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 366,005 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

Saigal Sea Trade, Mumbai vs. CIT -18, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2511/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

Section 142(1)Section 263

…not help the assessee. 10 M/s Trancfex Studios Pvt Ltd. 2.8. 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. 2.9.…

Rahul Cables Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1170/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1168 To 1170/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri S.N. DoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

…पुणे "यायपीठ "यायपीठ "यायपीठ “बी "यायपीठ पुणे म"म"म"म" आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, पुणे अिधकरण पुणे पुणे बी बी” पुणे बी पुणे पुणे IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE "ी "ी डी "ी "ी डी. क"णाकरा क"णाकरा क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा लेखा सद"य सद"य सद"य सद"य डी डी राव राव , लेखा राव लेखा लेखा एवं "ी "ी "ी िवकास "ी िवकास अव"थी अव"थी अव"थी, "याियक अव"थी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य केकेकेके सम" सद"य सम" सम" सम" एवं एवं एवं िवकास िवकास BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / ITA Nos.1168 to 11…

Rahul Cables Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1169/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1168 To 1170/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri S.N. DoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

…पुणे "यायपीठ "यायपीठ "यायपीठ “बी "यायपीठ पुणे म"म"म"म" आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, पुणे अिधकरण पुणे पुणे बी बी” पुणे बी पुणे पुणे IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE "ी "ी डी "ी "ी डी. क"णाकरा क"णाकरा क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा लेखा सद"य सद"य सद"य सद"य डी डी राव राव , लेखा राव लेखा लेखा एवं "ी "ी "ी िवकास "ी िवकास अव"थी अव"थी अव"थी, "याियक अव"थी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य केकेकेके सम" सद"य सम" सम" सम" एवं एवं एवं िवकास िवकास BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / ITA Nos.1168 to 11…

Rahul Cables Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1168/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1168 To 1170/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri S.N. DoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

…पुणे "यायपीठ "यायपीठ "यायपीठ “बी "यायपीठ पुणे म"म"म"म" आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, पुणे अिधकरण पुणे पुणे बी बी” पुणे बी पुणे पुणे IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE "ी "ी डी "ी "ी डी. क"णाकरा क"णाकरा क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा लेखा सद"य सद"य सद"य सद"य डी डी राव राव , लेखा राव लेखा लेखा एवं "ी "ी "ी िवकास "ी िवकास अव"थी अव"थी अव"थी, "याियक अव"थी "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य केकेकेके सम" सद"य सम" सम" सम" एवं एवं एवं िवकास िवकास BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / ITA Nos.1168 to 11…

Dolphin Pramoters and Builders, Raipur vs. C.I.T-1, Raipur

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 76/BIL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Ram Lal Negi)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. No: 76/Raipur/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dolphin Promoters and V/S CIT-1, Ayakar Bhavan, Builders A-1 Sai Nagar Central Revenue Building Devendra Nagar, Raipur Civil Lines, Raipur (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAEFD2588E Appellant by : Shri R. B. Doshi, C.A. Respondent by : Shri P.K. Mishra, D.R. (आदेश)/ORDER Date of hearing : 06 -03-2018 Date of Pronouncement : 08 -03-2018 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. With this appeal, the Assessee ha…

Biocon Limtied, Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is allowed as indicated above

ITA 907/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I (D.R)
Section 10ASection 10BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 35Section 92Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘ A ’ BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. A. No.907/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/s. Biocon Limited, 20th Km., Hosur Road, Electronics City, Bangalore-560 100. …. Appellant. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayers Unit, Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA Respondent By : Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I (D.R) Date of Hearing : 02.01.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 21.02.2018. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. : This appeal by the assessee is direc…

Noble Medicals Bcjc Hospitals, Mumbai vs. CIT City-16, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3207/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Noble Medicals Bcjc Cit, City-16, Hospitals, S.V. Road, Santacruz, Mumbai. Mumbai-400054. Versus Pan No.Aagfn4356A Applicant Respondent

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

…ull enquiry, where the AO has already conducted sufficient enquiry and has taken a possible view after the enquiry. The power of revision can only exercise, where no enquiry as required under law is done. Reliance is made in case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom)], CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) 77 taxmann.com 15(SC)], CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) taxmann.com 78 (SC)], 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. [(2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del)]. In further alternative submission it was argued that the order of assess…

Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (HUF), Mumbai vs. Jt CIT RG 19(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1435/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhbibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Cit-19, Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Piramal Chambers, Parel, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Jt.Cit-Range-19(1), Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi (Ar Revenue By : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 .02.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi (ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263

…y and has taken a possible view 5 ITA No. 5129/M/2012 & 1435/M/14- Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (HUF) after the enquiry. The power of revision can only exercise, where no enquiry as required under law is done. Reliance is made in case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom)], CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) 77 taxmann.com 15(SC)], CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) taxmann.com 78 (SC)], 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. [(2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del)]. 7. In other alternative submission, it was argued that against the addi…

Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (HUF), Mumbai vs. CIT 19, Mumbai

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

ITA 5129/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhbibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Cit-19, Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Piramal Chambers, Parel, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Jt.Cit-Range-19(1), Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi (Ar Revenue By : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 .02.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi (ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263

…y and has taken a possible view 5 ITA No. 5129/M/2012 & 1435/M/14- Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (HUF) after the enquiry. The power of revision can only exercise, where no enquiry as required under law is done. Reliance is made in case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom)], CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) 77 taxmann.com 15(SC)], CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) taxmann.com 78 (SC)], 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. [(2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del)]. 7. In other alternative submission, it was argued that against the addi…

Indus Best Hospitality & Realtors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3125/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Indus Best Hospitality & Vs. Pr Cit 6 R.No.501, 5Th Floor Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Formerly Known As Silvassa Aayakar Bhavan Realtors Pvt. Ltd., M.K.Road 105, Runwal & Omkar Esquare, Mumbai – 400 020 Opp. Sion Chunabhatti Singal Off. E.E.Highway Sion (E) Mumbai – 400 022 Pan/Gir No. Aamcs0212P Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 2Section 263

…f expenses in so far as expenditure so incurred for earning income which was fully supported by documentary evidence and actual payment made for the same. 9. Learned AR has also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Nirav Modi (390 ITR 292). In the said case, the issue was whether in a case where the Assessing Officer has examined the gift received by the assessee and accepted the same as genuine, whether it was correct on the part of the Ld. CIT to direct the Assessing Officer for re-examination of the said issue u/s. 263 of the Act. The observation of the Hon'ble Bombay High Cour…

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

…the A.O. is not erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He has relied upon the following decisions. 9 ITA.No.2806 & 2807/Del./2016 M/s. Dayanand, Contractor, V & PO Kharainti, Dist. Rohtak. 4.1. In the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bom.) - which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2017) 77 taxmann.com 15 (SC) - in which it has been held as under: “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, impugned revisional order passed…

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

…the A.O. is not erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. He has relied upon the following decisions. 9 ITA.No.2806 & 2807/Del./2016 M/s. Dayanand, Contractor, V & PO Kharainti, Dist. Rohtak. 4.1. In the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bom.) - which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2017) 77 taxmann.com 15 (SC) - in which it has been held as under: “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, impugned revisional order passed…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3752/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘डी’ ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘D’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. CIT, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.ABHPG0909N ITA No.3748 to 3752/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Dev Steel Pr. CIT, 605, 6th Floor, Central-4, बनाम/ Thacker Tower, Mumbai Vs.…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3748/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘डी’ ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘D’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. CIT, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.ABHPG0909N ITA No.3748 to 3752/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Dev Steel Pr. CIT, 605, 6th Floor, Central-4, बनाम/ Thacker Tower, Mumbai Vs.…

Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3747/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘डी’ ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘D’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. CIT, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.ABHPG0909N ITA No.3748 to 3752/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Dev Steel Pr. CIT, 605, 6th Floor, Central-4, बनाम/ Thacker Tower, Mumbai Vs.…

Fedex Express Tranportation and Supply Chain Services (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 9, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3621/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Fedex Express Transportation The Principal Commissioner Of & Supply Chain Services Income Tax – 9 Room No.214, 2Nd Floor, (India) Private Limited Boomerang, Unit No.801, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Wing-A, 8Th Floor, Mumbai - 400020 Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aabcf6516A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain Revenue By : Shri S. Padmaja (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri S. Padmaja (CIT-DR)
Section 119Section 139(5)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Fedex Express Transportation The Principal Commissioner of and Supply Chain Services Income Tax – 9 Room No.214, 2nd Floor, (India) Private Limited Boomerang, Unit No.801, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Wing-A, 8th Floor, Mumbai - 400020 Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai - 400072 PAN: AABCF6516A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Jitendra Jain Revenue by : Shri S. Padmaja (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing : 15.09.2017 Date of…

Standard Chartered Masterbrand Licesing Ltd, Palghar vs. CIT (It)-4, Mumbai

ITA 3325/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchun Kaushal/Dhanesh Bafna/Aliasger Rampurawala/Pratik ShahFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse-DR
Section 115Section 115ASection 115A(1)(b)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 285A

…आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “एल ” खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “L”Bench Mumbai एवं रिवश रिवश रिवश सूद रिवश सूद सूद, "याियक सूद सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ravish Sood, Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3325/Mum/2016, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Standard Chartered Masterband…

Atc Telecom Tower Corporation P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 9, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2706/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2706/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Atc Telecom Tower Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit-9 (Earlier Known As Essar Telecom Aayakar Bhavan, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) बिधम/ Mumbai-400 020 403, 4Th Floor, Skyline Icon Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Near Mittal Industrial Estate Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaeca9823E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Senior Counsel &For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

…P a g e | 1 ITA No. 2706/Mum/2015 AY: 2008-09 ATC Telecom Tower Vs. Pr. CIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, AM AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2706/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) ATC Telecom Tower Pvt. Ltd. Principal CIT-9 (earlier known as Essar telecom Aayakar Bhavan, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) बिधम/ Mumbai-400 020 403, 4th Floor, Skyline Icon Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Near Mittal Industrial Estate Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. AAECA9823E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथी की ओर से/App…

Sri Govind Lal Rathi, Kolkata vs. Pr. CIT-15, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 525/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 525/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sri Govind Lal Rathi -Vs.- Pr. C.I.T., Kol-15, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Adipr 0507 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Sunil Surana, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri R.S.Biswas, Cit Date Of Hearing : 14.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S.Biswas, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri A.T.Varkey, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No. 525/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sri Govind Lal Rathi -vs.- Pr. C.I.T., Kol-15, Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : ADIPR 0507 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri Sunil Surana, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri R.S.Biswas, CIT Date of Hearing : 14.06.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order of the Principal Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-15, Kolkata [ in short the ld CIT] in…

M/S Ab (Wines) Stores, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kolkata-14, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 901/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ab (Wines) Stores -Vs.- Pr. C.I.T., Kolkata-14 Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aajfa 6312 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri R.S.Biswas, Cit Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S.Biswas, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri A.T.Varkey, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No.901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s. AB (Wines) Stores -vs.- Pr. C.I.T., Kolkata-14 Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AAJFA 6312 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri R.S.Biswas, CIT Date of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -14 , Kolkata [ in short the ld CIT] in…