What is CIT v. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex authority for?

An assessment order can be revised under Section 263 only if it is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. This revisionary power cannot be exercised when the Assessing Officer adopted a permissible view or where there was merely inadequate enquiry, as distinct from a complete lack of enquiry.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex?

97 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (395 ITR 1), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 139(1), Section 147, Section 115BBE.

CIT v. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (395 ITR 1)

Faiveley Transport Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Hosur vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1598/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

…n between "lack of enquiry' and 'inadequate enquiry. It is only in cases of lack of inquiry that such a course of action under section 263 would be open. In this regard, assessee relied on the following judicial precedents:- Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex SC 395 ITR 1 Virtusa Consulting Services (P.) HC-Madras 442 ITR 385 Ltd. Globus Infocom Ltd. HC-Delhi 369 ITR 14 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. HC-Delhi 332 ITR 167 Mohak Real Estate (P.) Ltd HC-Delhi 161 taxmann.com 388 Clix Finance India (P.) Ltd HC-Delhi 298 Taxman 217 Spectra Shares & Scrips (P) Ltd. HC-Andra 354 ITR 35 Pradesh Chemsworth (P.) Ltd. HC-Karnataka 119 tax…

Tejalben Samirkumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 78/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 78/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Tejalben Samirkumar Shah, Principal Commissioner Of 10, Opera Society, Vs. Income Tax-1, Vibhag-2, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad-380007. Pan: Askps2898E

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Karun K Ojha, CIT.DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

…therefore the same cannot be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In holding so, we draw support and guidance from the judgement of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex reported in 395 ITR 1. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced as under: 9. It is clear from the above that where two view are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view and the CIT again revised the said order on the ground that he does not agree with the view taken by the Assessing Officer, in such circumstances the assessment order cannot be treate…

Shree Alekh, Bhavnagar vs. PCIT Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ither of two such views, then the CIT cannot invoke jurisdiction under Section 263. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:- Assessment Year: 2017-18 Page 6 of 7 “Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT – 243 ITR 83 (SC) Kwality Steel Suppliers vs. CIT – 395 ITR 1 (SC) Mehsana Dist. Co-op. Milk Producers Union – 263 ITR 645 (Guj) CIT vs. D. P. Karia – 266 ITR 113 (Guj) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers – 259 ITR 502 (Guj) Sir Dorabji Tata Trust vs. DCII(E) – (2021) 188 ITD 38 (Mum) Torrent Pharmaceuticals vs. DCIT – (2021) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd.)” 5.2 The Ld. AR further submitted that inadequacy of inquiry by the Assessi…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ade assessment, the same could not be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner, as simply according to him, the AO should have made further enquiries. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Quality Steel”, 395 ITR 1 (S.C), wherein, it has been held that where two views are possible and the AO had taken one view and the CIT revised the said order on the ground that he did not agree with the view taken by the AO, the assessment order could not be treated as an erroneous order or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue; that the ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ade assessment, the same could not be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner, as simply according to him, the AO should have made further enquiries. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Quality Steel”, 395 ITR 1 (S.C), wherein, it has been held that where two views are possible and the AO had taken one view and the CIT revised the said order on the ground that he did not agree with the view taken by the AO, the assessment order could not be treated as an erroneous order or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue; that the ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ade assessment, the same could not be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner, as simply according to him, the AO should have made further enquiries. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Quality Steel”, 395 ITR 1 (S.C), wherein, it has been held that where two views are possible and the AO had taken one view and the CIT revised the said order on the ground that he did not agree with the view taken by the AO, the assessment order could not be treated as an erroneous order or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue; that the ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021…

Hasumatiben Jagdishbhai Patel, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 322/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.322/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Hasumatiben Jagdishbhai Principal Commissioner Of Patel Income-Tax, Valsad, 301, Vs 80 Shree Ram Estate, Opp. 3Rd Floor, Income Tax Pandesara Petrol Pump Office, Palak Arcade, Shanti Bhedwad, Surat-394220 Nagar, Tithal Road, Pan : Aaopp 1698 K Valsad-396001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

…Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [200] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC)/[2000] 159 CTR 1 (SC)[10-02-2000] and CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex [2017] 84 taxmann.com 234 (SC)/[2017] 250 Taxman 23 (SC)/[2017] 395 ITR 1 (SC)/[2017] 297 CTR 553 (SC)[21-03-2017]. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that he has also raised and additional ground of appeal, which is purely a legal issue and does not require to bring any new facts on record. The 8 Hasumatiben J Patel facts for adjudication of additional ground of appeal is emanating from the order passed by Ld. PCIT i…

Gillette India Limited, Spa-65A, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, District- Alwar vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 313/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. ParwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194Section 195Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

…n none of the issues raised in notice u/s 263, the order of the AO can be held to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In this connection reliance is placed on the following cases:- PCIT Vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC) Where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. This is for the reason that while exercising the revisionary jurisdiction, the PCIT is not sitting in appeal. In the instant case, the assessee firm was constituted with two partners viz., m…

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1051/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1050 & 1051/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mumbai Postal Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Ward 17(2)(1) Society Limited, Gpo Room No. 115, 1 St Floor, Building, Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai – 400001 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajm0032G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…tions A. order is erroneous and B the error must be prejudicial to the revenue. Both these conditions need to be simultaneously attracted for revision u/s 263. Refer Malabar Industrial Co Ltd Vs CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT VS. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex 395 ITR 1 (SC). Annexure 1 & 2 resp. In the assessee's case, leave aside attracting both the conditions but even one is not attracted. This is explained below: i. the order proposed to be revised was not erroneous as it was based on several reported decisions of the High Courts including jurisdictional High Court and Tax Tribunals. Thus, AO's decision to all…

Mumbai Postal Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1050/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1050 & 1051/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mumbai Postal Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Ward 17(2)(1) Society Limited, Gpo Room No. 115, 1 St Floor, Building, Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai – 400001 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajm0032G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…tions A. order is erroneous and B the error must be prejudicial to the revenue. Both these conditions need to be simultaneously attracted for revision u/s 263. Refer Malabar Industrial Co Ltd Vs CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT VS. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex 395 ITR 1 (SC). Annexure 1 & 2 resp. In the assessee's case, leave aside attracting both the conditions but even one is not attracted. This is explained below: i. the order proposed to be revised was not erroneous as it was based on several reported decisions of the High Courts including jurisdictional High Court and Tax Tribunals. Thus, AO's decision to all…

Dristi Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

ITA 3813/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3813 /DEL/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dristi Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. CIT, CH. No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Ghaziabad. RDC, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad. PAN- AAECD4670Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Akhilesh Kumar Adv. & Shri Pushkar Pandey, Adv. Department represented by Shri Shankar Lal Verma, Sr. DR Date of hearing 29.05.2023 Date of pronouncement 03.08.2023 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The assessee has come in appea…

M/S Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., E-8, Epip Riico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 260/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 30Section 44

…nation 2 to section 263 is applicable. Hence the order passed by AO cannot be held to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this connection reliance is placed on the following cases:- CIT Vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC) Where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. This is for the reason that while exercising the revisionary jurisdiction, the CIT is not sitting in appeal. In the instant case, the assessee firm was constituted with two partners viz., m…

Subhash Chand Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1063/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…cumulatively be satisfied and reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment:-  Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT : 243 ITR 83 (SC)  CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)]  CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1(SC)  Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H)  Vimgi Investment (P) Limited: 290 ITR 505 (Del)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 17. Ld Counsel submitted that merely because the ld AO has not specifically mentioned that he had examined/ verified particular issue in the assessment order would not ipso facto mean that ther…

Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1061/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…cumulatively be satisfied and reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment:-  Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT : 243 ITR 83 (SC)  CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)]  CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1(SC)  Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H)  Vimgi Investment (P) Limited: 290 ITR 505 (Del)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 17. Ld Counsel submitted that merely because the ld AO has not specifically mentioned that he had examined/ verified particular issue in the assessment order would not ipso facto mean that ther…

Satish Kumar Dhingra, Haryana vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1060/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…cumulatively be satisfied and reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment:-  Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT : 243 ITR 83 (SC)  CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)]  CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1(SC)  Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H)  Vimgi Investment (P) Limited: 290 ITR 505 (Del)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 17. Ld Counsel submitted that merely because the ld AO has not specifically mentioned that he had examined/ verified particular issue in the assessment order would not ipso facto mean that ther…