CIT v. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex

395 ITR 1Supreme Court of India2017#1176 most cited

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.

97

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex · Section 263 · revisionary power · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · lack of enquiry · inadequate enquiry · Assessing Officer permissible view · two views possible · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. · Max India Ltd. · scope of revision

Also reported as

250 Taxmann 23

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 139(1)Section 147Section 115BBESection 131Section 132
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

national tax tribunalsection 108section 117section 116section 46section 54ecinadequate enquirymalabar industrialsection 131(1)section 54bsection 114lack of enquiry

Judgments citing CIT v. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex

M/S.Baby Memorial Hospital Ltd, Kozhikkode vs. The ACIT, Circle-1(1), Kozhikkode

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

ITA 420/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 115JSection 142Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 37(1)

…enditure is Capital Expenditure and not allowable u/s 37(1). He has not considered whether the expenditure was allowable U/s 36(i)(iii). As there is no application of mind by the CIT , the order has to be set aside. Ref CIT Vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex 395 ITR 1 ( SC). 9) The Appellant craves leave to adduce additional grounds at the time of hearing. 3. The facts of the case are that the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2014-15 by accepting the income returned. On verification of records, the Pr. CIT noticed that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer…

Sheth Commercial Co., Kolkata vs. CIT-14 Kolkata, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1406/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Sheth Commercial Co. V/S. Pr. Cit-14, C/O D.J. Shah & Co. 3, Government Place, Kalyan Bhavan, 2 Elgin Kolkata-700001 Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan No.Aakfs 409 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Shrhari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-04-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-14, Kolkata’S Order Dated 20.03.2017 Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame Afresh Assessment After Setting Aside The Regular One Framed Dated 23.03.2015 In Exercising Revision Jurisdiction Vested U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). We Have Heard Shri Miraj D Shah Learned Authorized Representative For Assessee & Shri P.K.Srihari, Cit/Dr Appearing At Revenue’S Behest. Case File Perused. 2. It Transpires During The Course Of Hearing That The Assessee’S Pleading Challenge Correctness Of The Pcit’S Order Revising The Regular Assessment In Issue Framed By The Assessing Officer On 06.07.2016 With Directions To Frame

Section 1Section 263Section 35(1)(c)

…or re-assessment; whatever the case may be, has to be both erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue simultaneously before the CIT exercises his sec. 263 revision jurisdiction. Their lordship reiterate the same very principles in (2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Quality Steel Suppliers Complex that if the Assessing Officer has taken one of the two possible views in framing the assessment or re-assessment in issue, the CIT’s action taking recourse to revision jurisdiction is not sustainable. We notice in this backdrop of the settled legal proposition that the CIT has directed the Assessing Offi…

Smt. Dolly Batra, Dehradun vs. Pr. CIT, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1214/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

…me, such assessment order could not be treated as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In support of this submission, Ld. Counsel for assessee relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex 395 ITR 1 and judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167. Ld. Counsel for assessee also relied upon order of ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Smt. T. Urmila Vs. ITO 57 SOT 90 in which it was held as under: “IT: Where Hyderabad Airport Development Authority had been constituted under provisions of Andhra Pradesh Urba…

Smt. Dolly Batra, Dehradun vs. Pr. CIT, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1213/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

…me, such assessment order could not be treated as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In support of this submission, Ld. Counsel for assessee relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex 395 ITR 1 and judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167. Ld. Counsel for assessee also relied upon order of ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of Smt. T. Urmila Vs. ITO 57 SOT 90 in which it was held as under: “IT: Where Hyderabad Airport Development Authority had been constituted under provisions of Andhra Pradesh Urba…

M/S Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited, Dehradun vs. ACIT, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2622/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri O.P. Kant, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari &For Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263

…//Fit for Publication// OPK BS A.M. J.M. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. AND SHRI O.P. KANT, A.M. I.T.A.No.2622/Del./2015 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Uttarakhand Purv The ACIT, Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited, Dehradun. vs. Circle-2, PAN AAACU7129D C/o. Hemant Arora & Co. Dehradun. C.As, 1-Tyagi Road, Dehradun - 248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Rohit Tiwari & Shri Sanjay Malik, Advocates For Revenue : Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 23.01.2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. This appeal…

Metropolitan Stock Exchange of India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 14, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4081/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sumant Chadha &
Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM I.T.A. No.4081/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s. Metropolitan Stock Exchange of Principal Commissioner of Income India Pvt. Ltd. Tax Act, 1961 Tax – 14, 4th Floor, Vibgyor Tower, R. No. 469, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 4th Floor, M. K. Road, Plot No. C-62, Opp. Trident Hotel, Bandra Kural Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 089 PAN/GIR No. AAFCM 6942 F (Appellant) (Respondent) : Appellant by : Shri Sumant Chadha & Shri Jitendra Trivedi : Shri Anadi Varma Respondent by Date of Hearing : 01.08.201…

Spectrochem Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-4, Mumbai

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

ITA 3930/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mehulle V. ChoksiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh,CIT D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…by him was not open for revision under Section 263 of the Act. In support of his aforesaid contention the 4 M/s. Spectrochm P. Ltd. learned A.R. relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC). It was further averred by the learned A.R. that even the case of the assessee was reopened on the ground that income chargeable to tax in respect of the aforementioned bogus purchase had escaped assessment. The learned A.R., in order to buttress his contention that the AO had rightly restricted the addition only to the extent of profit elemen…

Late Smt. Giriraj Kaur L/H Sri Ravinder Gill, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 931/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishilate Smt. Giriraj Kaur, Vs. Ito, C/O. L/H Sri Ravinder Gill, Ward-1(2), 861, Mangal Bhawan, Muzaffarnagar Bhopa Road, Muzaffarnagar Pan: Dtppk0005J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT Dr
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…en investigated / probed in a particular manner, he cannot assume jurisdiction u/s 263. Hence the assumption of jurisdiction by the Director u/s 263 was not in accordance with law. t) That Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 84 Taxmann.com 234 (SC) have held that as is clear from the language of section 263, there has to be a proper application of mind by the Commissioner to come to a firm conclusion that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus two conditions need to be satisfied for invoking such a power by the Commission…

M/S. Fusion Voice Solutions India Pvt.Ltd, Vijayawada vs. The ITO, Vijayawada

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 335/VIZ/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Mar 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 263Section 40

…ITA No.335/Vizag/2017 M/s. Fusion Voice Solutions India (P) Ltd., Vijayawada आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी वी. दुगा"राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ड.एस. . . . सु"दर "संह, लेखा सद"य के सम% BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.335/Vizag/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/s. Fusion Voice Solutions ITO, Ward-2(2), India (P) Ltd., Vijayawada Vijayawada [PAN NoAABCF2029A] (अपीलाथ' / Appellant) (()याथ' / Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant…

M/S vs. R Infotech, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 374/VIZ/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ndent view. This view is supported by the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Limited 166 Taxman.com 0188 and similar view was expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Gujarat II Vs. Quality Steel Supply Complex 84 Taxmann.com 234 (SC). Hon’ble apex court held that M/s. VSR Infotech, Visakhapatnam where two views are possible and the ITO has taken one of the views which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, we hold that there is no case for assuming jurisdiction by the Ld. CIT u/s 26…

M/S vs. R Infotech, Visakhapatnam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 373/VIZ/2016[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2018AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ndent view. This view is supported by the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Limited 166 Taxman.com 0188 and similar view was expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Gujarat II Vs. Quality Steel Supply Complex 84 Taxmann.com 234 (SC). Hon’ble apex court held that M/s. VSR Infotech, Visakhapatnam where two views are possible and the ITO has taken one of the views which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, we hold that there is no case for assuming jurisdiction by the Ld. CIT u/s 26…

M/S Rr Constructions, Vijayawada vs. The DCIT, Vijayawada

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

ITA 248/VIZ/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263Section 30

…ucting the enquiry on any of the issues. The assessee’s case is squarely covered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Max India Limited 166 Taxman.com 188 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Gujarat II Vs. Quality Steel Supply Complex 395 ITR 1. 8 M/s. R.R. Constructions, Vijayawada and CIT Vs. Y. Ramachandra Reddy 50 Taxmann.com 129 (AP. Hence, we are unable to sustain the order of the Ld. PCIT and do not find any reason to uphold the order. Accordingly, the order passed by the Ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act is set aside and we allow the appeal of the assessee. 9. In the result, the appea…

M/S Panchnath Enterprise, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. Commr. of Income Tax-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

Appeals are allowed

ITA 139/RJT/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri M. J. Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 263

…whatever the case may be, has to be both erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue simultaneously before the impugned Section 263 jurisdiction is set into motion. Their lordships reiterate the same in a recent judgment reported as (2017) 395 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex that if the Assessing Officer has taken one of the two possible views in framing the assessment or re-assessment in issue, the impugned jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act is not sustainable. Then comes hon’ble Delhi high court’s judgment in ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Limited (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) defini…

Noble Medicals Bcjc Hospitals, Mumbai vs. CIT City-16, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3207/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Noble Medicals Bcjc Cit, City-16, Hospitals, S.V. Road, Santacruz, Mumbai. Mumbai-400054. Versus Pan No.Aagfn4356A Applicant Respondent

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

…ot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake in support of his submission the reliance is made on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)] and CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex [(2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC)] and decision of jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)]. In other alternative submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the order is invalid as the AO adopted and followed one of the possible views 7 ITA No. 3207/M/17- M/s Noble Medicals BCJC Hospitals while passing the assessment order.…

Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (HUF), Mumbai vs. Jt CIT RG 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1435/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhbibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Cit-19, Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Piramal Chambers, Parel, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Jt.Cit-Range-19(1), Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi (Ar Revenue By : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 .02.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi (ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263

…annot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake. In support of his submission reliance is made on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)] and CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex [(2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC)] and decision of jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)]. 5. In other alternative submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the order is invalid as the AO adopted and followed one of the possible views while passing the assessment order. Merely facts that some other alternative method could…

Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (HUF), Mumbai vs. CIT 19, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5129/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhbibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Cit-19, Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Piramal Chambers, Parel, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Jt.Cit-Range-19(1), Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi (Ar Revenue By : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 .02.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi (ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263

…annot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake. In support of his submission reliance is made on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)] and CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex [(2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC)] and decision of jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom)]. 5. In other alternative submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the order is invalid as the AO adopted and followed one of the possible views while passing the assessment order. Merely facts that some other alternative method could…

Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd vs. The Dy.Commi.of Income Tax Hyd

ITTA/18/2001HC Telangana27 Jun 2013
For Respondent: Mr. A.V.A. Siva
Section 143(3)Section 256(2)Section 263

…ranasi Khanta Rao, Prop. Sri Sai Srinivasa Modern Rice Mill3. (iv) Spectra Shares and Scrips Pvt. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax4. (v) Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. N.T. Rama Rao (Decd.)5 1 [2017] 395 ITR 1 (SC) 2 [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 3 [2015] 377 ITR 602 (T & AP) 4 [2013] 354 ITR 35 (AP) 5 [2003] 261 ITR 611 (AP) CVNR, J & CKR, J RC 18/2001 7 8. Opposing the above submissions, Mr. Mr. A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the respondent – assessee commended the correctness of the decision of the Tribuna…