Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd. vs Addl. CIT…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

ITA 2807/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

…pect of the TDS matter and passed the order without applying mind, therefore, assessment order is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the following decisions : (i) CIT vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (2012) 341 ITR 434 (Gau.) (HC) (FB). (ii) Malabar Industrial co. Ltd., 243 ITR 83 (SC) (iii) Pratap Footwear vs. ACIT (2003) SOT 638 (Jabalpur) (Trib.) (iv) CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwear Private Ltd., (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Del.) (v) Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT, Delhi-1 (1975) 99 ITR 375. (vi) Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) (vii) NIIT vs. CIT (Ce…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

ITA 2806/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3752/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…T 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 throws light on the issue. Similarly, CIT vs Infosys Technologies Ltd. 341 ITR 293 and CIT vs Jawahar Bhattacharya Ji 341 ITR 434 (Gauh.-FB) was decided, considering the particular facts. 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 Rajm…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3748/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Section 153ASection 263

Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3747/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Section 153ASection 263

Manoj Ishwar Choudhary, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 24, Mumbai

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

ITA 1788/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…1 ITA No.1788/Mum/2016 sd/- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri D.T. Garasia (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND Shri G Manjunatha (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A No.1788/Mum/2016 (Assessment year 2009-10) Manoj Ishwar Choudhary vs Pr.Commissioner of Income-tax-24 601, B/A Wing, Morya House Mumbai Veer Indl. Estate, Oshiwara Link Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai 400 053 PAN : ADEPC1565F APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Amit Agrawal Respondent by Shri Ranjit Singh Arneja Date of hearing 25-09-2017 Date of pronouncement 27 -10-2017 O R D E R Per G Manjunatha, AM : This appeal filed by the…

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

…es 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 Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs Pr. CIT (2016) 70 taxman.c…

Bhagirath Chandulal Arya, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 18, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 931/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.931/M/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) फनाभ/ Shri Bhagirath Chandulal Arya, Principal Commissioner of 8th Floor, Express Towers, Income Tax-18, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai. Mumbai – 400021. स्थामी रेखा सं./ PAN : AADPA1498F (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent by : Shri N.P. Singh, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 06.01.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date o…

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

…ecisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of (a) CIT V Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC) (b) Rampyari Devi Saraogi 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 u…

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)

…necessary verification, there is no application of mind, on these counts also, the assessment order passed by the A O is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue and placed reliance on the following decisions :- 1. CIT Vs Jawahar Bhattacharjee, 341 ITR 434(Gau)(F.B.) and 2. Assam Tea House 344 ITR 507 (P&H). 06. Thus, the PCIT( C) held that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s.263 is fully justified both on merits and facts . In view of that, he set aside the assessment order on this specific issue to the file of the AO to re-examine the claim of the assessee and decide in accordance with law after…

Kiduja Securirities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT City -3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3564/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri F.V.IraniFor Respondent: Shri B.Pruseth

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 48Section 55

…ard to wrong claim of Keyman Insurance Policy against capital gain, therefore, the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Jawahar Bhattacharjee 341 ITR 434 in support of the proposition that where the AO has not conducted enquiry nor applied his mind to the relevant material would bring the order within the meaning of erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 7. We have considered rival contentions, carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and also deliberated on…

Estrela Batteries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 2, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2122/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…tended to plug the leakage of the revenue by the erroneous and prejudicial order. Our view find support from the ratio laid down in following decisions:- i. CIT vs Infosys Technologies ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 293 (Karn.), ii. CIT vs Jawahar Bhattacharyaji (2012) 341 ITR 434 (Guwahati) (FB), iii. CIT vs Leisure wear Exports Ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 166 (Del.), iv. CIT vs Triveni Engineering Works Ltd. (2011) 336 ITR 366 (Del.), v. R.A. Himmatsinghka & Company vs CIT (2012) 340 ITR 253 (Pat.) vi. CIT vs Rajeev Agnihotri (2011) 332 ITR 608 (P & H), vii. CIT vs DLF Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 555 (Del.), viii. CIT vs Gabreal India L…

ITO 13(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kumarpal P. Gandhi, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5798/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shri Kumarpal P. Gandhi, Ward-13(2)(2), Flat No.3804, 38Th Floor, बनाम/ R. No.477, 4Th Floor, Shreepati Arcade, A-Wing, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A.K.Marg, Nana Chowk, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400036 Mumbai-400020 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aadpg0200D

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 54Section 54F

…do so, the statute provides as to when the capital gains are to be treated as having arisen. The ratio laid down in CIT vs Sardar Mal Kothari (2008) 302 ITR 286 (Madras), CIT vs S Uday kumar (2012) 345 ITR 389 (Karnataka), CIT vs Jawahar Bhattacharyaji (2012) 342 ITR 74 (Guwahati ) and CIT vs Gita Duggal 357 ITR 153 (Del.), CIT vs P R Sehshadri 329 ITR 377 (Karn.), CIT vs Rajiv Shukla 334 ITR 138(Del.), CIT vs Ashok Kumar Rallhan 360 ITR 575 (Del.) supports our view. There is categorical finding in the impugned order that the assessee sold the assessee on 251/12/2008 and utilized the same for purchase of new asse…

Rosmerta Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2923/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am & Amarjit Singh, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं/ I.T.A. No.2923/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 बिधम/ M/S. Rosmerta Technologies Ltd., The Commissioner Of Income Kewal Industrial Estate, Tax-1, Vs. Unit No.252/B-Wing, 2Nd Floor, Room No.330, 3 Rd Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Aayakar Bhawan, Lower Parel (W), New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400013 Mumbai 400020 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr 2917D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar JhaFor Respondent: Shri Subachan Ram, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35D

…f section 35D of the Act and hence the incorrect appreciation of law would render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following decisions: a) CIT V/s Jawahar Bhattacharjee (2012) 341 ITR 434 (Gauhati); and b) Booke Bond India Ltd V/s CIT (1997) 225 ITR 798 (SC). 5. Having heard the rival submissions, we find that the AO has not examined the claim of the assessee in terms of section 35D of the Act and hence incorrect appreciation of law would render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly…