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 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 144BSection 144Section 10(20)Section 115BBE
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiryprejudicial to interest of revenuesection 10(2)section 43asection 36(1)(viii)malabar industriallack of enquiryinfrastructure facilityassessment order erroneouserroneous and prejudicialsection 263(1)section 80ia(4)

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

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The DCIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. CIT(1), Indore 21- GF, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) PAN No.ABNPB6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, ACIT-2(1), Indore 21- GF, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) PAN No.ABNPB6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, DCIT-2(1), Indore 21- GF, Bhandari…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The ACIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. CIT(1), Indore 21- GF, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) PAN No.ABNPB6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, ACIT-2(1), Indore 21- GF, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) PAN No.ABNPB6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, DCIT-2(1), Indore 21- GF, Bhandari…

M/S. Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 355/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 35A

…rial Co. Ltd. Vis Commissioner of Income Tax 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. Smt. Taradevi Aggrawal Vis Commissioner of Income Tax 88 ITR 323 (SC) 3 Rampyaridevi Saraogi Vis Commissioner of Income Tax 67 ITR 84 (SC) Commissioner of Income Tax Vis Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd 345 ITR 135 4 (Delhi HC) [ITA No.355/Ind/2017] [Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre] 5 Gee Vee Enterprises Vis Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax 99 ITR 375 (Delhi HC) 6 Bhushan Steel Ltd. Vis Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax IT AT A ~ench Delhi Commissioner of Income-tax v.Deepak Kumar Garg 299 ITR 435 (Madhya 7. Pradesh) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maha…

Shri Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 350/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. CIT(1), Indore 21- GF, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) PAN No.ABNPB6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, ACIT-2(1), Indore 21- GF, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) PAN No.ABNPB6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, DCIT-2(1), Indore 21- GF, Bhandari…

M/S. Simpson Unitech Wireless (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1953/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agrawal, Adv. ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana CIT-DR
Section 28Section 3

…in income of assessee and hence Tribunal was wrong in upholding deletion made by AAC. 33 I.T.A. No.1953, 101/DEL/2014 & 2075 & 2989/DEL/2017 iii. CIT Vs Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd. f20121 22 taxmann.com 309 (Delhi)/[20121 210 Taxman 145 (Delhi)(MAG.)(2012) 345 ITR 135 (Delhi), where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that premium received on sale of export quota by exporters of readymade garments is not covered by any of clauses i.e., clause (iiia) to (iiic) of section 28 and therefore, cannot be included while computing deduction under section 80HHC. iv. CIT Vs T.V. Sundaiam Iyengar & Sons Ltd. T19961 88 Taxman 4…

M/S. Acorus Unitech Wireless Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2989/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agrawal, Adv. ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana CIT-DR
Section 28Section 3

…in income of assessee and hence Tribunal was wrong in upholding deletion made by AAC. 33 I.T.A. No.1953, 101/DEL/2014 & 2075 & 2989/DEL/2017 iii. CIT Vs Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd. f20121 22 taxmann.com 309 (Delhi)/[20121 210 Taxman 145 (Delhi)(MAG.)(2012) 345 ITR 135 (Delhi), where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that premium received on sale of export quota by exporters of readymade garments is not covered by any of clauses i.e., clause (iiia) to (iiic) of section 28 and therefore, cannot be included while computing deduction under section 80HHC. iv. CIT Vs T.V. Sundaiam Iyengar & Sons Ltd. T19961 88 Taxman 4…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Acorus Wireless Unitech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2075/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agrawal, Adv. ShriFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana CIT-DR
Section 28Section 3

…in income of assessee and hence Tribunal was wrong in upholding deletion made by AAC. 33 I.T.A. No.1953, 101/DEL/2014 & 2075 & 2989/DEL/2017 iii. CIT Vs Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd. f20121 22 taxmann.com 309 (Delhi)/[20121 210 Taxman 145 (Delhi)(MAG.)(2012) 345 ITR 135 (Delhi), where Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that premium received on sale of export quota by exporters of readymade garments is not covered by any of clauses i.e., clause (iiia) to (iiic) of section 28 and therefore, cannot be included while computing deduction under section 80HHC. iv. CIT Vs T.V. Sundaiam Iyengar & Sons Ltd. T19961 88 Taxman 4…

Nilesh Vasant Shende, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 670/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.670/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Nilesh Vasant Shende, Mzsk & Associates Chartered Accountants, Level-3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune-411 001. Pan : Anxps3098L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe
Section 143(2)

…tions of the CBDT are issued only to reduce the burden on the taxpayers and it has the power to relax the rigours of the law in favour of the taxpayers. For this proposition, Ld. Counsel relied on the following case laws : 1.CIT Vs. Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. 345 ITR 135 2.CIT Vs. Mrs. Avtar Mohan Singh 136 ITR 645 3.Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT 343 ITR 0270 4 .Dattatraya Gopal Bhotts Vs. CIT 150 ITR 460 8. Ld. Counsel also argued stating that the Board granted a provision to convert a limited scrutiny case to the unlimited one subject to the approval of the administrative CIT. Despite the same, the AO fail…

Triumph International Finance India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 590/MUM/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm M/S. Triumph International Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Finance India Ltd., Income Tax, Oxford Centre, 10, Central Circle-40, Aayakar Shorff Lane, Colaba Bhawan, M.K.Road Causeway, Colaba Mumbai Mumbai – 400 005 Pan/Gir No.Aaace0308A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-40, Vs. M/S. Triumph International Aayakar Bhawan, Finance India Ltd., M.K.Road Oxford Centre, 10, Mumbai Shorff Lane, Colaba Causeway, Colaba Mumbai – 400 005 Pan/Gir No. Aaace0308A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By Shri Dr. P. Daniel Date Of Hearing 03/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 19/06/2019

Section 10(33)Section 143(3)

…34D of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the ld DR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd reported in (2012) 254 CTR 113 in support of his contentions. The brief facts of this issue are that the ld AO charged interest u/s 234D of the Act in the second round of proceedings completed by him vide order dated 28.12.2011 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act. The ld AR contended that in the original assessment (i.e first round of proceedings, no interest u/s 234D of the Act…

Ankush Garg, Rohtak vs. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2287/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 263

…confirm the same. The first question raised is whether the order under Section 263 of the Act is justified and in accordance with law. Section 263 has been elucidated and explained in Commissioner of Income Tax versus Nagesh Knitwears Private Limited, (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Delhi). In the said decision, reference was made to Malabar Industrial Company Limited versus CIT, (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and decisions of Delhi High Court in Nabha Investments Private Limited versus Union of India, (2000) 246 ITR 41 (Delhi) and ITO versus DG Housing Projects Limited, (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). It has been observed in Nagesh Kn…

M/S. Conton Textiles Mills Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 9, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2742/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2019AY 2010-11
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…Court in the case of Deniel Merchants P. Ltd. vs. ITO in SLP No. 23976/2017 – judgment and order dated 29.11.2017. She also relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwears P. Ltd. and CIT vs. Orient Crafts Ltd. reported in 345 ITR 135. 6. In rejoinder, the ld. counsel submitted that here it is not the case of no inquiry. In fact, the entire assessment proceedings revolve around the inquiry on this particular issue only. Therefore, it cannot be held that in terms of Explanation-2, it is a deemed case of canceling of assessment u/s. 263. Without prejudice, he submitted that, if…

Bagrrys India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 2, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3785/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, Adv. & Ms. SweetyFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…rtain details or papers from the assessee and keeping it on record cannot amount to making a proper inquiry expected from an Assessing Officer. 10.1 He also referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nagesh Network Pvt. Ltd., 345 ITR 135 and NIIT vs. CIT (2015) 60 taxmann.com 2013. During the course of proceedings u/s 263, this issue was considered and after considering the relevant material on record and giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the CIT came to a logical and judicious conclusion that many vital issues were not considered and examined by the AO. 10.2…

Rajesh Kumar, Hisar vs. CIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3337/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Rajesh Kumar, Vs. Cit, 1931, Gate No. 2, Behind Hisar M.G. Road, Hisar Pan :Aohpk1201L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manoj Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit(Dr)

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

…to be an enquiry at all, much less enquiry needed to reach the level of satisfaction of the Assessing Officer on the given issue.” 7.14 The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nagesh Knitwears Private Limited (2012) 345 ITR 135(Delhi) held that “the Assessing Officer is both an investigator and an adjudicator and as an investigator, the Assessing Officer is required to examine and verified to compute the taxable income and if he fails to conduct the said investigation, he commits an error and the word erroneous include failure to make the enquiry. The Hon’ble High Court…

M/S United Breweries Ltd vs. C.I.T

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 782/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. B. R Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Anitha R, CAFor Respondent: Smt Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194C(2)Section 244ASection 263Section 40

…0 ITR 292, it was held that it is incumbent on the CIT to conduct some minimum enquiry before invoking the ITA.782/Bang/2013 & 594/Bang/2014 Page - 19 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 conclusi…

Durgesh Autofin P.Ltd, Bijnor vs. Prcit, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2539/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2539/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Durgesh Autofin P. Ltd., Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Director, Muzaffarnagar-251002 S/O Late Sh. Tejpal Singh, Mandi Kotla, Near Nehru Murti, Chandpur, Bijnot, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd0768P Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rachna Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit, Muzaffarnagar U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 41(1)Section 68

…s: " Dawjee Dadabhoy and Co. Vs S.P. Jain 31 ITR 872 (Cal.) " Pratap Footwear Vs ACIT (2003) SOT 638 (Jabalpur- Trib.) " CIT Vs Bhagwan Das (2005) 272 ITR 367 (All.) " PVS Multiplex India Ltd. Vs CIT 815 Taxpundit 50 " CIT Vs Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Del.) " Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) " Nabha Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (2000) 246 ITR 41 (Del.) " ITO Vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.) 25. It was further submitted that the expression “prejudicial to the interest of the revenue” is of wide import and is not confined to merely lo…

The J.K. Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…ix. CIT v. Amalgamations Ltd. [1999] 238 ITR 963 (Mad.) (para 10), x. CIT v. V.P. Agarwal [1993] 68 Taxman 236 (All.) (para 10), xi. Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 321 ITR 92/188 Taxman 327 (Bom.) (para 12), xii. CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 135/210 Taxman 145/22 taxmann.com 309 (Delhi) (para 18), xiii. CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd. [2014] 361 ITR 505/225 Taxman 133/44 taxmann.com 138 (Delhi) (para 18) and xiv. Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC) (para 19). 2.17. On consideration of the aforesaid cases, the Co- ordinate Bench held as under:- ■ The assessments ha…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-11 vs. Shri Braham Dev Gupta

The appeals are allowed

ITA/907/2017HC Delhi20 Jul 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 263

…see’s income, holding that the AO’s original order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue; reliance was placed on Commissioner of Income Tax v Gotzee India Limited, 361 ITR 505 (HC); Commissioner of Income Tax v Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. 345 ITR 135 and Gee Yee Enterprises v Additional Commissioner of Income Tax 99 ITR 375 which held that the AO’s role also involves investigation and that an order is erroneous when such enquiries are not made. The CIT held that the assessee had shown trading loss in its of books of accounts. The assessee was proprietor of M/s DSM International. It came…

Maharashtra Airport Development, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

…ix. CIT v. Amalgamations Ltd. [1999] 238 ITR 963 (Mad.) (para 10), x. CIT v. V.P. Agarwal [1993] 68 Taxman 236 (All.) (para 10), xi. Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 321 ITR 92/188 Taxman 327 (Bom.) (para 12), xii. CIT v. Nagesh Knitwears (P.) Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 135/210 Taxman 145/22 taxmann.com 309 (Delhi) (para 18), xiii. CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd. [2014] 361 ITR 505/225 Taxman 133/44 taxmann.com 138 (Delhi) (para 18) and xiv. Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC) (para 19). 3.7. On consideration of the aforesaid cases, the Co- ordinate Bench held as under:- ■ The assessments hav…

Suresh Jugraj Mutha, Dhule vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vi Kas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.05/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Dr. V.L. JainFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 28Section 54

…ons of the CBDT are issued only to reduce the burden on the taxpayers and it has the power to relax the rigours of the law in favour of the taxpayers. For this proposition, Ld. Counsel relied on the following case laws : 1. CIT Vs. Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. 345 ITR 135 2. CIT Vs. Mrs. Avtar Mohan Singh 136 ITR 645 3. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT 343 ITR 0270 4 . Dattatraya Gopal Bhotts Vs. CIT 150 ITR 460 8. Ld. Counsel also argued stating that the Board granted a provision to convert a limited scrutiny case to the unlimited one subject to the approval of the administrative CIT. Despite the same, the AO…

Fundtech India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 5252/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri B. R. Baskaran & Amarjit Singh]

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234DSection 250Section 27l(1)(c)Section 32(1)(ii)

…ITA. NO. 5252/M/2015 5638/M/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F”BENCH, MUMBAI [BEFORE S/SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER] ITA Nos. 5252/M/2015 & 5638/M/2015 (Assessment Year): 2009-10& 2011-12 Fundtech India Private Limited Vs. DCIT-8(1) 604-605, 6th Floor, Powai Plaza, Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. Hiranandani Complex, Powai, 209 M.K. Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400076 400020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACS7155D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Nitesh Joshi Respondent by Shri Pooja Swaroop Date of Hearing: 12.10.2017 Date o…