CIT v. Nirav Modi

390 ITR 292High Court2017#275 most cited

What is CIT v. Nirav Modi authority for?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) cannot invoke revisionary powers under Section 263 merely on the ground of "inadequate enquiry" by the Assessing Officer (AO) if the AO has conducted an enquiry, examined evidence, and formed a possible view. For Section 263 to apply, the PCIT must demonstrate that the assessment order is both erroneous (contrary to law) and prejudicial to the revenue.

286

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Nirav Modi · CIT v Nirav Modi · Section 263 · revisionary power · inadequate enquiry · erroneous and prejudicial · assessment order erroneous · twin conditions · Assessing Officer enquiry · Principal Commissioner

Also reported as

71 Taxmann.com 272241 Taxmann 255138 DTR 81

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 80G

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquirylack of enquirysection 263(1)malabar industrialassessment order erroneousrevision u/s 263erroneous and prejudicialrevision under section 263section 54fsection 263section 26section 54

Judgments citing CIT v. Nirav Modi

Solarfield Energy Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, -2, Mumbai

ITA 292/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodsolarfield Energy Private Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 Limited, Hinduja House, Room No. 344, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 171, Dr. Annie Besent Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan – Aaocs4380A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, CIT D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Commissioner of Income Tax-2 14 ITA No. 292/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 held a view different than that arrived at by the A.O. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT, Central-III Vs. Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom). As regards the reliance placed by the ld. D.R on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), the same being distinguishable on facts would not assist the case of the revenue before us. Unlike the facts involved in the case before the Hon‟ble Apex Court, as the A.O…

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. .CIT-(A) 13, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3910/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija
Section 263

…er Section 263 for the reason that the learned Commissioner is of the opinion that inquiries carried out were inadequate. In this regard, following case laws have been referred :- i) CIT v. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom); ii) CIT v. Nirav Modi (2016) 390 ITR 292 (Bom); iii) CIT v. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del); iv) CIT v. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom); v) DIT v. Jyoti Foundation (2013) 357 ITR 388 (Del); and, vi) Globus Infocom Ltd. v. CIT (2014) 369 ITR 14 (Del) Furthermore, following case laws have been referred :- i) Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC); ii) C…

Jytsna Sunderlal Shroff, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 25, Mumbai

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

ITA 216/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A. Mohan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…the Act. Stating that the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, the Ld. counsel relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), CIT v. Nirav Modi [2017] 390 ITR 292 (Bom) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 83 (SC). 4.1 The Ld. counsel further submits that as per section 54 of the Act, the time limit for purchasing a new residential unit is one year or two years after the date of transfer and in case of construction it is three years from the date o…

Vaghasiya Exports, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-32, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2370/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Vaghasiya Exports, Pr. Cit-32, C-11, Bharat Diamond Bourse, 2Nd Floor, Ae-2080, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Bandra Kurla Compex, Bandra Kurla Compex, Bandra (E), Bandra East, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aaafv 2061Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Shivram, A.R. & Shri Rahul Hakani, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Hereinafter Referred To As The Pcit Relevant To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “Order Passed U/S. 263 Is Bad-In-Law & Liable To Be Quashed 1. The Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Issuing Notice U/S.263 Of The Act Based Upon The Proposal Received From Ito / Jt. Cit & Not By Suo-Moto Examination Of Records & Application Of Mind & Thus, The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Are Carried Out Upon The Directions Of Ito / Jt. Cit Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Sec. 263 Of The Act & Hence, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivram, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…w or against the facts of the case, the revisionary proceedings under section 263 by the Ld. PCIT is invalid and without jurisdiction. The Ld. A.R. relied on the decision of Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom.) and CIT vs. Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom.). The Ld. A.R. also submitted that SLP filed by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court also stands dismissed as reported in CIT vs. Nirav Modi (2017) 77 Taxman.com 78 SC. The Ld. A.R. submitted that where there are two possible views and AO has taken one of the possible views, then resort to revisional 6 M/s. Vaghasiya Exports jurisd…

M/S. G Crop Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1017/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri J.K. Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263

…position, he placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited 332 ITR 167. He also placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nirav Modi (390 ITR 292) wherein it was held that where assessing officer, after making proper and detailed enquiries, took a view that amount received by assessee as gift from his relatives was a genuine transaction, the impugned revisionary order passed by Commissioner was not sustainable. He submitted that the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the abo…

Vodafone India Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3327/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shriramlal Negi, Jm Vodafone India Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Income Peninsula Corporate Park, Tax-8, Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Room No. 611, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Parel, Mumbai-400013. Road, Mumbai, Maharastra, Pin- 400020. Pan: Aaach 5332 B Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 35ASection 37

…s placed on the following judicial pronouncements. 1. CIT vs AmritlalBhogilal& Co. 34 ITR 130 (SC) 2. CIT vs Smt. AnnapoornammaChandershekhar (2012) 17 Taxman. Com 120 (Karnataka H.C.) 3. Gabriel India Limited, 203 ITR 108 (Bombay H.C.) 4. CIT vs Nirav Modi, 390 ITR 292 (Bombay H.C.) 5. CIT vs Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC) 6. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) 7. CIT vs Vodafone Essar South Ltd., 212 Taxman 184 (Delhi H.C. – affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CC 9308/2013) 8. CIT vs Vodafone Essar South Ltd. (CC 9308/2012 – SC) 8. As per the ld. AR of the assesse the learned PCIT erred i…

Jay Precision Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 12, Mumbai

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

ITA 2422/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Uodal Raj Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

…to effect of demerger, (iii) the amount reported in the tax audit report (Form 3CD) and Jay Precision 6 Form No. 3CEB are the gross amount of the above purchase including the duties, taxes and freight. Finally, the Ld. counsel relies on (i) CIT v. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bom.), (ii) CIT v. Nirav Modi 77 taxmann.com 78 (SC), (iii) Moil Ltd. v. CIT 396 ITR 244 (Bom.), (iv) CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 (Del.), (v) CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. 372 ITR 303 (Bom.). 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submits that the details filed by the assessee before the AO during the…

M/S K R Construction, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Central-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7615/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunathak.R.Construction Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Basement, Hinal Residency Income Tax-Central-3 19Th Floor Datta Mandir Road Dahanukar Wadi Air India Building Kandivali(W) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 067 Mumbai-400 021

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

…n the issues in guise of inadequate enquiry as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High court in case of CIT vs Gabrieal India Limited (1993) 203 ITR 108. This view was further supported by the decision of Hon,ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 292. In this case, on perusal of facts, we find that the Ld.PCIT has questioned the issue of suppression of turnover, which is also a matter of deliberation by the Ld. AO during the reassessment proceedings and hence, we are of the considered view that the Ld. PCIT was completely erred in invoking jurisdiction to revise the assessment order passed by…

Sunray Cotspin (P) Ltd, Gurgaon vs. Pr. CIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5239/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamblem/S. Sunray Cotspin (P) Ltd. Vs. Pr. Cit Plot No.660, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana-122 002

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…r of revision can be exercised only where no enquiry, as required under the law, is done. It is not open to enquire in case of inadequate inquiry. Our view is fortified by the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi, [2016] 71 Taxmann.com 272 (Bombay)". 20. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 has held that: “ the decision of the ITO cannot be held to be erroneous simply because in his order he did not made an elaborate discussion in this regard…….”. 21. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Micro Inks Ltd. 85 Taxmann.…

Motilal Salecha HUF, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 31, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2943/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Motilal Salecha Huf, Pr. Cit-31, Room No. 301, C-13 44/2, Ground Floor, Suresh Pratyakshakar Bahvan, Bandra Vs. Bhavan, Road No. 6, Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. Jawahar Nagar,Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400062. Pan No. Aakhm0433P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. P.J. Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar & Mr. V.Vinod Kumar, DRs
Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Motilal Salecha HUF, Pr. CIT-31, Room No. 301, C-13 44/2, Ground Floor, Suresh Pratyakshakar Bahvan, Bandra Vs. Bhavan, Road No. 6, Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. Jawahar Nagar,Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400062. PAN No. AAKHM0433P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. P.J. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Sashank Dundu, AR Revenue by : Mr. Rajesh Kumar & Mr. V.Vinod Kumar, DRs Last Date of Hearing : 18/10/2019 Date of Pronouncement : 13/01/2020 ORD…

Syscom Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-3, Mumbai

ITA 1608/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1608/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsyanFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Billa, DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263

…es as it must in other spheres of human activity. 14. Reliance for the above contention is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i. Judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner to Income-tax vs. Nirav Modi reported at (2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bombay) (Page No. 50-60 of the Paperbook), wherein the Hon'ble High Court had held as under: "6. It is a settled position in law that powers under s. 263 of the Act can be exercised by the CIT on satisfaction of twin conditions viz. the assessment order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. By erroneous is meant contrary to law. T…

M/S. Chandukaka Saraf and Co, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax - (Central), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 759/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vipin K. GujarathiFor Respondent: Mrs. Nandita Kanchan
Section 131Section 132Section 263

…to a conclusion that no mind had been applied to it. Further reliance was placed by the Ld. AR of the assessee in another decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nirav Modi in Income Tax Appeal No.117 & 119 of 2014 reported in (2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom) in which case it was held by the Hon‟ble High Court that on observing the order of Pr. CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act, it is clear that enquiries were made by the Assessing Officer, therefore, it is not case of no enquiry probably it is case of inadequate enquiry by the Assessing Officer according to the decision of Pr.CIT. But in such scena…

Starx Creations Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-2010

ITA 2303/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Starx Creations Pvt. Ltd., The Pr. Cit-8, 79/87, D. Lad Path, Kolachowki, Room No. 611, 6Th Floor, Mumbai - 400033 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan:Aaecm3513F Vs. Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Rahul Raman/Amit Pratap Singh (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/12/2019

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah (CA)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman/Amit Pratap Singh
Section 133Section 143Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Starx Creations Pvt. Ltd., The Pr. CIT-8, 79/87, D. Lad Path, Kolachowki, Room No. 611, 6th Floor, Mumbai - 400033 Aayakar Bhavan, PAN:AAECM3513F Vs. Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Dharmesh Shah (CA) Revenue by : Shri Rahul Raman/Amit Pratap Singh (CIT DR) Date of Hearing: 27/09/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 19/12/2019 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Pr. Comm…

Hi-Rock Construction Co., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4327/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Hi Rock Construction Co. Pr. Cit -32 C-11, 2Nd Floor, 903, A, Gurukul Tower, Cst No. 890, J. S. Road, Dahisar (W), Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan: Aaffh6403B Mumbai. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi with Shri Shubham Rathi (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…(Del.)]. 19. On third alternative preposition that no revision under section 263 is permissible, if Assessing Officer conducted proper enquiry and framed the assessment order. The ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decisions of CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom)], CIT vs. Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd. [(2019) 305 ITR 486 (Bom)], CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del)], CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma [(2011) 335 ITR 83 (Del.)], CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. 11 ITA No. 4327 Mum 2019-M/s Hi Rock Construction Co. [(2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del.)], CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. [(2013…

Kkb Projects Pvt. Ltd, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 222/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.222/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S.Kkb Projects Pvt. Ltd., V The Principal Commissioner 408-409, City Centre, S Of Income Tax -1, Surat. Lal Darwaja Road, Near Resham . Bhavan, Surat. [Pan: Aadck 0811 H] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Singh – Cit-Dr

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

…Page 1 of 15 KKB Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs. PCIT-1, Surat /ITA No.222/SRT/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण,सुरत"यायपीठ,सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.222/SRT/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s.KKB Projects Pvt. Ltd., V The Principal Commissioner 408-409, City Centre, s of Income Tax -1, Surat. Lal Darwaja Road, Near Resham . Bhavan, Surat. [PAN: AADCK 0811 H] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by Shr…

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3925/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri G. Manjunathatata Motors Ltd. Vs. The Cit(Ltu) 29Th Floor, Centre 1 Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street World Trade Centre Hutatma Chowk Cuffe Parade Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 005 Pan/Gir No.Aaact2727Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 35DSection 37(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. The CIT(LTU) 29th Floor, Centre 1 Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody Street World Trade Centre Hutatma Chowk Cuffe Parade Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 005 PAN/GIR No.AAACT2727Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri.R.Manjunatha Swamy, CIT, DR Assessee by Shri. Rajan Vora & Shri.Nikhil Tiwari, AR’s Date of Hearing 25/09/2019 Date of Pronouncement 13/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश PER G.MANJUNATHA: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed agains…

Purshottam S.Panchal, Valsad vs. Pr.CIT, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 242/SRT/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.242/Srt/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Purshottam S. Panchal, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Raw House-5, Rameshwar Park, Income Tax, Valsad Parnera Pardi, Atul-Valsad Road, Valsad-396001 [Pan: Annpp 8604 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 68

…wherein the issue regarding satisfaction of twin conditions which the assessment order should be erroneous and pre-judicial to the interest of the revenue of the discussed in the light of decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bombay). In the said case that decision of Bombay Tribunal in the case of Narayan Tau Rane v. ITO 70 taxmannn.com 227, was also discussed wherein it was held that the ld. CIT should show that the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. In the case of M/s. Indus Best Hospitality (supra), the tribunal as specifically held that we have consid…

Supreme Auto, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1141/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh&Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1141/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम M/S. Supreme Auto, Principal Commissioner Of Vs. Bilimora Road, National Income-Tax- Valsad Highway No.8, Samroli, At Chikhli, Navsari - 396521. [Pan: Aamfs 3499 K] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Prasenjit Singh, Cit(D.R.) राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 22.10.2019 सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- Valsad [In Short “The Pr. Cit ”] Dated 22.03.2016 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Under Section 263 Of Income Tax Act,1961 ( In Short ‘The Act’).

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…1 Supreme Auto vs. Pr. CIT- Valsad /I.T.A.No.1141/AHD/2016/A.Y. 2011-12 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT-BENCH-SURAT BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH,JUDICIAL MEMBER &SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1141/AHD/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम M/s. Supreme Auto, Principal Commissioner of Vs. Bilimora Road, National Income-Tax- Valsad Highway No.8, Samroli, At Chikhli, Navsari - 396521. [PAN: AAMFS 3499 K] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah, CA िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Prasenjit Singh, CIT(D.R.) राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by 22…

Gordon Bruce Serrao, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -28, Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3105/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram a/wFor Respondent: Shri M. Daya Sagar
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…., [2008] 323 ITR 632 (Bom.); v) CIT v/s Kiran Hirji Shah, [2015] 231 Taxman 670 (Bom.); 6 Gordon Bruce Serrao vi) CIT v/s Fine Jewellery (I) Ltd., [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bom.); vii) MOIL Ltd. v/sCIT, [2017] 396 ITR 244 (Bom.); viii) CIT v/s Nirav Modi, [2017] 390 ITR 292 (Bom.); ix) CIT v/s Reliance Communication Ltd., [2017] 244 Taxman 55 (SC); x) CIT v/s Paville Fashhions Pvt. Ltd., [2017] 398 ITR 603 (Bom.); xi) CIT v/s Anandlal Becharlal & Co., [1997] 107 ITR 677 (Bom.); xii) CIT v/s Sun Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd., [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC); xiii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s CIT, [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC); xi…

Acc Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 977/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 263

…cial to the interests of Revenue. For such proposition, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) MOIL Ltd. v/s CIT, [2017] 396 ITR 244 (Bom.); ii) CIT v/s Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd., [2019] 102 taxmann.com 48 (Bom.); iii) CIT v/s Nirav Modi, [2017] 390 ITR 292 (Bom.); iv) Amira Enterprises Ltd. v/s PCIT, ITA no.3206/Del./2017 (Del.); v) CIT v/s Sunbeam Auto Ltd., [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Del.); vi) ITO v/s DG Housing Projects, [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del.); vii) CIT v/s Vodafone Essar South Ltd., [2013] 212 Taxman 184 (Del.); viii) Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy v/s ITO, [2006] 100 ITD 173 (Mum.); and ix) Narayan Tatu Ra…