How many judgments cite CIT v. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd.?

83 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. (149 Taxmann.com 115), spanning 2023 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 147, Section 1961.

CIT v. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd.

149 Taxmann.com 115Supreme Court of India2023#1385 most cited

What is CIT v. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. authority for?

Revisiting the stringent two-fold conditions for invoking Section 263, `CIT v. Paville Projects` affirms that mere inadequacy of enquiry by the Assessing Officer does not automatically confer revisional powers. An order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue for Section 263 to apply.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. · Section 263 · revisional powers · inadequate enquiry · two-fold conditions · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · lack of enquiry

Also reported as

2023 SCC OnLine SC 371453 ITR 447293 Taxmann 38

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 147 Section 1961 Section 144 Section 148

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 263of section 124(1)inadequate enquiry malabar industrial revision under section 263 section 263(1)section 124(3)(a)lack of enquiry section 127(1)prejudicial to interest of revenue section 127(2)section 159

Judgments citing CIT v. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd.

St.Joseph'S Educational Trust, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Chennai - 1, Chennai

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

ITA 1620/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Institute Of Science & Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Educational Trust, Vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Tax, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Central, Chennai -1 [Pan: Aamts 3888G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…enue. (See ‘Rampyari Devi Saraogiv CIT[(1968) 67 ITR 84(SC)] and in ‘’Tara Devi Aggarwalv.CIT[(1973) 3 SCC 482:1973 SCC (Tax) 318:(1973) 88 ITR 323].) [Emphasis supplied] 26. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 371], while relying upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of two-fold conditions for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The relevant paragraph of the said decision reads as under:- Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in…

St.Joseph'S Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Chennai - 1, Chennai

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

ITA 1619/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

St.Joseph'S Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Chennai - 1, Chennai

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

ITA 1618/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…venue. (See 'Rampyari Devi Saraogiv CIT[(1968) 67 ITR 84(SC)] and in "Tara Devi Aggarwalv.CIT[(1973) 3 SCC 482:1973 SCC (Tax) 318:(1973) 88 ITR 323].) [Emphasis supplied] 26. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 371], while relying upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of two-fold conditions for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The relevant paragraph of the said decision reads as under:- Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in…

International Seaport Dredging Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT - 1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1597/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baram Som, IRS, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 71Section 79

Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Chennai vs. DCIT Intl Tax 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1319/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 239Section 263

The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20

ITA 2481/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Ι.Τ.Α. No. 2480 /Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 2481 /Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) The National Bank Of Agriculture & Rural Development C-24, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan : Aaact4020G Vs. Dcit, Circle-3(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Adv. & Shri Niraj Sheth & Shri Gunjan Kakkad, Ar Revenue/Respondent By : Shri S. Srinivasu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2024 Order Per Padmavathy S, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai 3 [In Short 'The Pcit'] Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 14.03.2024 For

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM Ι.Τ.Α. No. 2480 /Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ι.Τ.Α. No. 2481 /Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) The National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development C-24, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. PAN : AAACT4020G Vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant/Assessee by : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Adv. & Shri Niraj Sheth & Shri Gunjan Kakkad, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 21.08.2024 D…

The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2018-19 and AY 2019-20

ITA 2480/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS PADMAVATHY S, AM & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM I.T.A. No. 2480 /Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) I.T.A. No. 2481 /Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) The National Bank of Agriculture DCIT, Circle-3(2)(1), and Rural Development Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, C-24, G Block, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400020. Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. PAN : AAACT4020G Appellant) : Respondent) : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Adv. & Appellant/Assessee by Shri Niraj Sheth & Shri Gunjan Kakkad, AR Revenue/Respondent by : Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 21.08.202…

Ved Prakash & Sons Liumbers Pvt Ltd, Karnal vs. Pr. CIT, Karnal

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4079/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganeh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

…bers Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT v. CIT [(1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC)] and in Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [(1973) 3 SCC 482: 1973 SCC (Tax) 318: (1973) 88 ITR 323J.)" [Emphasis supplied] 26. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 371], while relying upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of twofold conditions for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The relevant paragraph of the said decision reads as under:- "27. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has heavily relied upon the decision of this Cour…

Thayappa Balakrishna, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1027/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Thayappa Balakrishna, No. 987, 11Th Main, The Principal 1St Block, Commissioner Of 3Rd Stage, Income-Tax, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru – 1. Vs. Bangalore – 560 079. Pan: Abdpb4893N Appellant Respondent : Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr

For Respondent: Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Thayappa Balakrishna, No. 987, 11th Main, The Principal 1st Block, Commissioner of 3rd Stage, Income-tax, Basaveshwaranagar, Bengaluru – 1. Vs. Bangalore – 560 079. PAN: ABDPB4893N APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri Ravi Shankar .S.V, Assessee by Advocate Revenue by : Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22-07-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 22-08-2024 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal arises out of order dated 29.03.2…

Mylan Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-5 (1), Hyderabad

In the result, the ground no

ITA 206/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 263Section 37

…er person. From the above, it is evident that the assessment order in erroneous in clear terms. 11. There is no doubt that the order is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Supreme Court in recent decision in Paville Projects Private Limited (2023) 453 ITR 447 (SC) has held that an erroneous assessment which resulted into loss of revenue of tax is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 12. Hence, the above recent judgment of Supreme Court in Paville Projects Private Limited is applicable to the current facts of the case and the Commissioner is justified in invoking the power under Section 263.” ITA N…

M/S. Ganga Electricals, Nashik vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax.-1, Nashik

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

ITA 215/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

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

…f India in case of CIT, Mumbai Vs Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 69 taxmann.com 170 (SC) / [2016] 240 Taxman 221 (SC) / [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC)/ (2016) 286 CTR 113 (SC) [11-05-2016] 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of CIT Vs Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023] 149 Taxmann.com 115 (SC) [06-04-2023] 9. Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in case of Success Tours & Travels (P) Ltd Vs ITO, Ward 9(4), Kolkata [2017] 80 Taxmann.com 263 (Calcutta) / [2017] 247 Taxman 109 (Calcutta) / [2017] 394 ITR 37 (Calcutta) / [2017] 295 CTR 430 (Calcutta) [23-03-2017] 10. Hon'ble ITAT Pune in the case of Mrs. Minakshi Shivkumar Bansal Vs…

M/S. Corporate Leisure & Property Development Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 652/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Shantilal G., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…PCIT invoked section 263 of the Act and same to be confirmed. Further, she relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Paville M/s. Corporate Leisure & Property Development Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 12 of 19 Projects Pvt. Ltd. (SC) (2023) 453 ITR 447 and also order of Tribunal in the case of ABB Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (LTU) ITA No.787/Bang/2013 (AY 2007-08) dated 7.6.2017 for the proposition that there is a failure on the part of ld. AO to verify the issues as required under law which amounts to erroneous and so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue as there was loss of revenue. 5. We ha…

M/S. Brahmani River Pellets Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Principal CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 139/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack22 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Brahmani River Pellets M/S. Brahmani River Pellets Vs. Pr. Cit-1, Limited., 4Th Floor, Ipicol Limited., 4 Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar House, House, Janapath, Janapath, Sahid Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaccb 9418 Q (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Sabat & B.K.Mahapatra, Cas B.K.Mahapatra, Cas Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/0 05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22/0 /05/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Sabat and B.K.Mahapatra, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ee is liable to be rejected as infructuous as alternative remedy is available to the assessee against the consequential order passed. Ld CIT DR has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Pavile Projects (P) Ltd., (2023) 453 ITR 447 (SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has restored the order passed u/s.263 of the Act by the CIT insofar as the Hon’ble Supreme Court had found that the order passed by the AO in that case was P a g e 3 | 10 Assessment Year : 2018-19 erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was the submission that the order passed by Pr.…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7 vs. M/S Paramount Propbuild Pvt. Ltd

ITA/247/2023HC Delhi19 Mar 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ests of the Revenue. (See Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [(1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC)] and in Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [(1973) 3 SCC 482] .)” [Emphasis supplied] 15. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 371], followed the dictum laid down in the Malabar Industrial Co. Limited v. CIT and emphasized upon the germane value of the twin conditions imposed under Section 263 of the Act, before invoking the revisional powers. The relevant extract of the said decision is reproduced herein for reference:- “27. Learned counsel appearing on be…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Delhi vs. M/S Clix Finance India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1428/2018HC Delhi01 Mar 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

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

…yari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [(1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC)] and in Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [(1973) 3 SCC 482 : 1973 SCC (Tax) 318 : (1973) 88 ITR 323].)” [Emphasis supplied] 26. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 371], while relying Digitally Signed By:PRIYA Signing Date:01.03.2024 17:06:54 Signature Not Verified ITA 1428/2018 Page 12 of 14 upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of two- fold conditions for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The relevant paragraph of the said dec…

Rajendra G Mishra, Nagpur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 94/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263(1)Section 54

…k for themselves. Faced with the situation, we quote Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC), Tara Devi Aggarwal vs CIT 1973 SCR (2)1035 and CIT vs. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd., [2023] 453 ITR 447 (SC); to confirm the learned PCIT’s revision directions. Ordered accordingly. 7. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. 8 ITA.No.94/Nag./2020 Order pronounced in the open Court on 26.10.2023. [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 26th October, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The applican…

Guala Closures (India) Pvt. Ltd., Panaji vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji., Select City

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 205/PAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Shivshankar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 253Section 263Section 4

…vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC); Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC); Taradevi Aggarwal vs. CIT 1973 AIR 254 (SC); Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del.) and recently reiterated in CIT vs. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd., [2023] 453 ITR 447 (SC); to reject learned counsel’s arguments. The assessee fails in it’s instant substantive ground therefore and the Revenue’s vehement submissions supporting the same stand accepted. 36 ITA.No.205/PAN./2019 10. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13.10.2023. [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER…

Lalita Sanjivreddy Bodkurwar, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 90/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC); Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC); Taradevi Aggarwal vs. CIT 1973 AIR 254 (SC); Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del.) and recently reiterated in CIT vs. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd., [2023] 453 ITR 447 (SC). The assessee fails in it’s instant appeal therefore. 8 ITA.No.90/Nag./2020 7. We make it clear before parting that the assessee shall be very much at liberty to raise all his factual and legal arguments on all issues in deciding non-applicability of sec.50B slump sale provision proceedings before the Assessing Officer as per law. 8. This…

Trafogura Global Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-6, Mumbai

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

ITA 1690/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Trafigura Global Services Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-6 501, 5Th Floor, Aaykara Bhawan Unit No. 1101, A-Wing, Plot No. C, 66G Block, One Bkc, Bandra Kurla Vs. M. G. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Complex, Mumbai – 400 051

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Deshmukh

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Trafigura Global Services Pvt. Ltd. PCIT-6 501, 5th Floor, Aaykara Bhawan Unit No. 1101, A-Wing, Plot No. C, 66G Block, One BKC, Bandra Kurla Vs. M. G. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Complex, Mumbai – 400 051 PAN/GIR No. AABCT 0037 C (Appellant) (Respondent) : Assessee by : Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Deshmukh Date of Hearing : 11.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the lear…

Career Point Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…terests of the Revenue. (See Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [(1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC)] and in Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [(1973) 3 SCC 482 : 1973 SCC (Tax) 318 : (1973) 88 ITR 323] .)” (b) The Commissioner of Income Tax - 7 Vs M/S Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd. [2023] 453 ITR 447 (SC) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in a case where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has adopted one view, such a decision, which might be plausible and it has resulted in loss of Revenue, such an order is not revisable u/s 263. (c) CIT vs Ganpat Ram Vishnoi (2008) 296 ITR 292 (Raj) Held:- Undoubtedly, the jurisdiction under…