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 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

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rupa Properties & Securities P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3596/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

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…

Chalk Farm Ventures P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -1, Thane

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

ITA 906/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.906/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17) बनधम/ Chalk Farm Ventures Pvt. Pcit-1 Ltd. B Wing, Ashar It Park, Vs. 6Th Floor, Wagle No.202, Delta Building, Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Industrial Estate, Thane- Mumbai-400076. 400604 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcc0332A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Sanjay Parikh Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2016-17 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. “Ground A: Proceeding U/S 263 Of The It Act Is Invalid & Bad In Law 1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Thane-1, (Pr. Cit) Erred In Facts & In Passing The Order U/S. 263 Without Appreciating That The Appellant Company Was Under Liquidation & No Order U/S. 263 Could Be Passed Without Giving Adequate Notice To The Liquidator Of The Appellant Company. 2. He Appellant Prays That Your Honour Hold That The Order Passed By The Ao U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As The Same Is Passed Without Issuing Notice To The Liquidator Of The Appellant Company.

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Kardam (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 371(1)

…e possible view. The assessment is not further liable to be reopened. In this regard, we also find support of the law settled in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108, CIT Vs. Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 292, CIT Vs. Chemsword P. Ltd. (2020) 119 taxmann.com 358 & CIT Vs. Future Corporate Resources Ltd. (2021) 132 taxmann.com 173. In view of the said factual circumstances and the law relied by the Ld. Representative of the assessee, we are of the view that the PCIT has wrongly passed the order u/s 263 of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order of…

Mr. Raul A. Rodrigues, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -27, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 38/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj GurjarFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 80ASection 80I

…es happened in these two components of assets and liabilities. During the course of 7 ITA No.38/Mum/2021 A.Y.2015-16 Mr. Raul A. Rodrigues Vs. Pr.CIT-27 appellate proceedings before us the ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of CIT vs. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bom). We consider that facts in the case of the assessee are distinguishable from the case referred since in the case of the assessee, the A.O has not examined the issue which was required to be examined in the line of the specific scrutiny assessment. 6. Looking to the above facts and circumstances we consider that in view of the Explanation 2…

Tmf Holding Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -1, Mumbai

ITA 1628/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Bletmf Holdings Ltd., V. Pr.Cit – 1 {Formerly Known As Tata Motors Finance Ltd.,} 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 10Th Floor, 106 A & B Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Maker Chamber-Iii Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai Pan: Aacct4644A (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Nikhil Tiwari Assessee By : Department By : Shri S.N. Kabra

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 47

…o 180 of the legal paper book). • CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd (203 ITR 108) (Born) (Refer page 161 to 166 of the legal paper book) • Tata Motors Ltd for AY 2013-14 (ITA No. 3424/Mum/2019) dated 6 March 2020 (Refer Page 181-193 of legal paper book) • Nirav Modi (390 ITR 292) (Bom) 18. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned AO has made adequate inquiry and after the same AO has adopted one view. Disclosures with respect to addition on account of Slump sale and enquiry made by AO • The gain is shown as a separate line item in the Computation of Income as well wherein it is reduced while calculating the profits an…

Priya Kishor Jagtiani, Nashik vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Nashik

In the result, all the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1276/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri C. H. Naniwadeker
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1274, 1275 & 1276/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Priya Kishor Jagtiani, Vs. Pr.CIT-1, Nashik. Shop No.1, Shalimar Towers, Shivaji Road, Nashik- 422001. PAN : ADEPJ7743C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri C. H. Naniwadeker Revenue by Shri J. P. Chadraker : Date of hearing 15.03.2022 : Date of pronouncement : 20.04.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeals filed by the assess…

Priya Kishor Jagtiani, Nashik vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Nashik

In the result, all the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1275/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri C. H. Naniwadeker
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1274, 1275 & 1276/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Priya Kishor Jagtiani, Vs. Pr.CIT-1, Nashik. Shop No.1, Shalimar Towers, Shivaji Road, Nashik- 422001. PAN : ADEPJ7743C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri C. H. Naniwadeker Revenue by Shri J. P. Chadraker : Date of hearing 15.03.2022 : Date of pronouncement : 20.04.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeals filed by the assess…

Priya Kishor Jagtiani, Nashik vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Nashik

In the result, all the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1274/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Apr 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri C. H. Naniwadeker
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1274, 1275 & 1276/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Priya Kishor Jagtiani, Vs. Pr.CIT-1, Nashik. Shop No.1, Shalimar Towers, Shivaji Road, Nashik- 422001. PAN : ADEPJ7743C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri C. H. Naniwadeker Revenue by Shri J. P. Chadraker : Date of hearing 15.03.2022 : Date of pronouncement : 20.04.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeals filed by the assess…

The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 950/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri K. K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 36

…aid issue is not liable to be revised in accordance with law subsequently by invoking the revisional power u/s 263 of the Act. In this regard, we also find support of the law settled in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (243 ITR 83), CIT Vs. Nirav Modi (390 ITR 292), Aditya Builders (2017) 79 taxmann.com 394, CIT Vs. Tata Teleservices (Mah) Ltd. (2014) 47 taxmann.com 238, CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (2015) 55 taxmann.com 514 & MOIL Ltd. vs. CIT (2017) 81 taxmann.com 420. Accordingly, we are of the view that this issue is not liable to be revised u/s 263 of the Act. We further found that the issue ha…

Bank of Baroda(E-Dena Bank), Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT - 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1685/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.1685/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2015-16) Bank Of Baroda (E-Dena Bank) 2Nd Floor, Accounts & Taxation Dept. C-26, G-Block, Baroda Corporate Centre, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400 051 Pan: Aaacd-4249-B ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income -2, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 400 020. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ananthan & Ms. Lalitha Rameswaram ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri Rahul Raman & Milind Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/01/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Mumbai ( In Short ‘The Pcit-2’) Dated 13/03/2020 For Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan &For Respondent: S/Shri Rahul Raman & Milind Chavan
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 43B

…of the possible view supported by judicial precedents, the assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous. The ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Neerav Modi, 390 ITR 292; (ii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 189 Taxaman 436 (Del); (iii) Shruti Rahul Mane vs. PCIT, 2019(7) TMI 79 - ITAT Pune. 7 3. On the other hand, Shri Rahul Raman representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the various issues highlighted by the PCIT have not been examined by…

State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnad Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Ward 6(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 954/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

…red in applying the decision of the Pandian Chemicals, which is distinguishable, for the reasons set out by us above. 6.2 The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi, 390 ITR 292 (Bom) (2016), wherein the issue of lack of enquiry and identical enquiry was discussed and the Hon’ble Bombay High court considered this aspect vide para 7 to 9 as under:- 7. Firstly, the Revenue contends that the exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act is justified as in this case, as no inquiry in respect of the gifts received during th…

State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2093/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

…red in applying the decision of the Pandian Chemicals, which is distinguishable, for the reasons set out by us above. 6.2 The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi, 390 ITR 292 (Bom) (2016), wherein the issue of lack of enquiry and identical enquiry was discussed and the Hon’ble Bombay High court considered this aspect vide para 7 to 9 as under:- 7. Firstly, the Revenue contends that the exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act is justified as in this case, as no inquiry in respect of the gifts received during th…

M/S State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1312/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

…red in applying the decision of the Pandian Chemicals, which is distinguishable, for the reasons set out by us above. 6.2 The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi, 390 ITR 292 (Bom) (2016), wherein the issue of lack of enquiry and identical enquiry was discussed and the Hon’ble Bombay High court considered this aspect vide para 7 to 9 as under:- 7. Firstly, the Revenue contends that the exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act is justified as in this case, as no inquiry in respect of the gifts received during th…

M/S State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamilnadu Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6 (2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1311/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajan, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

…red in applying the decision of the Pandian Chemicals, which is distinguishable, for the reasons set out by us above. 6.2 The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is considered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi, 390 ITR 292 (Bom) (2016), wherein the issue of lack of enquiry and identical enquiry was discussed and the Hon’ble Bombay High court considered this aspect vide para 7 to 9 as under:- 7. Firstly, the Revenue contends that the exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act is justified as in this case, as no inquiry in respect of the gifts received during th…

Sach Electro Mech Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 392/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 145ASection 14ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 40A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Hearing in Virtual Court) Sach Electro Mech Private Limited Pr. Commissioner of Income C/2, Maheshwari Apartment, Tax-2, Vs. Nanpura, Timaliawad, Room No. 227, 2nd Floor, Surat. Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, PAN : AAICS 8963 M Surat-395001 APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by Shri H. P. Meena, CIT-DR Date of hearing 21/01/2022 Date of pronouncement 06/04/2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Thi…

Karan Polymers Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated herein above

ITA 270/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA (Before Sri Aby T. Varkey, Judicial Member & Sri Manish Borad, Accountant Member) I.T.A. No.: 270/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Karan Polymers Pvt. Ltd.........................................................Appellant [PAN: AABCK 3114 F] Vs. Pr. CIT, Kolkata-2................................................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. and Ms. Puja Somani, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Md. Ghayas Uddin, CIT (D/R), appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : February 28th, 2022 Dat…

Facit Sales(P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kol-5, Kolkata

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

ITA 406/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

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

…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.: 406/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Facit Sales Private Limited.............................................Appellant [PAN: AAACF 4361 Q] Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-5, 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 of p…

Smt. Aruna Gulabchandra Gupta, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Mumbai-17, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 114/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blesmt Aruna Gulab Chandra Gupta V. Pr.Cit – Mumbai – 17 3Rd Floor, Rustom Building 29 Room No. 120, 1St Floor Veer Nariman Road, Fort Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 Mumbai - 400001 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aelpg7315P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jotwani Department By : Ms. Sailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JotwaniFor Respondent: Ms. Sailaja Rai
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…ab Chandra Gupta 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 the hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Nirav Modi [2017] 390 ITR 292 (Born) ; [2016] 71 taxmann.com 272 (Born)." The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Born) has held that: "the decision of the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be erroneous simply because in his order he did not made an elaborate discussion in this regard ……." The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in…

M/S. Veena Patil Hospitality P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-8, Mumbai

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

ITA 627/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Veena Patil Vs. Pcit-8 Hospitality Pvt Ltd Room No. 611, 701To 705, Neelkanth 6Th Floor, Aayakar Corporate Park, Kirol Bhavan, Mk Road, Road, Vidhyavihar Mumbai – 400 020 West, Mumbai - 400086 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecv4768R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Yogesh Thar.C.A. Ar Respondent By : Shri. Achal Sharma.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-8, Mumbai, Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Yogesh Thar.C.A. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Achal Sharma.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…iry. The A.O has applied his mind and taken a possible view considering the facts of the assessee. The Ld.AR supported the submissions and relied on the following judicial decisions: M/s. Veena Patil Hospitality Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. 1. CIT Vs. Nirav Modi [2016], 390 ITR 292 (Bom HC) 2. Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO, 2016 (70 taxmann.com 227) (T Mum) 3. CLP Power India (P.) ltd Vs. DCIT, 2018, 170 ITD 744, ( T AHD) 4. Sir Ratan Tata Trust Vs. DCIT(E), 2020, 188 ITD 151, (TMUM) 5. Sir Dorbji Tata Trus Vs. DCIT(E), 2020, 188 ITD 38, (T Mum) 6. JRD Tata Trust Vs. DCIT(E), 2020, 122 taxmann.com 275, (TMum) 7. CIT Vs. Am…

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 942/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…d the relevant details and the AO is satisfied about the admissibility of the claim based on the details submitted. Further reliance is also placed on the following judicial precedents:  Nirav Modi (2017) (SC) approving Bombay High Court decision reported as 390 ITR 292 (Bom) (Refer Page No 135-139 of the legal paperbook)  Tata Motors Ltd. [2019] ITA No.3425 dated 5 March 2021 (Refer Page No 143-174 of the legal paperbook)  IBM India Private Limited (ITA No 598/Bang/2011) dated 5 July 2013 (Refer Page No 175-210 of the legal paperbook) 21. The Appellant humbly submits that there is a distinction between “lack…

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 941/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…d the relevant details and the AO is satisfied about the admissibility of the claim based on the details submitted. Further reliance is also placed on the following judicial precedents:  Nirav Modi (2017) (SC) approving Bombay High Court decision reported as 390 ITR 292 (Bom) (Refer Page No 135-139 of the legal paperbook)  Tata Motors Ltd. [2019] ITA No.3425 dated 5 March 2021 (Refer Page No 143-174 of the legal paperbook)  IBM India Private Limited (ITA No 598/Bang/2011) dated 5 July 2013 (Refer Page No 175-210 of the legal paperbook) 21. The Appellant humbly submits that there is a distinction between “lack…