How many judgments cite CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd.?

116 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd. (345 ITR 135), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 147, Section 144B, Section 144.

CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd.

345 ITR 135High Court2012#914 most cited

What is CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd. authority for?

The High Court explains the scope and conditions for exercising revisional power under Section 263, emphasizing that an assessment order can be revised only if it is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

116

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears · Nagesh Knitwears · Section 263 · revisional power · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · inadequate enquiry · Malabar Industrial · scope of revision · PCIT/CIT powers · assessment order revision

Also reported as

254 CTR 11322 Taxmann.com 309210 Taxmann 145

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 144B Section 144 Section 10(20)Section 115BBE

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiry prejudicial to interest of revenue section 10(2)section 43a section 36(1)(viii)malabar industrial lack of enquiry infrastructure facility assessment order erroneous erroneous and prejudicial section 263(1)section 80ia(4)

Judgments citing CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd.

World Trade Park Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT - 5, Mumbai

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

ITA 1364/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleworld Trade Park Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit -5 4Th Floor, Wtp, Jln Room No. 515, 5Th Marg, Jaipur, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajasthan – 302107 Mk Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr8969E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Sahai.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Dr.Kishordhule.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-52, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sahai.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Dr.KishorDhule.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 271B

…which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has been followed and explained in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282.” 11. Further In the case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income tax has to come to the conclusi…

Saurashtra Trust, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1182/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande (Sr. AR)

Section 11Section 11(3)Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 24Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1182/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) बिधम/ Saurashtra Trust CIT(Exemptions) 601, 6th Floor, Cumballa Janmabhoomi Bhavan, Vs. janmabhoomi Marg, Fort, Hill MTNL TE Building, Mumbai-400001. Peddar Road, dr. Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai- 400026. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAATS2786B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue by: Ms. Samruddhi Hande (Sr. AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of…

Komal Indstries Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 99/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Srt/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Komal Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income B-904, International Commerce Tax-1, Aaykar Bhawan, Nr. Majura Centre, Ring Road, Near Gate, Opp New Civil Hospital, Kadiwala School, Surat–395002. Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadck6228Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By None (Written Submissions) राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05/01/2023 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 56(2)(viib)

…assessment order dated 13.11.2019 is found to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs . Nagesh Knitwears P. Ltd and others (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Del) wherein was held that "as far as Section 263 is concerned, we have examined the said Section in depth and detail in ITO Vs. D G Housing Projects Ltd. decided on 1st March, 2012, in ITA No. 179/2011 and observed as under: Revenue does not have any right to appeal to the first appellate authority against an order passed by the Assessing Offic…

Raj Abhishek Corporation, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 117/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.117/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Raj Abhishek Corporation Principal Commissioner Of Income 501,Kohinoortextiles Market, Tax, Surat-1, Room No.123, Aaykar Vs. Ring Road, Surat-395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat—395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aajfr 6297 D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ketan Jagirdar, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Jagirdar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.117/SRT/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Raj Abhishek Corporation Principal Commissioner of Income 501,KohinoorTextiles Market, Tax, Surat-1, Room No.123, Aaykar Vs. Ring Road, Surat-395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat—395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAJFR 6297 D (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Ketan Jagirdar, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of Hearing : 21/…

Impact Foundation (India), Mumbai vs. The Comm of Income Tax (Exemp), Mumbai

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

ITA 931/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.931/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Impact Foundation (India) बिधम/ Cit (E), Mumbai F1, 1St Floor, Laxmi Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, Vs. Wooden Mills, Opp G5A, Mtnl Building, Pedder Shakti Mills Lane, Off, Dr. Road, Dr. Gopalrao E. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi Deshmukh Marg, (W), Mumbai-400011. Cumballa Hill, Mumbai- 400026. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaat1422J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Shri Purushottam Tripuri (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 06/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit (Exemptions), Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Dated 24.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Is Challenging The Validity Of Invocation Of Jurisdiction By Ld Cit(E) U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Tripuri (Sr. AR)

Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…ow that the tax which was lawfully exigible has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation a lesser tax than what was just has been imposed” 11. In the case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income tax has to come to the conclusi…

Mirum Digital Private Limited Ghatkopar West, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-6

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1489/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalmirum Digital Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 101A/101Ai, Raheja Plaza 1, A-Wing, 1St Floor, Ghatkopar (West), 35, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400086. Pan: Aancs0273K ...... Appellant Vs. Pr.Cit-6, Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/01/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mirum Digital Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 101A/101AI, Raheja Plaza 1, A-Wing, 1st Floor, Ghatkopar (West), 35, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400086. PAN: AANCS0273K ...... Appellant Vs. Pr.CIT-6, Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Himanshu Gandhi, CA Respondent by : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 06/10/2022 Date of pronouncement : 02/01/2023 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Principle Commissioner of Income…

Pioneer Insurance & Reinsurance Brokers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 935/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

…o show that the tax which was lawfully exigible has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation a lesser tax than what was just has been imposed” In the case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income tax has to come to the conclusi…

Pioneer Investcorp Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 934/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

Pioneer Investcorp Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax - 3, Mumbai and Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax – 3(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 933/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Aby T Varkey (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 263

Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia. Legal Heir of Hasmukhlal Patadia., Cuttack vs. ITO Ward-!(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/CTK/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack26 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.125/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016) Bhavendra Hasmukhlal Patadia, Vs Ito, Ward-1(1), Cuttack Legal Heir Of Hasmukhlal Patadia, Nayabazar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack-753004 Pan No. :Adapp 6256 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Shah, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/12/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit, Cuttack, Passed In Itba/Com/F/17/2019-20/1026790827(1), Dated 19.03.2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. Head On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Appeal Record, It Is Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 784 Days. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Dated 11.07.2022 Along With Affidavit Stating Therein That Due To Continuous Lockdown On Account Of Spread Of Covid-19, The Assessee Could Not File The Present Appeal In Time, Therefore, He Prayed That Delay Of 784 Days In Filing The Present Appeal May Kindly Be Condoned. On The Other Hand, Ld. Cit-Dr Did Not Object To The Above Submission Of The Ld. Ar. Considering The Above, We Condone

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…due appreciation of such material. If this 15 component is missing, it will always be a case of lack of inquiry and not inadequate inquiry." Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwers P. Ltd & others (345 ITR 135) wherein it was held that when the A.O. has allowed claim of the assessee in a slipshod manner without conducting any inquiry, then in the case of no inquiry, the assessment order is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order of assessment has to be a speaking order and when the fact of others' view has not been…

Virgo Aluminum Ltd., Sirmour vs. Pr. C.I.T., Circle, Patiala

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 438/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 438/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 80Section 80I

…d "erroneous" includes failure to make the enquiry. In such cases, the order becomes erroneous enquiry or verification has not been made and not because a wrong order has been passed on merits." The Hon'ble Delhi High court in Nagesh Knitwear Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 135 has held as under:- "The Assessing officer is both an investigator and an adjudicator, if the assessing officer as an adjudicator decides a question or aspect and makes a wrong assessment which is unsustainable in law, it can be corrected by the Commissioner in exercise of revisionary power. As an investigator, it is incumbent upon the Assessing…

Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Sirmour vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 453/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Disposed Off.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…aid extract again lends no credibility to the action taken by the ld. PCIT in the present proceedings. 3.22 Addressing decision of another decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court relied upon by the ld. PCIT in the case of Nagesh Knitwear Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 135 it was submitted by the ld. AR that again it is a quotation of the obiter from the decision of the ITA-453/CHD/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page 19 of 38 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DG Housing Projects Ltd. and does not support the impugned order. The issue for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court in the facts of Nagesh Knitwear Pvt.…

Vishnu Goyal, Jodhpur vs. Pr. CIT, Central, Jaipur

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

ITA 47/JODH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…nnot set aside the assessment order for doing assessment de-nova on the issues on which the revision proceeding was initiated. This view gets support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwears (P) Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135/210), wherein it was held as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income tax has to come to the conclusion and himself decide that the order is erroneous, by conducting necessary enquiry, if required and necessary, before the order under section 263 is passed. In such cases, Vishnu Goyal, Jodhpur vs.…

Vishnu Goyal, Jodhpur vs. Pr. CIT, Central, Jaipur

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

ITA 46/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

Bbr Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Bbr Projects Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward – 1(14), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaccb7153J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy –

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 37Section 40

…and also in the case of CIT v. Nirav Modi, 390 ITR 292, it was held that it is incumbent on the CIT to conduct some minimum enquiry before invoking the jurisdiction u/s.263 and set aside the order passed by the AO. In the case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income tax has to come to the conclusio…

Ashokkumar Bhanwarlal Chhajer, Sanpada vs. Pr. CIT - (Central), Pune

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

ITA 1361/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

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

…inciple which has been laid down in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) has been followed and explained in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282.” 9. In the case of Nagesh Knitwears P Ltd (2012)(345 ITR 135), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT Vs. Goetze (India) Ltd (361 ITR 505) as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the Commissioner of Income tax has to come to the conclusio…

M/S Sudhir Forgings (P) Ltd., Ludhiana vs. Pr. CIT-3, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 505/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 505/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2013-14

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application)For Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 263Section 68

…ure to make such an inquiry. The order becomes erroneous because such an inquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct." 5.10 In the case of CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwears 345 ITR 135 (Del), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court after considering the ratio of its earlier decisions including its decision in the case of ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. (345 ITR 153) held as under:- "36. As far as Section 263 is concerned, we have examined the said Section in depth and detail in ITO Vs. D G Housing Projects Ltd. decided on 1st March, 20…

Leela Gupta, Jalandhar vs. Principal Comissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing I

ITA 75/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

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

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

…inite finding that the expenditure in question was a capital expenditure in the proceedings under section 263, in our opinion, the order of the assessing officer could not be held to be erroneous." 7.3. In the case of CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 135/210 Taxman 145/22 taxmann.com 309 (Delhi), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has elucidated and explained the scope of the provisions of sec. 263 of the Act and the same has been extracted by the Delhi High court in the case of CIT v. I.T.A. No.75/Asr/2022 10 Goetze(India) Ltd. [2014] 361 ITR 505/225 Taxman 133/44 taxmann.com 138 as under: — "Thus,…

Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (Kiit), Patia vs. CIT (Exemp.) Hyderabad, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 48/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Cit (Exemptions), Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, Hyderabad 384, 384, Kiit Kiit Campus Campus-1, Patia, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaatk 3103 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ar S.K.Agarwalla, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13 /9 9/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/9 9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Ag This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Ainst The Order Of The Ld Cit(E), Hyderabad Hyderabad Passed U/S.263 Of The Act Dated Dated 14.3.2022 In Appeal No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021 Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1040690424(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri S.K.Agarwala, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Agarwala, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Agarwala, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

Section 10Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…ays be faithful and fruitful. Unless all fruitful areas of enquiry are pursued the enquiry cannot be said to have been faithfully conducted. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwers P. Ltd & others (345 ITR 135) wherein it was held that when the A.O. has allowed claim of the assessee in a slipshod manner without conducting any inquiry, then in the case of no inquiry, the assessment order is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order of assessment has to be a speaking order and when the fact of others' view has not been…

Sun Stone Ingineering Induries P.Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pcti-2, Jaipur

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 50/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Avdhesh Kumar (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 263

…The ld. PCIT derived the supports from the following judgments as under:- • Malabar Industrial Limited vs. CIT 243 ITR. • TTK LIG Ltd. vs. ACIT(Mad) 51 DTR 228. • ARvee International vs. Addl. CIT (ITAT, Mum) 101 ITD 495. • CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. 345 ITR 135 (Delhi H.C.). • Gee Vee Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (1975) 99 ITR 375. • CIT vs. Raisons Industries Ltd. 288 ITR 322 (SC). • Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad H.C.). 7. The learned counsel for the assessee has submitted before us that the revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act could be exercised within…