How many judgments cite CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd.?

149 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd. (309 ITR 67), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 139(1), Section 153A, Section 131.

CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd.

309 ITR 67High Court2009#671 most cited

What is CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd. authority for?

An assessment order is not erroneous or prejudicial under Section 263 merely because it is silent on a claim or lacks explicit reasons for its acceptance. Revision under Section 263 is impermissible if the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view, even if the PCIT holds a different opinion.

149

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works · section 263 · section 143(3) · assessment order erroneous · prejudicial to revenue · revision u/s 263 · lack of inquiry · silence of assessment order · AO's plausible view · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.

Also reported as

182 Taxmann 183

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 139(1)Section 153A Section 131 Section 132 Section 143

Issues it is cited on

section 263(1)malabar industrial assessment order erroneous revision u/s 263 erroneous and prejudicial lack of enquiry kelvinator section 263 section 26 revenue expenditure section 254(1)capital expenditure

Judgments citing CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd.

Tata Realty & Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6481/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…y those issues in respect of which the Assessee has not been able to satisfy him and give reasons for his conclusion. This would enable the Assessee to challenge the same, if aggrieved. In fact the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd. [2009] 309 ITR 67/182 Taxman 183 has observed that if an 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 for both the Assessment Years, the Assessing Officer issued a query memos to the assessee, calling upon him…

Virendra Singh Bhadauria, Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-3, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

For Appellant: Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 255/JP/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, cuke Pr.CIT-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. PAN No.: AAEPB 0767 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR) lquokbZ dh rkjh…

Deutsche Investments India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 12, Mumbai

Accordingly, the order passed u/s 263 is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3630/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3630/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ashima Gupta, AR

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

…ssment order. It is an accepted position that the assessment orders would necessarily deal only with the claims being disallowed and not with the claims being allowed. This is for the reason as observed by the Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Nirma Chemicals Ltd 309 ITR 67, that if the Assessing Officer 18 I.T.A. No 3630/Mum/2016 Deutsche Investments India Pvt. Ltd. was to deal with all the claims which were to be allowed in the assessment order, the result would be an epictome. This is so, as it would cast an impossible burden upon the Assessing Officer considering his workload and the period of limitation. There…

Deutsche Investments India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3665/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ssment order. It is an accepted position that the assessment orders would necessarily deal only with the claims being disallowed and not with the claims being allowed. This is for the reason as observed by the Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Nirma Chemicals Ltd 309 ITR 67, that if the Assessing Officer was to deal with all the claims which were to be allowed in the assessment order, the result would be an epictome. This is so, as it would cast an impossible burden upon the Assessing Officer considering his workload and the period of limitation. There was also no reason in the present facts for the Assessing Officer…

Tata Sons Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit 2, 24, Bombay House, Room No.552, Homi Mody Street, Vs. 5Th Floor, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaact4060A M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.R. Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 57

…in law." In this regard, reliance is further placed on the following decisions: Jagadhri Electric Supply (166 ITR 143) (P&H HC); Venkata-Knshna Rice Co. (163 ITR 129) (Mad HC); Gabrial India Limited (203 ITR 108) (Bom HC); and Nirma Chemicals Work P Limited (309 ITR 67) (Guj HC) 3. It is submitted before your Honour that during the course of assessment proceedings for the captioned year, vide questionnaire dated 14 December 201 A, the AO had specifically sought justification / submissions as to how receipt of royalty is business receipt and why the same should not be treated as income from other sources. Further…

Prosales Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 10 (1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 6614/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.6614/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Prosales Financial Services बिधम/ Ito 10(1)(3) Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Vs. 158, Dani Corporate Park, 1St Road, Mumbai-400020. Floor, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruze (E), Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecp2576K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi & Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke Revenue By: Shri Somnath M. Wajale (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/01/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/01/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 24.08.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 22, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi & MsFor Respondent: Shri Somnath M. Wajale (DR)

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

…ssment order. It is an accepted position that the assessment orders would necessarily deal only with the claims being disallowed and not with the claims being allowed. This is for the reason as observed by the Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Nirma Chemicals Ltd 309 ITR 67, that if the Assessing Officer was to deal with all the claims which were to be allowed in the assessment order, the result would be an epictome. This is so, as it would cast an impossible burden upon the Assessing Officer considering his workload and the period of limitation.There was also no reason in the present facts for the Assessing Officer…

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

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

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

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsyanFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Billa, DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263

…is would enable the assessee to 26 I.T.A. No. 1608/Mum/2018 M/s Syscom Corporation Pvt. Ltd. challenge the same, if aggrieved. In fact the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Nirma Chemicals Works (P) Ltd. (2009) 222 CTR (Guj) 593 : (2009) 20 DTR (Guj) 80 : (2009) 309 ITR 67 (Guj) has observed that if an assessment order were to incorporate the reasons for upholding the claim made by an asseseee, the result would be an epic tome and not an assessment order. In this case, during the assessment proceedings for both the assessment years, the AO issued a query memos to the assessee, calling upon him to justify the genuine…

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee ITA No

ITA 2996/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. G. Manjunatha & Shri. Ravish Sood

Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI. RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2996 & 2997/Mum/2015 (Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Small Industries Development Vs. Pr.CIT-03 Bank Of India Mumbai 4th Floor, Corporate Accounts Department MSME Development Centre C-11, Block-G Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East) Mumbai-400 051 PAN/GIR No.AABCS3480N Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Rakesh Joshi, AR Revenue by Shri. R.Manjunatha Swamy, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing 09/10/2019 Date of Pronouncement 13/12/2019 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश…

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

In the result, appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 263

…would not mean that the issue has not been dealt with by the Assessing Officer. In this context, he relied upon the following decisions:– i) CIT v/s Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., [2011] 333 ITR 547 (Del.); ii) CIT v/s Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd., [2009] 309 ITR 67 (Guj.); and iii) CIT v/s Reliance Communication Ltd., 396 ITR 217 (Bom.). 19. Further, the leaned Counsel for the assessee submitted, if the view taken by the Assessing Officer on a particular issue one of the possible view, power under section 263 of the Act cannot be exercised. For this proposition, leaned Counsel for the assessee relied upon t…

Mahim Patran P. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT -2, Agra

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 195/AGR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 143(3)Section 199(1)Section 205Section 263

…main of the PCIT to revise an order which had attained finality at the end of CIT(A). The ld. AR relied upon following four decision to buttress his argument : (i). S.K. Jain v. CIT (2010) 27 ITD 217 (Agra)(TM) (ii). Cit V. Nirma Chemicals Works Pvt. Ltd., 309 ITR 67 (iii). Haryana Paper Distributors (P) Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT(2018) 95 taxmann.com 152 (Gujrat) (iv). CIT(E) v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority dt. 26.03.2019(Bom) 412 ITR 521. 9. Further, no oral arguments were addressed by the ld. AR. However, in the written submissions, it was submitted as under : (2) Section 263 can be invoked if both the following tw…

Everest Industries Ltd, New Delhi vs. CIT -I, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 532/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Soumeh Adak &For Respondent: Shri A. Mohan (CIT)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : A.Y : 2010-11 M/s. Everest Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Genesis, A-32, Mohan Co-operative Thane 400 604. (Respondent) Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044. PAN : AAACE7550N (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri Soumeh Adak & Shri Ashish Jhawar Respondent by : Shri A. Mohan (CIT) Date of Hearing : 24/06/2019 Date of Pronouncement : 21/08/2019 O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT This appeal by the assessee is directed against the orde…

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. CIT -3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3488/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 369Section 369(1)(vii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.3488/Mum/2012 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) I.T.A. No.3290/Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2007-08) I.T.A. No.3380/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) I.T.A. No.4111/Mum/2013 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/s. Small Industries Commissioner of Income- Tax-3, Aayakar Bhavan, Development Bank of India, M.K. Road, 4th Floor, Corporate Accounts Mumbai-400020 Department, MSME vs. Development Centre, C-11, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex (East), Mumbai-400051 PAN : AABCS 3480N Appellant…

Futuristic Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Prcit (Central), Gurugram

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

ITA 1043/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2009-10] M/S Futuristic Sales [P] Ltd Vs. The Pr. C.I.T Flat No. 97, Sfs, First Floor Central Ashok Vihar, Phase – Iv Gurgaon New Delhi Pan No: Aaacf 6597 N [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 148Section 263

…n 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)". 22. 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 for both the Assessment Years, the Assessing . A.Y. 2009-10 Officer issued a query memo to the assessee, calling upon…

Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co.Ltd., Lucknow vs. ACIT, Central Circle - I, Lucknow, Kanpur

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 607/ALLD/2000[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2019AY 1995-96

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 1995-96 Sahara India Commercial Vs. Acit, Cc-1 Corporation Ltd. Lucknow (Erstwhile Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co.Ltd.) Sahara India Sadan 2A, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata 700 071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. J.K.Mishra, CIT, D.R

Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘D’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AY: 1995-96 Sahara India Commercial vs. ACIT, CC-1 Corporation Ltd. Lucknow (erstwhile Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co.Ltd.) Sahara India Sadan 2A, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata 700 071 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Adv. & Sh. Kardeep Singh, C.A. Respondent by : Sh. J.K.Mishra, CIT, D.R. Date of Hearing : 06/03/2019 Date of Pronouncement: 31/05/2019 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed…

Amazia Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2499/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta with Anuj Kushandwala –CA’s (AR)For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 22Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263

…ashed and set aside only on the doctrine of merger alone. The learned AR for the assessee in support of his of the submission relied upon the following decision: (i) CIT Vs K.S Sera Productions Ltd. ( 374 ITR 503 Bom) (ii) CIT Vs Nirma Chemicals Works P Ltd [309 ITR 67 (Guj)] (iii) Sonal Garments Vs JCIT ( 95 ITD 363 Mum) (iv) Marico Industries Vs ACIT (313 ITR(AT) 259 (Mum) 5. In second alternative submission the learned AR of the assessee submits the lease rental income earned by the assessee has been assessed as ‘income from other sources’ by the assessing officer. The view taken by assessing 5 Amazia Develo…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3723/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

…thorities cannot be subjected to revision: • Oil India Ltd vs CIT: 138 ITR 836 (Cal HC) • CIT vs Shashi Theatre (P) Ltd: 248 ITR 126 (Guj HC) • CIT vs Mehsana District Co-op Mil Producers Union Ltd: 263 ITR 546 (Guj HC) • CIT vs Nirma Chemicals Works Pvt Ltd: 309 ITR 67 (Guj HC) • PCIT vs H Nagaraja: 406 ITR 242 (Kar HC) • CIT vs SRA Systems Ltd: [2019] 410 ITR 392 (Mad HC) – 10A issue In that view of the matter, reassessment initiated u/s 147/ 148 of the Act has been rightly quashed by the CIT(A) at the outset.” 6. We have heard the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the entire material avail…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3722/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dsl Software Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2310/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 80HSection 90

Ragbirsingh Maliksingh Rajpal, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1100/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Pune04 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1100/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Babu

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194ISection 2Section 54FSection 56

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पुणे न्यायपीठ “ए” पुणे में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अयिऱ चतुवेदी, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No.1100/PUN/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Ragbirsingh Maliksingh Rajpal, Office No.308, A/B City Point, Dhole Patil Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411037 …. PAN: AAQPT3284D Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle-2, Pune अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Nikhil Pathak प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent b…

M/S. Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 2, New Delhi

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

ITA 3376/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Smt Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2012-13] M/S Celebi Delhi Cargo Management Vs. The Pr.C.I.T-2 India Pvt. Ltd New Delhi R. No. Ce-05, First Floor, Import Building – Ii, International Cargo Terminal, Igi Airport, New Delhi Pan : Aadcc 6885 B [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2019

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT- DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…the provisions of section 263 of the Act were not applicable to the instant case and, therefore, the commissioner was not justified in setting aside the assessment order.” 18. 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 for both the Assessment Years, the Assessing . A.Y. 2009-10 Officer issued a query memo to the assessee, calling upon h…