CIT v. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd.

341 ITR 166High Court2012#1216 most cited

What is CIT v. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. authority for?

An Assessing Officer's order is deemed prejudicial to the interests of the revenue under Section 263 if, due to its erroneous nature, the revenue suffers a loss of lawfully payable tax. This principle applies where the Assessing Officer fails to conduct proper enquiry.

93

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. · 341 ITR 166 · Section 263 · revisionary power · erroneous order · prejudicial to interest of revenue · lack of enquiry · inadequate enquiry · loss of tax · Commissioner's jurisdiction · Delhi High Court

Also reported as

46 DTR 97

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 147Section 10(37)Section 145A(b)Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(viii)

Issues it is cited on

section 141section 282a(1)section 194lasection 145a(b)section 145bsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)inadequate enquirydoctrine of mergerlack of enquirysection 263(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd.

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

…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 Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108, 114 (Bom.), ix. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs…

Sh. Gaurav Bhatia, Kotdwar vs. CIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 1730/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Miss S. Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Gaurav Bhatia Vs. The Cit Bhatia Bhawan, Sitapur Devi Road Dehradun Kotdwar (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Afypb 4513 J)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…at merely because there is lack of enquiry, order cannot be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Such revisionary power can be exercised by the ld. CIT only when there is absence of any enquiry: a) CIT Vs. Leisure Wear Export Ltd 341 ITR 166 [Del] b) CIT Vs. Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd 341 ITR 180 [DEL] c) Fab India Overseas P. Ltd Vs. CIT 60 DTR 240 [DEL] d) Dy. CIT Vs. Insilco Ltd 59 DTR 364 [DEL] e) CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 [DEL] f) Vashti Management Services Vs. ITO 137 TTJ 35 [DEL] g) Raj Shyama Construction P. Ltd Vs. ACIT 135 TTJ 33 [DEL] h) CIT Vs.…

M/S Mewat Grit Udyog, New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1802/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, advocate&For Respondent: Smt.Sulekha Verma, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 263Section 40

…the decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (del), Ld. CIT(A) vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (del), ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Limited 343 ITR 329 (Del), Ld. CIT(A) vs. Leisurewear Exports Ltd 341 ITR 166 (Del) etc. Basing on CIT vs. DLF Ltd 350 ITR 555 (Del), PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd 398 ITR 8 (Del) etc he submitted that where there is inadequate enquiry, but not lack of enquiry, the CIT must record finding that order is erroneous and must establish that error or mistake by the learned Assessing Officer is unsustainable. Furth…

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order dated 31

ITA 2193/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chander, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 263

…Ltd. 62 taxman 51 14. Mrs. Sujata Grover vs. DCIT 74 TTJ 347 7 FIT For PUBLICATION (AM) (JM) 15. Sonal Garments vs. JCIT 95 ITD 363 16. Marico Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT 27 SOT 73 17. DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation ; 357 ITR 388 18. CIT vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. 341 ITR 166 19. CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Ltd. 341 ITR 180 20. CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal 320 ITR 674 21. CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd. 317 ITR 249 (D) Ld. CIT (DR) appearing for Revenue strongly supported the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act and relied on it heavily. He also drew our attention to order of apex court in the case of…

M/S Pbn Construction Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri vs. PCIT, Siliguri

In the result the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 754/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 754/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…AO should have gone deeper into a particular issue or should have made elaborate discussions. In this regard the ld. Counsel for the assessee had placed reliance on the decision of certain judicial pronouncements namely : i) CIT vs :Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. 341 ITR 166 (Del) ii) CIT vs Budhilal Hiralal Rana 125 Taxman 455 (Guj.) 18. In these decisions it was held that there was no material brought on record to show that there was an error or omission or failure on the part of the AO. In our view, in the present case, as we have already observed, the material on record shows that the AO failed to make necessary…

Black Gold Holding P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT -5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2484/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 143(3)Section 263

…be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue :- i) CIT Vs. Gabrial India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bom); ii) CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Del.); iii) CIT Vs. Vikas Polymers, 341 ITR 537 (Del.); iv) CIT Vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd., 341 ITR 166(Del) v) CIT Vs. Kanda Rice Mills, 178 ITR 446 (P&H); and vi) CIT Vs. Smt. D Valliammal, 230 ITR 695 (Mad.) In view of the above submission, it was contended that order passed by the AO after making enquiry cannot be said to be erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 6. On the other hand, it was argued by ld. CIT DR that no…

Bhagwati Sponge Private Limited, Burdwan vs. C.I.T, Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1283/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…I.T.A. No. 1283/KOL./2013 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 1 of 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member and Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 1283 /KOL/ 2013 Assessment Year: 2008-2009 Bhagwati Sponge Pvt. Limited,..............................................Appellant P.O. Jamuria Bazar, Dist. Burdwan, W.B. PIN – 713 336 [PAN : AACCB 3462 A] -Vs.- Commissioner of Income Tax, .............................................Respondent Asansol, Parmar Building, 54, G.T. Road (West), P.O. Asansol-4, Dist. Burdwan Appearances…

Tirupati Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 3316/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Tirupati Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Cit, Plot No. D, District Centre, Central-Ii, Paschim Vihar, E-2, Jhandewalan Ext. New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aadct5825H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ved Jain & P. Srivastava, Ca Department By: Ms. Archena S. Awasthi, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 25 .02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 :05.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned Validity Of Revisional Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On Several Grounds.

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain & P. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Archena S. Awasthi, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 263

…ance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167(SC); ii) ITO vs. Dg. Housing Project Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del.); iii) CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. [2014] 360 ITR 44 (Del.); iv) CIT vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 166 (Del.); v ) CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing & Adv. CO. Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 180 (Del.); vi) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537 (Del.); vii) CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. [2012] 83 CCH 068 (Del.); viii) Globus Infocom Ltd. vs. CIT Delhi-IV – ITA No. 447/2013 dated 13.08.2014. ix) CIT vs. M/s. Ankit Garments Manufacturing Co. – (2014) ( 12 )…

M/S. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5677/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 105Section 106Section 10BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…e interest of the revenue, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jewel of India vs. ACIT, reported in [2010] 325 ITR 92 and Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs Leisure Wear Exports Ltd., reported in [2012] 341 ITR 166. He further reiterated the contention raised by the assessee before the Ld. CIT that, revision under section 263 cannot be done at the instance of the Audit Party, especially when on the basis of the said Audit objection itself the AO has written a letter to the assessee and in response, the assessee has clarified the same issue in detail, agains…

M/S. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4875/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 105Section 106Section 10BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…e interest of the revenue, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jewel of India vs. ACIT, reported in [2010] 325 ITR 92 and Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs Leisure Wear Exports Ltd., reported in [2012] 341 ITR 166. He further reiterated the contention raised by the assessee before the Ld. CIT that, revision under section 263 cannot be done at the instance of the Audit Party, especially when on the basis of the said Audit objection itself the AO has written a letter to the assessee and in response, the assessee has clarified the same issue in detail, agains…

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

…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 Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108, 114 (Bom.), ix. Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs…

Commissioner of Income Tax-XI vs. M/S Dlf Commercial Project Corporation

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA/507/2013HC Delhi15 Jul 2015

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)(iia)

…issioner is not in agreement, the matter cannot be treated as one amounting to an error or prejudicial to the Revenue’s interest. Learned counsel also submitted that the Division Bench ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax. v. Leisure Wear Exports Limited, 341 ITR 166 is decisive in that the revisional power under Section 263 cannot be invoked to merely correct an error by the ITO which is prejudicial to the Revenue’s interest. Only those orders which are based on an incorrect assumption of facts or based on wrong application of law or which betray non-application of mind can be termed erroneous. It was…

Commissioner of Income Tax-XII vs. Indo Rub Industries

ITA/19/2013HC Delhi01 Oct 2014
Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263

…ntly argued that the ld. CIT incorrectly assumed the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and set aside the assessment. Inter-alia, the ld. AR relied upon decisions in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167(Del.) (Delhi); CIT vs. Leisure Exports Ltd., 341 ITR 166(Del.), CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd., 341 ITR 180 (Del.); and CIT vs. Vikas Polymers, 341 ITR 537 (Delhi).” 2014:DHC:5209-DB ITA 19/2013 Page 6 of 13 Accepting the said assertion, the order under Section 263 of the Act, stands stru…