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.

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

ITA 2807/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

…following decisions : (i) CIT vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (2012) 341 ITR 434 (Gau.) (HC) (FB). (ii) Malabar Industrial co. Ltd., 243 ITR 83 (SC) (iii) Pratap Footwear vs. ACIT (2003) SOT 638 (Jabalpur) (Trib.) (iv) CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwear Private Ltd., (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Del.) (v) Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT, Delhi-1 (1975) 99 ITR 375. (vi) Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) (vii) NIIT vs. CIT (Central) (2015) 60 taxmann.com 313. 5.1. The Ld. D.R. therefore, submitted that Ld. Pr. CIT correctly set aside the re-assessment order and directed the A.O. to frame assessment after due enquiry…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

ITA 2806/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

…following decisions : (i) CIT vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (2012) 341 ITR 434 (Gau.) (HC) (FB). (ii) Malabar Industrial co. Ltd., 243 ITR 83 (SC) (iii) Pratap Footwear vs. ACIT (2003) SOT 638 (Jabalpur) (Trib.) (iv) CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwear Private Ltd., (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Del.) (v) Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT, Delhi-1 (1975) 99 ITR 375. (vi) Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) (vii) NIIT vs. CIT (Central) (2015) 60 taxmann.com 313. 5.1. The Ld. D.R. therefore, submitted that Ld. Pr. CIT correctly set aside the re-assessment order and directed the A.O. to frame assessment after due enquiry…

Sh. Braham Dev Gupta, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2102/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Adv., Sanjiv Jain CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…oneous. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind. Reliance is placed on the ratio of Hon'ble jurisdictional High 1.2 Court laid down in case of CIT Vs Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. 345 ITR 135 11 Assessment year: 2011-12 (Del) where it has been held that it is incumbent upon the AO investigate facts required to be examined and verified to compute the taxable income. If the AO fail to conduct the said investigation, he commits an error and the word 'erroneous' includes failure to make enquiry. Reliance is placed on the ratio of Hon'bl…

Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-03, New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2813/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Smt. Beena A. Pillaii.T.A. No. 2813/Del/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2813/Del/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12) Delhi Airport Metro Pr. CIT VS. Express Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. Reliance Center Maharaja Ranjit Singh Marg, New Delhi GIR/PAN : AAAFE2646N (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Deepshree Raw, Adv. Respondent by : Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT (DR). Date of hearing : 02.01.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 12.01.2017 ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM: 1. The present appeal has b…

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1678/MUM/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2016AY 1998-99
For Appellant: Shri Jahangir D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 234DSection 263

…stant case before us, the assessment was not completed prior to 1st June, 2003, accordingly 234D is correctly applied for the year under consideration. Our view is supported by the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 254 CTR 113, wherein it was held that Explanation 2 introduced by Finance Act, 2012 is declaratory in nature, therefore there is no manner of doubt that Section 234D is to be applied retrospectively even to the period prior to assessment year 2004-05. 7. Now coming to the period for which interest can be charged. The provisions of Section 234D makes it clear…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3128/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

…be competent to exercise jurisdiction under section 263. The scope and ambit of section 263 has been elaborated upon in the case of Goetze India (P) Ltd. (supra). In the said case, reference was made to judgment in the case of CIT vs Nagesh Knitwears (P) Ltd. 345 ITR 135 wherein their Lordships considered the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. v CIT 243 ITR 83, wherein it has been held as under: “There can be no doubt that the provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer, it is only when an order is…

Jindal Steel Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3283/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

…be competent to exercise jurisdiction under section 263. The scope and ambit of section 263 has been elaborated upon in the case of Goetze India (P) Ltd. (supra). In the said case, reference was made to judgment in the case of CIT vs Nagesh Knitwears (P) Ltd. 345 ITR 135 wherein their Lordships considered the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. v CIT 243 ITR 83, wherein it has been held as under: “There can be no doubt that the provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer, it is only when an order is…

A.V. Industries, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 3469/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. A.V. Industries, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 201, Bhagtani Krishna, Tax -24(3), “A” Wing, Mumbai Vs. Dattaray Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaffa 1100L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Shivaram, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2015 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…ous. 20. We find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “CIT vs. Goetz (I) Ltd.” (supra) has elaborately discussed the various case laws regarding the powers of the Commissioner under section 263 including “CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwars Pvt. Ltd.” (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Delhi – HC) and of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of “Gabriel India Ltd.” (supra) and also of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of “Sunbeam Auto Ltd.” (supra) and has reached to the conclusion that the Commissioner should be able demonstrate that the view taken by the AO was not possible being legally unsustainable and incorrec…

CIT vs. Federal-Logul Goetze (India) Ltd

ITA/1366/2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 263

…ashed/set aside. 6. 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 ofIncome Tax versus Nagesh Knitwears Private Limited, (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Delhi). In thesaiddecision, 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 ITANos. 11…

CIT vs. Federal Mogul Goetze India Ltd

ITA/1979/2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 263

…ashed/set aside. 6. 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 ofIncome Tax versus Nagesh Knitwears Private Limited, (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Delhi). In thesaiddecision, 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 ITANos. 11…

CIT vs. Goetze India Ltd

ITA/2106/2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 263

…ashed/set aside. 6. 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 ofIncome Tax versus Nagesh Knitwears Private Limited, (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Delhi). In thesaiddecision, 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 ITANos. 11…

CIT vs. Goetze (India) Ltd

ITA/1179/2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 260ASection 263

…aside. 6. 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…

CIT vs. Federal Mogul Goetze India Ltd

ITA - 1979 / 2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013
Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 263

…ashed/set aside. 6. 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 ofIncome Tax versus Nagesh Knitwears Private Limited, (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Delhi). In thesaiddecision, 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 j i i d ( ) ( lhi) h b b d i 2013:DHC:7798-DB Nagesh KnitwearsFrivaU Limited(S…

CIT vs. Federal-Logul Goetze (India) Ltd

ITA - 1366 / 2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013
Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 263

…ashed/set aside. 6. 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 ofIncome Tax versus Nagesh Knitwears Private Limited, (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Delhi). In thesaiddecision, 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 j i i d ( ) ( lhi) h b b d i 2013:DHC:7798-DB Nagesh KnitwearsFrivaU Limited(S…

CIT vs. Goetze (India) Ltd

ITA - 1179 / 2010HC Delhi09 Dec 2013
Section 10(33)Section 115JSection 14ASection 154Section 260ASection 263

…aside. 6. 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 2…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Garniwal Exports (P) Ltd

Appeal is allowed

ITA/100/2007HC Karnataka06 Jun 2013

Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA

Section 260Section 80H

…80HHC (1) by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of SHRI ANIL DANG vs THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE (ITA 1252/2006 rendered on 30.12.2010) and (2) decision of the Delhi High Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs NAGESH KNITWEARS P.LTD (345 ITR 135 (Delhi)) wherein in an identical situation the Delhi High Court has opined that the assessee is not entitled for the benefit of Section 80HHC in the case of transfer of export quotas. 11. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sterling Foods reported in 237 ITR 579 (SC) on which the assessing off…