CIT v. R.K.Construction Co.

313 ITR 65High Court2009#1327 most cited

What is CIT v. R.K.Construction Co. authority for?

When the Assessing Officer conducts inquiries and accepts the assessee's explanation, the PCIT cannot invoke revisional powers under Section 263 solely due to a difference of opinion with the conclusion drawn by the AO.

86

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,369 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. R.K. Construction Co. · 313 ITR 65 · Section 263 · revisional power · erroneous and prejudicial · AO inquiry · PCIT jurisdiction · difference of opinion · lack of inquiry · change of opinion · Arvind Jewellers

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 144BSection 68Section 142ASection 144Section 147Section 148
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 44aesection 263(1)kelvinatormalabar industrialerroneous and prejudicialsection 44asection 254(1)loose paperssearch assessmentsection 153dsection 263section 26

Judgments citing CIT v. R.K.Construction Co.

Sthapthya Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Ward-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 814/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 814/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Sthapathya Buildcon Pvt Ltd., D.C.I.T, Pavan Petroleum, Vs. Circle-4(1)(1), Nutun Mill Compund, Ahmedabad. Near City Gold Cinema, Saraspur, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aalcs8818G

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…a and others has been referred in para 2.1 as well as in para 3 and 4.2. the difference between "lack of inquiry", "inadequate inquiry" has been discussed in para 4.3 and Malabar Industrial has been discussed in para 4.4 along with R. K. Construction, Gujarat 313 ITR 65 has also been referred in para 4.6, Arvind Jewelers 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) at para 4.7. The finding is as per para 5 of the judgment. (b) Rajesh Chandrakant Shah HUF, Pune ITAT, 102 Taxmann.com 428, wherein, it is held that the provision of sec. 263 cannot be invoked merely on asking of AO or proposal initiate by AO to substitute his original opinion…

Shri Debanjan Das Gupta, Kolkata vs. ACIT(It), Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

ITA 1315/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…T vs Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) - ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329 - CIT vs Ashish Rajpal reported in 320 ITR 674 (Del) - CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) - CIT vs R.K.Construction Co. reported in 313 ITR 65 (Guj) 31. In the light of the above, we are of the firm view that not only did the AO enquire into the issue of taxability of foreign assignment allowance received by the assessee but had consciously applied his mind to the facts made available before him and adopted the permissible view in law. For these reasons, we are of the considered view th…

Shri Bodhisattava Chattopadhyay, Kolkata vs. CIT(It&Tp), Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

ITA 1314/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…T vs Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) - ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329 - CIT vs Ashish Rajpal reported in 320 ITR 674 (Del) - CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) - CIT vs R.K.Construction Co. reported in 313 ITR 65 (Guj) 31. In the light of the above, we are of the firm view that not only did the AO enquire into the issue of taxability of foreign assignment allowance received by the assessee but had consciously applied his mind to the facts made available before him and adopted the permissible view in law. For these reasons, we are of the considered view th…

Malay Ghosh, Midnapoire vs. ACIT(It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

ITA 1311/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…T vs Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) - ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329 - CIT vs Ashish Rajpal reported in 320 ITR 674 (Del) - CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) - CIT vs R.K.Construction Co. reported in 313 ITR 65 (Guj) 31. In the light of the above, we are of the firm view that not only did the AO enquire into the issue of taxability of foreign assignment allowance received by the assessee but had consciously applied his mind to the facts made available before him and adopted the permissible view in law. For these reasons, we are of the considered view th…

Ravi Kiran Sinha, Dhanbad vs. ACIT(It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

ITA 1308/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…T vs Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) - ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329 - CIT vs Ashish Rajpal reported in 320 ITR 674 (Del) - CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) - CIT vs R.K.Construction Co. reported in 313 ITR 65 (Guj) 31. In the light of the above, we are of the firm view that not only did the AO enquire into the issue of taxability of foreign assignment allowance received by the assessee but had consciously applied his mind to the facts made available before him and adopted the permissible view in law. For these reasons, we are of the considered view th…

Nayan Mukherjee, Kolkata vs. ACIT (It), Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

ITA 1306/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…T vs Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) - ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329 - CIT vs Ashish Rajpal reported in 320 ITR 674 (Del) - CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) - CIT vs R.K.Construction Co. reported in 313 ITR 65 (Guj) 31. In the light of the above, we are of the firm view that not only did the AO enquire into the issue of taxability of foreign assignment allowance received by the assessee but had consciously applied his mind to the facts made available before him and adopted the permissible view in law. For these reasons, we are of the considered view th…

Shri Himadri Mallick, Kolkata vs. CIT (It&Tp), Kolkata

In the result, all the six appeals of the assessee’s are allowed and the Stay applications are dismissed

ITA 1304/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…T vs Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) - ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329 - CIT vs Ashish Rajpal reported in 320 ITR 674 (Del) - CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) - CIT vs R.K.Construction Co. reported in 313 ITR 65 (Guj) 31. In the light of the above, we are of the firm view that not only did the AO enquire into the issue of taxability of foreign assignment allowance received by the assessee but had consciously applied his mind to the facts made available before him and adopted the permissible view in law. For these reasons, we are of the considered view th…

Citystar Ganguly Projects LLP, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 9, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1103/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm ]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…T vs Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) - ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329 - CIT vs Ashish Rajpal reported in 320 ITR 674 (Del) - CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) - CIT vs R.K.Construction Co. reported in 313 ITR 65 (Guj) 14 I.T.A No.1103/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 16. For these reasons, we are of the considered view that the assessment order is not the result of non-application of mind or any inadequate enquiry. We are also of the considered opinion that while passing the assessment order the AO did not follow a view which can be said to be ‘unsustainable in law…

Sparsh Procon Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 653/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 653/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Sparsh Procon Pvt Ltd., The Pr.C.I.T.-4, 218, Saman Complex, Vs. Ahmedabad. Nr. Kameshwar School, Jodhpur Cross Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaqcs7789B

For Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, C.I.T. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…where no inquiry as required under the law is done. It is not open to enquire in cases of inadequate inquiry.” 12.5 We also draw support and guidance on the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. R. K. Construction Company reported in 313 ITR 65 wherein it was held as under: “16. As far as law is concerned, the Assessing Officer has taken a particular view on the basis of evidence produced before him. On the basis of the said material and materials which were collected by the CIT in revisional Asstt. Year 2014-15 12 proceedings, the Commissioner has taken a different view. However, in t…

Smt.Mithra Paul, Muvattupuzha vs. The ITO, WD-1, Thodupuzha

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

ITA 421/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Sept 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 44ASection 69B

…ecord and material was considered by ITO and particular view was taken, the mere fact that a different view may be taken should not be basis for action under 263 of the Act. 5.2 The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in 259 ITR 502 and 313 ITR 65. In case reported in 259 ITR 502 it was held as follows: "Coming to the facts of the present case, it is the finding of fact given by the Tribunal that the assesse has produced relevant material and offered explanations in pursuance of the notices issued under section 142(1) as well as section 143(2) of the act and after considering the materials…

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

…ncome in his hands on his so offering the order passed by the assessing officer accepting the same without application of mind as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. CIT vs. R.K. Construction Co., Hon'ble Gujarat High court 313 ITR 65 (Guj.) The detail^ of sub-contractors examined by (he AO as per the directions of CIT in revision proceedings, inter alia, include the names of these sub-contractors, their permanent account numbers, their permanent addresses, amount given to them, name of work entrusted to them, nature of such work and statements recorded by the AO, etc. These de…

Shri Gautam R. Desai, Valsad vs. The Pr. CIT, Valsad

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 885/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Rajesh M.Upadhyay – ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Singh –CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…al Desai 263 of the Act the revision of assessment order under this provision is not permissible. 7. At this juncture, we take respectful provisions of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. R.K.Construction & Co. 313 ITR 65 (Guj), as relied by the ld.AR, wherein their lordship held that when the view taken by the AO is possible view. Revision cannot be directed for taking different better view. Each and every mistake cannot be rectifiable u/s 263 in view of Apex Court decision on Malbar Industries Co. Ltd. Respectfully following the ratio of this decision we hold tha…

Shri Gautam R. Desai, Valsad vs. The Pr. CIT, Valsad

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 884/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2018AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Rajesh M.Upadhyay – ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Singh –CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…al Desai 263 of the Act the revision of assessment order under this provision is not permissible. 7. At this juncture, we take respectful provisions of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. R.K.Construction & Co. 313 ITR 65 (Guj), as relied by the ld.AR, wherein their lordship held that when the view taken by the AO is possible view. Revision cannot be directed for taking different better view. Each and every mistake cannot be rectifiable u/s 263 in view of Apex Court decision on Malbar Industries Co. Ltd. Respectfully following the ratio of this decision we hold tha…

Shri Gautam R. Desai, Valsad vs. The Pr. CIT, Valsad

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 883/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Rajesh M.Upadhyay – ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P.Singh –CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…al Desai 263 of the Act the revision of assessment order under this provision is not permissible. 7. At this juncture, we take respectful provisions of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. R.K.Construction & Co. 313 ITR 65 (Guj), as relied by the ld.AR, wherein their lordship held that when the view taken by the AO is possible view. Revision cannot be directed for taking different better view. Each and every mistake cannot be rectifiable u/s 263 in view of Apex Court decision on Malbar Industries Co. Ltd. Respectfully following the ratio of this decision we hold tha…

M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2521/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…gh Court of Kolkata has also confirmed the said order of ITAT, Kolkata. Sir, the facts of M/s Lotus Capital Financial Services Ltd. (supra) is identical to the facts of this case. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. R.K. Construction Company 313 ITR 65 held that since all the necessary details were furnished to the Assessing Officer, there was no reason for the Commissioner to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The Assessing Officer had taken a particular view on the basis of the evidence produced before him. On the basis of the evidence before the Assessing Officer…

M/S. Cliff Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2520/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…gh Court of Kolkata has also confirmed the said order of ITAT, Kolkata. Sir, the facts of M/s Lotus Capital Financial Services Ltd. (supra) is identical to the facts of this case. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. R.K. Construction Company 313 ITR 65 held that since all the necessary details were furnished to the Assessing Officer, there was no reason for the Commissioner to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The Assessing Officer had taken a particular view on the basis of the evidence produced before him. On the basis of the evidence before the Assessing Officer…

M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2519/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…gh Court of Kolkata has also confirmed the said order of ITAT, Kolkata. Sir, the facts of M/s Lotus Capital Financial Services Ltd. (supra) is identical to the facts of this case. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. R.K. Construction Company 313 ITR 65 held that since all the necessary details were furnished to the Assessing Officer, there was no reason for the Commissioner to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The Assessing Officer had taken a particular view on the basis of the evidence produced before him. On the basis of the evidence before the Assessing Officer…

M/S. Rbs Credit & Financial Development Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 3, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1156/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1156/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Rbs Credit & Financial Development Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Pcit-3, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 3300 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

…High Court in the case of CIT vs Ashish Rajpal reported in 320 ITR 674 (Del) b) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) c) Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs R.K.Construction Co. reported in 313 ITR 65 (Guj) d) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) e) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329 (Del) 6.3. In view of the aforesaid findings and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the o…

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

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

ITA 3746/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms Sunita Billa
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC); that of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom); the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. R K Construction Co. 313 ITR 65 (Guj) and various other decisions. However, the CIT did not agree with the submissions of the assesse and took the view that the Assessing Officer while making the assessment order has not examined the issue of unexplained cash credit in respect of capital introduced by the firm M/s. Dev Steel and treated the assessment order to be erroneous an…

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

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

ITA 3745/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms Sunita Billa
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC); that of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom); the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. R K Construction Co. 313 ITR 65 (Guj) and various other decisions. However, the CIT did not agree with the submissions of the assesse and took the view that the Assessing Officer while making the assessment order has not examined the issue of unexplained cash credit in respect of capital introduced by the firm M/s. Dev Steel and treated the assessment order to be erroneous an…