CIT v. M. M.Khambatbala

198 ITR 144High Court1992#1697 most cited

What is CIT v. M. M.Khambatbala authority for?

The provisions of section 263 can be invoked by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax even where the issue in the assessment order is debatable, provided the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

67

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. M. M. Khambatbala · Section 263 revisional jurisdiction · debatable issue · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · Principal CIT powers · Assessing Officer order · revision under Section 263(1) · Gujarat High Court · 198 ITR 144

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 45Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 270a(9)(a)section 270a(8)faceless assessment schemesection 263(1)malabar industrialbogus long term capital gainbogus ltcgsection 45principal commissioner of income-taxpenny stocksection 10(38)erroneous and prejudicial

Judgments citing CIT v. M. M.Khambatbala

HOLLIS VITRIFIED PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI, GUJARAT, INDIA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT, GUJARAT, INDIA

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

ITA 363/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…mpany, 213 ITR 843 (Rajasthan). Further, the provisions of section 263 can be invoked even where the issue is debatable. For this proposition, we place reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court delivered in the case of CIT Vs. M. M. Khambhatwala, 198 ITR 144 (Gujarat). Considering these facts and circumstances, we find that since the order of the Assessing Officer should be held to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, in the facts and circumstances narrated above, therefore, the usurpation of jurisdiction exercising revisional jurisdiction by the Principal CIT, is valid…

JAYESH KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

ITA 6/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sr. ITA No. Assessment Appellant By Respondent By No. Year 1. 03/Rjt/2024 2012-13 Mansukhlal Khimji Office of Principle Khimasiya HUF Commissioner of Mahavir, Nr. Jain Income Tax, Temple,42- Digvijay Taranjali Building, Plot, Jamnagar - 361008 Jamnagar – 361005 PAN No.: AADHS2920Q 2. 04/Rjt/2024 2013-14 Mansukhlal Khimaji Office of Principle Khimasiya Commissioner of M/s. Metro Metal Income Tax, Corporation, 358/1, Taran…

BHANUBEN MANSUKHLAL KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

ITA 5/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sr. ITA No. Assessment Appellant By Respondent By No. Year 1. 03/Rjt/2024 2012-13 Mansukhlal Khimji Office of Principle Khimasiya HUF Commissioner of Mahavir, Nr. Jain Income Tax, Temple,42- Digvijay Taranjali Building, Plot, Jamnagar - 361008 Jamnagar – 361005 PAN No.: AADHS2920Q 2. 04/Rjt/2024 2013-14 Mansukhlal Khimaji Office of Principle Khimasiya Commissioner of M/s. Metro Metal Income Tax, Corporation, 358/1, Taran…

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

ITA 4/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sr. ITA No. Assessment Appellant By Respondent By No. Year 1. 03/Rjt/2024 2012-13 Mansukhlal Khimji Office of Principle Khimasiya HUF Commissioner of Mahavir, Nr. Jain Income Tax, Temple,42- Digvijay Taranjali Building, Plot, Jamnagar - 361008 Jamnagar – 361005 PAN No.: AADHS2920Q 2. 04/Rjt/2024 2013-14 Mansukhlal Khimaji Office of Principle Khimasiya Commissioner of M/s. Metro Metal Income Tax, Corporation, 358/1, Taran…

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

ITA 3/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sr. ITA No. Assessment Appellant By Respondent By No. Year 1. 03/Rjt/2024 2012-13 Mansukhlal Khimji Office of Principle Khimasiya HUF Commissioner of Mahavir, Nr. Jain Income Tax, Temple,42- Digvijay Taranjali Building, Plot, Jamnagar - 361008 Jamnagar – 361005 PAN No.: AADHS2920Q 2. 04/Rjt/2024 2013-14 Mansukhlal Khimaji Office of Principle Khimasiya Commissioner of M/s. Metro Metal Income Tax, Corporation, 358/1, Taran…

ASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 697/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43(5)

…ble Products Vs. CIT [1991] 54 Taxman 175 (Allahabad)  CIT Vs. Maithan International 375 IR 123 (Calcuta)  Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Delhi)  CIT Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bombay)  CIT Vs. M.M.Khambhatwala 198 ITR 144 (Guj)  CIT Vs. Ashok Logani (11 taxmann.com 208, 347 ITR 22) (Delhi HC) 11 Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]  PCIT Vs. Shri Braham Dev Gupta ITA 907/2017 and 1162/2017 (Del HC)  CIT Vs. Toyota Motor Corporation (Delhi) (174 Taxman 395) / Toyota Motor Corporation 173 Taxman 458 (SC)  Omni Lens Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad Bench) (ITA No.2818/Ahd/2017)…

KALYANRAO VASANTRAO KALE HUF,PHANDHARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 184/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…nd so as to be prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT Vs. South India shipping Corpn. Ltd. 1998) 147 CTR (Mad) 433 : (1998) 233 ITR 546 (Mad) CIT Vs. M.M. Khambhatwala (1992) 198 ITR 144 (Guj) and CIT Vs. Bhagwan Das (2004) 191 CTR 531 : (2005) 272 ITR 367 (All). 7. We have perused the assessment order as well as the order of the ld. Pr. CIT. We find that in the assessment order, the ld. A.O has not brought out specific facts after due verification regarding the extent of agricultural income and the agricultural expenses incurred…

BHASKAR ARVIND KUMAR HINGAD,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT CIT-24(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 692/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.692/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Bhaskar Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-24(1) Hingad 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Flat No. 1, Ratnakar Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Building, 26 Narayan Mumbai-400012. Dhabolkar Road, Mumbai- 400006. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacph2812F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2014- 15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…aside in revision. It has to be shown unmistakably that the order of the Assessing Officer is unsustainable. Anything short of that would not clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under section 263 of the Act. CIT v. M.M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT v. Ralson Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83, relied on. (Para 72) As regard the third question as to whether the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind, it was held that the Court has to start with the presumption…

M/S KINNOR KINNOREE,KOLKATA vs. CIT-X, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/KOL/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…f revision even in a case where the issue is debatable and it must always be borne in min’d that the provisional power under section 263 is not comparable with the power of rectification of mistake under section 154 of the Act [CIT v. M.M. Khambhatwala (1992) 198 ITR 144,146 (Guj). In fact, it is well settled that an incorrect assumption of the facts or application of law will satisfy the requirement ot the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. In the same category would fall the orders passed without application of mind. The Commissoner may consider and order of the Assessing Officer…

SHRI NITIN A SHIRGURKAR,BELGAVI vs. PR. CIT, HUBBALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe

ITA 77/PAN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 194A(3)(iv)Section 263Section 40

…IT with jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 263 of the clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 263 of the clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 263 of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT vs. Ralson Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT vs. Ralson Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), no…

SHOBHA RAMCHANDRA CHAUDHARI,YAWAL vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 1, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 176/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: The A.O The Assessee Had Filed Copies Of 7/12 Extracts, Bank Account Details & Pages Of Diary, Where The Assessee Had Noted The Details Of Transactions Regarding Agricultural Income.

For Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena (through physical)
Section 263

…was not ousted. It has been further held that the CIT in exercise of his power of revision can pass such order as the circumstances of the case would justify including an order directing a fresh assessment. A.Y. 206-17 9. In CIT Vs. M.M. Khambhatwala (1992) 198 ITR 144 (Guj) it was held that the CIT would be entitled to revise the order of the ITO, if he is of the view that the order of the ITO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The CIT can exercise his power u/s 263 of the Act even in a case where the issue is debatable. Revisionary powers u/s 263 are not comparable with powers of re…

PIRAMAL INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES FUND,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT, RANGE-20, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 700/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 700/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2015-16 ) Piramal Investment Opportunities Fund, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai 400 013 Pan: Aactp-3767-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -20, Room No.418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai 400 012. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ronak Doshi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri R.K.Sahu & Milind Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/01/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai -20 (In Short ‘The Pcit’) Dated 12/03/2021 For Assessment Year 2015-16, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In Short ‘ The Act’ )

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: S/Shri R.K.Sahu and Milind Chavan
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 61

…g Officer. In support of his arguments he placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. vs. DCIT, 111 taxamann.com 353(Cochin- Trib) (ii) Ballarpur Industries Ltd., 85 taxamann.com 10(Bom) (iii) CIT vs.MM Khambhatwala, 198 ITR 144 (Guj) (iv) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., vs. CIT 109 Taxman 66(SC) (v) Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd., vs. PCIT 70 taxmann.com 124(Cal) (vi) Swarup Vegetable Products Vs. CIT 54 Taxman 175 (All) (vii) Nagal Garment Industries (P) Ltd. vs. CIT 113 taxmann.com 4 (MP) 4. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of a…

M/S DHARA DEALERS PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR.-13(1), KOLKATA

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

ITA 523/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ide in revision. It has to be shown unmistakably that the order of the Assessing Officer is unsustainable. Anything short of that would not clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 263 of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83, relied on. (Para 72) As regard the third question as to whether the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind, it was held that the Court has to start with the presumption…

DECENT ENCLAVE (P) LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DRISHTI AUTO PART ACCESORIES (P) LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-4, KOLKATA

ITA 39/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…ide in revision. It has to be shown unmistakably that the order of the Assessing Officer is unsustainable. Anything short of that would not clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 263 of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83, relied on. (Para 72) As regard the third question as to whether the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind, it was held that the Court has to start with the presumption…

M/S KBR TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD., KOLKATA vs. ITO-4(4), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 396/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 396/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Kbr Township Pvt. Ltd……………...................…..……………………………………………….…..Appellant Room No. 4 Martin Burn Building 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aabck 0777 A] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Kolkata.....................................................................………..Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…risdiction to exercise power under short of that would not clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under short of that would not clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 263 of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. reported in 288 IT…

SHRINGAR MARKETING PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-4, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 637/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2015-16
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…der short of that would not clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under short of that would not clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 263 of the Act. of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 IT reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT vs. Raison Industries Ltd vs. Raison Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; . reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83, relied on. (Para 72) As regard the reported in 243 ITR 83, relied on. (Para 72) As regard the third question a…

ANKIT GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15
Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…o exercise power under short of that would not clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under short of that would not clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 263 of the Act. of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT vs. Raison Industries Ltd vs. Raison Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; . reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83, relied on. (Para 72) As regard the reported in 243 ITR 83, relied on. (Para 72) As re…

HILL QUEEN INVESTMENT PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 643/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Hill Queen Investment (P) Ltd...……………………....................................……………..…….............Appellant Surobala Apartments Flat No. 202 3Rd Floor Block-B Rekhjuani, Bhatinda Rajarhat Kolkata – 700 135 [Pan : Aaacj 2324 P] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata..................…………...............................…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Devi Sharan Singh, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 6Th, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 21St, 2021 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 20/03/2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 223 (Two Hundred Twenty Three) Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation For Delay, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause In Filing The Appeal In Time. Hence, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.20,40,470/- On 28/09/2015. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny For The Following Reasons:- “(I) Mismatch In Sales Turnover Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Ii) Mismatch In Amount Paid To Related Persons U/S 40A(2)(B) Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Iii) Suspicious Sale Transaction In Shares (Penny Stock Tab In Its)”

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…d not clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 263 of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 Section 263 of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 Section 263 of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT vs. Raison Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar vs. Raison Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar vs. Raison Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83, relied on. (Para 72) As regard the Industrial Co.…

SATISH KUMAR LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 260/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ide in revision. It has to be shown unmistakably that the order of the Assessing Officer is unsustainable. Anything short of that would not clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 263 of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT vs. Raison Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83, relied on. (Para 72) As regard the third question as to whether the assessment order was passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind, it was held that the Court has to start with the presumption…

NEXTGEN VYAPAAR ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1176/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2021AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…cise power under Anything short of that would not clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under Anything short of that would not clothe the CIT with jurisdiction to exercise power under Section 263 of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT vs. Section 263 of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT vs. Section 263 of the Act. CIT vs. M. M. Khambhatwala reported in 198 ITR 144; CIT vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not appli Ralson Industries Ltd. reported in 288 ITR 322 (SC), not applicable; Malabar Industrial cable; Malabar Indus…

Showing 1–20 of 67 · Page 1 of 4