CIT v. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex

The Jangid Brajman Co-Operative Credit and Saving Society Ltd., Ajmer vs. Pr.CIT, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…here two views are possible and the AO has taken one view, assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In support, reliance was placed on the following decisions:- • CIT Vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC) • CIT Vs. Max India 295 ITR 282 (SC) • Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) 7. It was submitted that in the present case, the Ld. PCIT has referred to the decision of Supreme Court in case of Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. ITO 322 ITR 283 but this decision is not applicable on the assessee and has been distinguished…

Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…resent case there are no two views) and the AO has taken one view, assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. For this reliance is placed on the following cases:- • CIT Vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC) • CIT Vs. Max India 295 ITR 282 (SC) • Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) In view of above, order passed by Ld. CIT u/s 263 is illegal & bad in law and the same be quashed. 10. Per contra, the ld PCIT/DR relied on the order passed by the ld PCIT and our reference was drawn to the relevant findings which read as under: 7 Raj…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

…5, Pg. 5 of the order) Principle 3 – Where AO after thorough enquiry has taken a particular view, order of AO cannot become erroneous because CIT is of a different view than the view taken by A.O. Refer – (1) CIT -vs.- Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC): Held that where two view are possible and the AO 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 AO, in such circumstances the assessment order cannot be 12 ITA 04/JP/2021_ Shree Cement Ltd. Vs Pr.CIT treated as an order erroneous or prejudical to the interest of the…