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 366,339 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

Juniper Networks International B.V., Mumbai vs. CIT (International Taxation)-3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 982/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 982/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2014-15) Juniper Networks International B.V, Boeing Avenue 240, 1119Pz Schipol-Rijk, Amsterdam,0 Netherlands Pan: Aadcj-0974-G ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (It), Mumbai -3, Room No.1601, 16Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate With Ms. Prachi Mehta &Shri Sandeep Bhalla ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Surabhi Sharma & Shri Milind Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/08/2022 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri J.D.Mistry, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Prachi Mehta &Shri Sandeep BhallaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma &

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

…roceedings u/s. 263 of the Act. To support this arguments the ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: (a) CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 166 Taxman 188 (SC) (b) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 71 Taxman 585 (Bom) (c) CIT vs. Nirav Modi, 390 ITR 292 (Bom) (ii) Merely for the reason that the Assessing Officer has not dealt with the issue in detail in the assessment order it would not make the assessment order is erroneous. In support of above arguments the ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on following decisions: (a) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (supra) (b) CIT vs. Nirav Modi (supra) (iii)…

Kabir Tripat Oberoi, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -20, Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

ITA 685/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 49(1)

…ble view on the issue and completed the assessment. Once a possible view has been taken, the same cannot be treated as erroneous by the ld. PCIT. We hold that the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nirav Modi reported in 390 ITR 292 would be directly applicable to the facts of the instant case. We further find that assessee had furnished the following documents before the ld. AO in the original assessment proceedings:- a) Computation of capital gains in the hands of assessee as well as in the hands of the co-owners b) Sale agreement dated 30/03/2016 entered by the assessee…

Kapil Tripat Oberoi, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -20, Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal stands allowed

ITA 684/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 49(1)

M/S. Samprasiddhi Infratech, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 129/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…cordance with law and arrived at a conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the Commissioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusion.” 3.7 He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High court in CIT v. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (enclosed at page no 101 to 106 of the paper book) for the above proposition. The relevant extract of paragraph 7 of the judgement is reproduced below for your reference M/s. Samprasiddhi Infratech, Bangalore Page 8 of 24 “This issue is no longer res integra as this court in Idea Cellular Ltd v. Deputy CIT reported in [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom) ha…

Ravi Metallics Limited, Rourkela vs. Pr.CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/CTK/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaravi Metallics Limited, I/10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No.Adqps 4031 G ………………Assessee Versus Pr.Cit, Sambalpur ………………..Revenue Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Passed U/S.263 Of The Act In Case No.Pcit/Sbp/263/26/2018-19, Dated 29.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Heard On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Record, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 686 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Delay Occurred In Filing The Present Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate But Due To Unfortunate & Unavoidable Circumstances Beyond

Section 253Section 263

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़पऩया ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ravi Metallics Limited, I/10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 PAN No.ADQPS 4031 G ………………Assessee Versus Pr.CIT, Sambalpur ………………..Revenue Shri P.R.Mohanty, AR for the assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR for the Revenue Date of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the ord…

Mayur Khara, Yavatmal vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

In the result, Both the appeals of above mentioned assessee’s are allowed

ITA 64/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mayur Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8869 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Amit Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8868 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Above Mentioned Assessees Against Two Different Orders Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Nagpur- 2 Dated 17-02-2017 & 16-02-20217 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Respectively. The Grounds Of Raised By The Above Mentioned Assessees Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…203 ITR 108(Bom)(HC) d. CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537(Delhi)(HC) e. CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR632 (Bom)(HC), f. Grasim Industries Ltd vs. CIT [2010] 321 ITR 92(Bom)(HC) g. CIT vs. NiravModi [2017] 390 ITR 292(Bom) (HC) 9 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur The ld. AR of appellant further submitted that each of the query of the AO was replied, which is on record and not denied by the Ld. PCIT. The ld. AR of appellant further submitted that even on the merits of the issues mentioned in the notice of PCIT, the assessment order passed by the AO is nei…

Vasundhara Bahuudeshiya Samajikk Sanstha, Khamgaon vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Nagpur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 55/NAG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vasundhara Bahuudeshiya Vs. C.I.T.(Exemptions) Samajik Sanstha, Pune At Nagpur. 1, Vasundhara, Madhav Nagar, Khamgaon-444303. Pan No.: Aaabv 0305 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. C.I.T.(Exemptions), Pune At Nagpur Dated 23/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assesee. “1. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit By Taking A Recourse To Section 263 Is Illegal & Bad In Law, When The A.O. Has Made Sufficient Enquiries During The Assessment Procedure. 2. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Without Considering Appellant’S Submission Is Illegal & Bad In Law. 3. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit Even Though If It Is Termed As Erroneous But It Is Not Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. As The Donation Has Been Duly Disclosed By The Appellant In Their

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 253(5)Section 263

…tal amount of Rs 14,72,083/- . He further submitted that it is settled jurisprudence that the Section 263 cannot be invoked on the basis of Change of opinion. The ld. AR relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bom)(HC) and Grasim Industries Vs CIT 321 ITR 92 (Bom)(HC). He has also submitted that as the assessment has been set aside on change of opinion and prayed to quash the proceedings U/s 263 of the Act. 10. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR has vehemently supported the order of the ld. CIT(E) and submitted that notices with regard to the verifica…

M/S Shree Palsiddha Construction, Buldhana vs. Principal C.I.T. -1, Nagpur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/NAG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Shree Palsiddha Construction Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Sakharkheda, Nagpur. Taluka Sindhkhedraja, Buldhana-443202. Pan No.: Ablfs 9009 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Nagpur Dated 08/03/2017 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Pcit Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 263 & Thereby Setting Aside Order Passed By Assessing Officer 2. Assessee Craves Leave To Add & Alter Any Other Ground That May Be Taken At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor. Return Of Income Was Filed On 03/12/2009 Declaring Total Income Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…ure should be disallowed is one of the possible view. However, it is settled jurisprudence that the Section 263 cannot be invoked on e basis of Change of opinion. We find support from the -Judgments of the Bombay High Court. below mentioned CIT Vs Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bom)(HC) Grasim Industries Vs CIT 321 ITR 92 (Bom)(HC). 4. We also with to draw support from the Judgment of the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of M/s Vaghasiya Exports Vs PCIT (2020). Enclosed on page 37 to 43 of the paper book. 4 ITA 194/NAG/2017_ M/s Shree Palsiddha Construction Sakharkheda Vs Pr.CIT In this case the learned PCIT, inv…

Genpact Consulting (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. (Earlier Known As 'Headstrong Consulting Pte. Ltd.'), Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1) Int. Tax., New Delhi

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

ITA 501/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 2(47)Section 263Section 45Section 47

…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)". 28. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd. 309 ITR 67 has observed as under: “if assessment order were to incorporate the reasons for upholding the claim made by an assessee, the result would be an epitome and not an assessment order. In this case, during the assessment proceedings…

Radiant Life Care Mumbai P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 896/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 56(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner of 401, 4th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6th floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAGCR 9198 D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue by : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing :…

Radiant Life Care Mumbai P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 895/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 56(2)

Learning Curve Edutech Solutions Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 832/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…cannot be any presumption on that account that no enquiry or requisite enquiry was not carried out by the Assessing Officer. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nirav Modi (reported in 390 ITR 292), Idea Cellular Ltd. (reported in 301 ITR 407) and CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery India Ltd. (reported in 55 Taxman.com 514). Further we find that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Nirma Chemical Works (309 ITR 67) had observed that “if an assessment order were to incorporate the reasons for upholding the claim made by an assessee, the result wou…

Cygnus Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-11(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 26Section 263

…ITA No. 361/KOL/2020 A.Y. 2015-2016 Cygnus Vanijya Private Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 361/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Cygnus Vanijya Private Limited,....................................................Appellant BL-East, 5 th Floor-5EB, 3A, Canel Circular Road, Kankurgachi, Kolkata-700054 [PAN: AADCC7075M] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Kolkata,......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances…

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 57/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)

Section 263Section 5

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’A’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM deys’k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 56/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2016-17 cuke M/s Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Principal Commissioner of Vs. Development Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Income Tax-2, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAGCR 4665 R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 57/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :20…

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Developement Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur, Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 56/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)

Section 263Section 5

Harish Subramaniam Iyer, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT -27, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 873/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.873/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2016-17) Harish Subramaniam Iyer, A-10, Sidhpura Industrial Estate, Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai 400 086 Pan: Aaapi-3669-R ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 27, 401, 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Rly. Station Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400 703 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Azhar Zain सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/05/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…before the Assessing Officer as well as the PCIT we are of the considered view that it is not a case of no enquiry. Lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry stand on different pedestal. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi reported as 390 ITR 292, has held: “9. …………Once the Assessing Officer is satisfied with the explanation offered on inquiry, it is not open to the CIT in exercise of his revsional powers direct that further enquiry has to be done. At the very highest, the case of the Revenue is that this is a case of inadequate inquiry and not of "no enquiry." It is well settled that th…

Sandeep P. Parikh, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -16, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 678/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesandeep P. Parikh Vs. Pr. Cit- 16 B-6, Anand Bhavan, Room No. 437, 4Th Bajaj Road, Vile Parle Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (W), Mumbai – 400056 Mk Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajpp8447R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Pankaj Toprani.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajay. K. Srivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act, 1961. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal Due To Covid-19 Pandemic. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Sandeep P. Parikh, Mumbai. Delay & We Find The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Acceptable. The Ld.Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Pankaj Toprani.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay. K. Srivastava.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sandeep P. Parikh Vs. Pr. CIT- 16 B-6, Anand Bhavan, Room No. 437, 4th Bajaj Road, Vile Parle Floor, Aayakar bhavan, (W), Mumbai – 400056 MK Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAJPP8447R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri. Pankaj Toprani.AR Respondent by : Shri Ajay. K. Srivastava.DR Date of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 20.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against…

Sehorse Mercantile Co. P Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-6, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as above

ITA 1286/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 263

…dings can only be resorted to in case of lack of enquiry and not in case of inadequate enquiry by the Ld. A.O.” 8. Thereafter learned counsel for the assessee has relied upon the following decisions :- • MOIL Ltd. Vs. CIT (396 ITR 244) • CIT Vs. Nirav Modi (390 ITR 292) 9. Learned counsel further submitted that : “No independent enquiry conducted by the Ld. PCIT to conclude that the assessment order was liable to be revised. The conclusion drawn by the Ld. 10 Sehorse Mercantile Company Pvt. Ltd. PCIT is solely based on inference from the assessment order without any support of independent enquiry or evidence…

Spml Infra Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 510/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Virtual Court] (Before Sri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member & Sri Manish Borad, Accountant Member) I.T.A. No.: 510/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 SPML Infra Limited.................................................................Appellant [PAN: AADCS 2469 K] Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kolkata.........................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. and Ms. Mita Rizvi, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Md. Ghayas Uddin, CIT(D/R), appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : February 15th, 2022 Date…

DCIT - 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rupa Infotech & Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3597/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shankarlal JainFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 3596 & 3597/MUM/2019 (A.Ys: 2009-10 & 2013-14) DCIT – 14(3)(1) v. M/s. Rupa Properties and Securities Pvt. Ltd., 401, Rupa Plaza, Above IDBI Bank Room No. 455, 4th Floor Jawahar Road, Ghatkopar(E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400077 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACR7176F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Shankarlal Jain Department by : Shri T. Shankar Date of Hearing : 30.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 27.04.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR…