How many judgments cite CIT v. Nirav Modi?

286 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Nirav Modi (390 ITR 292), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Nirav Modi come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 147, Section 148.

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

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiry lack of enquiry section 263(1)malabar industrial assessment order erroneous revision u/s 263 erroneous and prejudicial revision under section 263 section 54f section 263 section 26 section 54

Judgments citing CIT v. Nirav Modi

M/S K Mohan & Co.(Exports)P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1197/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. K.Mohan & Co. (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. B-162/5, Begur Road, Bommanahalli, Bengaluru. … Appellant Pan: Aaacl9811H

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)

Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. K.Mohan & Co. (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. B-162/5, Begur Road, Bommanahalli, Bengaluru. … Appellant PAN: AAACL9811H Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan, CA. Respondent by : Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 28/01/2019 Date of pronouncement: 31/01/2019 O R D E R Per PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM : The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax…

Olive Hospitals Private Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 770/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Olive Hospitals Pvt Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax-4, Pan: Aabco 0749 G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri D.V.Anjaneyulu Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.01.2019 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

For Appellant: Sri D.V.AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35A

…and the revision order needs to be set-aside. He relied upon the following decisions in support of the above contention: 1. MOIL Ltd vs. CIT [2017] 396 ITR 244 (Bom.) 2. CIT vs. Reliance Communication Ltd [2017] 396 ITR 217 (Bom.) 3. CIT vs. Nirav Modi [2016] 390 ITR 292 (Bom.) 4. Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd vs. JCIT [2014] 152 ITD 132 5. CIT and Another Vs. Gokuldas Esports, Paprika, Weal Monumertal Memorials [2011] 333 ITR 214 6. CIT vs. G.K. Kabra [1995] 251 ITR 707 (Cal.) 7. Unipro Techno Infrastructure (P) Ltd vs. PCIT (2017) 185 TTJ 205 8. Jeewanlal Ltd vs. ACIT [1977] 108 ITR 407 (Cal) 5. Learned Departmen…

Ramesh Kumar Goyal HUF, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1983/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaidr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar Ito, H.No.467, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar ITO, H.No.467, Urban Estate-II, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005 PAN: ACGPK7006A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar(HUF) ITO, H.No.467, Urban Estate-II, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K. Sampat, Advocate Shri V. Raja Kumar, Advocate Department by : Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 02-01-2019 Da…

Ramesh Kumar, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaidr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar Ito, H.No.467, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

M/S Preet Land Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mohali vs. Pr. CIT-2, Chandigarh

ITA 736/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Ao During Original Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri. Parikshit AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri. Jagjivan Kumar Garg

Section 143(3)Section 263

…1 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH "ीमती "दवा "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं, डा. बी.आर.आर. कुमार, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR , AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 736/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s Preet Land Promoters and बनाम Pr. CIT-2 Developers Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh Vill: Nanu Majra, Sector-86 Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADCP8893L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri. Parikshit Aggarwal राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri. Jagjivan Kumar Garg सुनवाई क"…

Celebi Delhi Cargo Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3182/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhary[Assessment Year: 2011-12] M/S Celebi Delhi Cargo Management Vs. The Pr.C.I.T India Pvt. Ltd New Delhi R. No. 23, Import Building - 3 International Cargo Terminal Igi Airport, New Delhi Pan : Aadcc 6885 B [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT- DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…er 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)". 31. In view of the above discussion on the facts vis a vsi the judicial pronouncements on the subject, we set aside the order of the ld. PCIT and restore that of the Assessing Officer dated 14.03.2104 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 32. Before parting, the ld. DR has also heavily relied upon Explanation 2 to section 263 of the…

Acc Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4581/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acc Ltd. (Formerly Known Commissioner Of As The Associated Cement Income Tax-Ltu Vs. Companies Ltd.) Cement Mumbai. House, 121, M.K. Road, Mumbai. Pan No. Aaact1507C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. R.P. Meena, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/10/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. R.P. Meena, CIT DR

Section 263Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2010-11 ACC Ltd. (Formerly known Commissioner of as The Associated Cement Income Tax-LTU Vs. Companies Ltd.) Cement Mumbai. House, 121, M.K. Road, Mumbai. PAN No. AAACT1507C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Yogesh Thar, AR Revenue by : Mr. R.P. Meena, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 24/07/2018 Date of pronouncement : 15/10/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2010-11. The appeal is d…

Gumpro Drilling Fluids Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 15, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2868/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids Vs Pr. Cit-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5Th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, Lbs M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcg2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri L.K.S. Dahiya Cit-Dr

Section 120Section 144ASection 263Section 35

…ken, therefore, this decision may not help the assessee. 2.7. Likewise, in the case of M/s Indus Best Hospitality vs Pr. CIT (ITA No.3125/Mum/2017), the bench relied upon the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292. The issue was whether the Ld. Assessing Officer examined the gift received by the assessee and accepted the same as genuine. No enquiry was caused by the ld. CIT to find out whether the Assessing Officer was satisfied with respect to correctness of the claim of the assessee whether erroneous. In that situation, the bank took a decision. 2.8.…

Bajinath Melaram, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 18, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1795/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm / I.T.A. No.1795/M/16 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Baijnath Melaram Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income C/O.Mangaldas D. Shah & Co Tax – 18 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Earnest House, 33-A, New Marine Lines Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan/Gir No. : Aaafb2675E (/Appellant) .. Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dhirendra M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri N. P. Singh & B.S.Bist

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 43BSection 44A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,“बी” न्यायपीठ, म ुंबई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM / I.T.A. No.1795/M/16 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s. Baijnath Melaram Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income C/o.Mangaldas D. Shah & Co Tax – 18 506, Lotus House, 5th Floor, 6th Floor, Earnest House, 33-A, New Marine Lines Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 PAN/GIR No. : AAAFB2675E (/Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Dhirendra M. Shah Department by: Shri N. P. Singh & B.S.Bist Date of Hearing: 08.06.2018 /Date of Pronouncement: 30.08.2018 आदेश / O R…

Bajaj Resource Ltd., Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT- 2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2838/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2013-14] M/S Bajaj Resources Ltd Vs. The Pr.C.I.T M/S Mgb & Co. Llp, J 16, New Delhi Lal Kothi Yojna, Sahakar Marg Behind Ioc Petrol Pump, Jaipur Pan : Aaacd 8001 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 27.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2018 Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Jhanwar, Ca Revenue By : Shri Aparna Karan, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jhanwar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aparna Karan, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 18ASection 263

…er 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.co…

Shekhar S. Dadarkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5255/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Cit-24, Bandra Kurla Prop. M/S S.D. Construction Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Geetanjali Chs Ltd., Plot Mumbai-400050. No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. Pan No. Adapd8694G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Dcit-24 Bandra Kurla Prop. M/S S.D. Construction Vs. (E), Mumbai-400050. Geetanjali Chs Ltd., Plot No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. Pan No. Adapd8694G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil A. Desai, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 31 /05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil A. Desai, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263Section 271B

…) 396 ITR 244 (Bom); Pr. CIT v. Ramchandra Naidu [Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2016] decided on July 24, 2017 by Bombay High Court; Idea Cellular Limited v. DCIT (2008) 301 ITR 407 (Bom); CIT v. Gabriel India Limited (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom); CIT v. Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom); Refex Industries Limited v. DCIT (ITA No. 972/Mds/2014) by ITAT ‘C’ Bench Chennai; Jeewanlal v. Addl. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 407 (Cal); M/s Superfine Agro Industries v. ITO [ITA No. 203 (Asr)/ 2014] by ITAT Amritsar; J. Thomas & Co. Private Limited v. JCIT [ITA No. 570/Kol/2012] by ITAT ‘A’ Bench Kolkata; Vinay Pratap Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Tha…

Lhotse Developerrs & Traders P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 12, Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2811/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Lhotse Developers & Traders Dcit, Ward 12(3)(2) Pvt. Ltd., Raheja Chambers, Room No. 363, Aayakar Linking Road, Santaxruz (West), Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400054. Mumbai-20. Pan: Aabcl0079N Apellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nishit Gandhi (Ar) Respondent By : Shri R.P. Meena (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh;

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…made by the Assessing Officer or that as per ld PCIT some more revenue could have been fetched based on a different opinion entertained by the Ld PCIT. In support of his submission the ld. AR for the assessee relied on the decision in CIT Vs Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom) [SLP in the above case has been dismissed holding that there are no reasons to entertain the SLP reported in (2017) 244 Taxman 194 (SC)] and MOIL Vs CIT (2017) 396 ITR 244 (Bom), CIT Vs Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) and CIT Vs Krishna Capbox P. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 310 (Allahabad). 8. On the other hand the ld. DR for the revenue…

Manoir Petro India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

ITA 2626/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manoir Petro India Limited, Pr. Cit-1 602, B-Wing, Universal Room No.387, बनाम/ Business Park, Chandivali 3Rd Floor, Vs. Farm Road, Off Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aafcm5210J

Section 263

…aken, therefore, this decision may not help the assessee. 2.9. Likewise, in the case of M/s Indus Best Hospitality vs Pr. CIT (ITA No.3125/Mum/2017), the bench relied upon the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292. The issue was whether the Ld. Assessing Officer examined the gift received by the assessee and accepted the same as genuine. No enquiry was caused by the ld. CIT to find out whether the Assessing Officer was satisfied with respect to correctness of the claim of the 13 Manoir Petro India Limited ITA No.2626/Mum/2015 & C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 assesse…

Jubilant Energy (P) Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Noida

ITA 3927/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Smt Beena A. Pillai[A.Y 2012-13] Jubilant Energy [P] Limited Vs. The Dy. C.I.T Fka Jubilant Enpro Pvt. Ltd Circle - 1 Plot No. 1A, Sector 16A, Noida Institutional Area, Noida

For Appellant: Shri K.M. GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT- DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SMT BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER [A.Y 2012-13] Jubilant Energy [P] Limited Vs. The Dy. C.I.T FKA Jubilant Enpro Pvt. Ltd Circle - 1 Plot No. 1A, Sector 16A, Noida Institutional Area, Noida PAN : AAACE 0653 L [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 02.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 04.07.2018 Assessee by : Shri K.M. Gupta Shri Rishab Malhotra, Adv Revenue by : Shri Vijay Varma, CIT- DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal filed by the assessee is directed again…

Honda Motorcycle and Scooters India Pvt. Ltd., Gurugram vs. Pr.CIT, Gurugram

In the results. As a consequence, we find no merit in these appeals which are dismissed with cost”

ITA 2330/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2011-12] M/S Honda Motorcycle & Scooters Vs. The P.C.I.T India Pvt. Ltd, Commercial Complex - Ii Gurugram Sector 49-50, Golf Course Extension Road Gurugram, Haryana Pan : Aaach 7467 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.06.2018

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Meeta Singh, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2011-12] M/s Honda Motorcycle and Scooters Vs. The P.C.I.T India Pvt. Ltd, Commercial Complex - II Gurugram Sector 49-50, Golf Course Extension Road Gurugram, Haryana PAN : AAACH 7467 D [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 19.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 26.06.2018 Assessee by : Shri Deepak Chopra, Adv Ms. Manasvini Bajpai, Adv Revenue by : Smt. Meeta Singh, CIT- DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This ap…

S.P.Textworld Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 608/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year : 2011-12 S P Textworld Private Limited, Pr Cit-8, A/3, Aidun Bldg., 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 1St Dhobi Taloa Lane, Mumbai Near Metro Cinema, Opp Kayani Bakery, Marine Lines, Mumbai 400 002

For Appellant: S/Shri Reepal Tralshawla & Mahendra SanghviFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…in principle. 13. Before parting, we may refer to certain case laws cited by the learned representative in support of his arguments. Firstly, the learned representative relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi (390 ITR 292) to contend that where the assessment has been made after calling for sufficient details and enquiries, recourse to section 263 of the Act is not justified. We find that the proposition set out in the said judgment is not applicable in so far as the facts of the present case are concerned. As we have noted earlier, in the present case, there is a…

Mahesh Ramkisan Rathi, Nashik vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax - II

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1334/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 72

…of land etc. v) The AO is also required to verify the nature of expenditure on account of delayed charges paid to share broker. 10. Here it would be relevant to refer to the observations of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom) wherein the Hon’ble has observed that powers u/s 263 cannot be exercised unless the Ld.CIT is able to establish that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. It has further held that revisionary powers cannot be exercised for directing a fuller inquiry to find out if the view taken is erroneous, when a v…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri H Nagaraja

ITA/605/2017HC Karnataka29 May 2018

Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV,B.S PATIL

Section 153ASection 260ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…t open for the revisional authority to interfere with the same only because another view was possible. The Tribunal has supported its conclusion by referring to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in this regard in the case of CIT vs NIRAV MODI - (2017) 390 ITR 292 (BOM). 25. As we do not find any error in the approach adopted by the Tribunal, we find that there is no scope for interference in the matter. Therefore, the substantial question of law raised by the Revenue is answered in the negative. We, therefore, hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holdin…

Chennai Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Chennai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2168/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Smt. Ruby George, CITFor Respondent: 08.03.2018

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A(3)Section 263

…(Kar) (v) The Hon’ble Bangalore High Court in Infosys Technologies Vs. JCIT reported in (2006) 286 ITR (AT) 211. (vi) The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. reported in (2015) 230 ITR 641 and CIT Vs. Nirav Modi reported in (2016) 390 ITR 292 (Bom) (vii) The Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Valliammal (D) reported in 19998 230 ITR (Mds) (viii) The Hon’ble Apex Court in Metal Box Company of India Ltd., Vs. Their Worked reported in 73 ITR 53 (1969) The Ld.AR further argued stating that in the case of the assessee provision for wage arrears had crystalized during the relevant assess…

Chennai Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Chennai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2167/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Smt. Ruby George, CITFor Respondent: 08.03.2018

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234A(3)Section 263