CIT v. Jay Kumar B. Patil

AMALSAD VIBHAG VIVISH KARYAKARI SAHKARI KHEDUT MANDLI LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.PCIT, VALSAD

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.491/Srt/2024 Ays: 2018-19 (Physical Court Hearing) Amalsad Vibhag Vividh Principal Commissioner Of Karyakari Sahkari Khedut Income Tax, Valsad, 301/3Rd Vs. Mandli Ltd., At & Po. Floor, Palak Arcade, Shanti Amalsad, Tal. Gandevi, Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396 Dist. Navsari-396 310 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaaa 1043 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri P.M Jagasheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 17.12.2024 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2025

…A) was allowability of deduction u/s 80P(2) and not netting of interest income u/s 56 r.w.s. 57 of the Act. He derived support from the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd., 231 ITR 50 (SC) and CIT vs. Jaykumar B Patil, 236 ITR 469 (SC). 4.3. In view of the above facts and decisions, the Ld. PCIT concluded that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. He set aside the assessment order passed by the AO with a direction to pass a fresh assessment order after taking into consideration the issues as may have been already considered, to…

MAHANADI COALFIELDS LIMITED,BURLA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.141/Ctk/2020 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur Jagruti Vihar, Burla, Sambalpur-768020 Pan No. : Aabcm 5188 P (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.S.Poddar, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, Dated 21.04.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016, On The Following Grounds :- 1. That The Notice Issued & Order Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sambalpur (Pr. Cit) Is Unjustified, Arbitrary, Excessive, Contrary To Evidences & Bad In Law. 2. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Pr. Cit Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction In Issuing The Notice & Passing The Order U/S.263 Of The Act, More So When The Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. 3. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Pr. Cit Has Further Erred In Law & In Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction In Issuing The Notice & Passing The Order U/S.263 Of The Act, As The Subject Matter Of Proceedings U/S.263 Of The Act Were Duly Considered By The Ld. Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings & The Assessment Order Was Passed After Making All The Enquiries & Verification & With Due Application Of Mind.

…oceeding and revise the same if he considers that the order passed therein by the Assessing Officer was erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 10 Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Jayakumar B. Patii [1999J 236 ITR 469 (SC) and CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. [1998]231 ITR 50, has held that the Commissioner has jurisdiction and powers to initiate proceedings under section 263 in respect of issues not touched by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his appellate order. Clause (c) of Explanation 1 of sub- section (1) provides that for removal of doubts it is hereby declar…

ODISHA BRIDGE & CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LTD.,BHUBANESWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

…hable since the CIT revised the order which was passed after the orders of the CIT (Appeal). In the present case the order has been 2 passed by the Hon'ble ITAT. Similarly the decision given by the learned CIT (Appeal) in respect of CIT Vrs. Jaykumar B. Patil 236 ITR 469(SC) is not also equally applicable. 3. That so far as the disallowance of Rs. 11,21,720/-on account of employees contribution to EPF is a part of 263 order . Assuming for the time being application of 263 order is correct, it has been held in the case of CIT Vrs. Nipsopoly Fabrics Ltd. reported in 350 ITR P-327 that if the payments in respect of…