CIT v. Raja Industries

340 ITR 344High Court2012#8435 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 142 Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 153(3)section 263(1)malabar industrial section 80i erroneous and prejudicial agricultural income gross total income income-tax officer section 263 section 26 section 144b section 153

Judgments citing CIT v. Raja Industries

SBS BIOTECH UNIT II,SIRMOUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 801CSection 80I

…652/342 ITR 74/249 CTR 529 (Gau.) iv) Where enquiry is warranted but not made, it would certainly constitute prejudice to revenue, so that jurisdiction for the Commissioner is available for remanding the matter for such enquiry - CIT Vs Raja Industries (2012) 340 ITR 344 (P&H). v). Honble Delhi High Court in Income Tax Officer versus DG Housing Projects Limited (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) has observed: "The Assessing Officer is both an investigator and an adjudicator. If the Assessing Officer as an adjudicator decides a question or aspect and makes a wrong assessment which is unsustainable in law, it can be correc…

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 300/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

…m 652/342 ITR 74/249 CTR 529 (Gau.) iii) Where enquiry is warranted but not made, it would certainly constitute prejudice to revenue so that jurisdiction for the Commissioner is available for remanding the matter for such enquiry CIT Vs Raja Industries (2012) 340 ITR 344 (P&H). iv). Honble Delhi High Court in Income Tax Officer versus DG Housing Projects Limited (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) has observed: "The Assessing Officer is both an investigator and an adjudicator. If the Assessing Officer as an adjudicator decides a question or aspect and makes a wrong assessment which is unsustainable in law, it can be corre…

A.B. SUGARS LIMITED,PUNJAB vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 299/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

EXOTIC REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

…52/342 ITR 74/249 CTR 529 (Gau.) iii) Where enquiry is warranted but not made, it would certainly constitute prejudice to revenue, so that jurisdiction for the Commissioner is available for remanding the matter for such enquiry. CIT Vs Raja Industries (2012) 340 ITR 344 (P&H). iv). Honble Delhi High Court in Income Tax Officer versus DG Housing Projects Limited (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) has observed: "The Assessing Officer is both an investigator and an adjudicator. If the Assessing Officer as an adjudicator decides a question or aspect and makes a wrong assessment which is unsustainable in law, it can be corre…

PATCHIRAJAN LAKSHMANAN,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 597/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 597/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Principal Commissioner Of Patchirajan Lakshmanan, V. Income Tax, No. 102F,/16Z/3, Maduari -1, Dhanasekaran Nagar, Madurai – 625 002. Polepettai (West) – 628 002. [Pan:Aazpl-1396-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

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

…laim of deduction from Capital Gains u/s 54F of the Act, was accepted as correct and therefore the revisional powers under section 263 would be justified in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Raja Industries (340 ITR 344).” 9. Aggrieved by the impugned action of the Ld.PCIT passing the impugned order on 24.03.2020, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal and has raised a legal issue, wherein, the Ld.AR pointed out that the issue which has been raked up by the Ld.PCIT have been enquired into by the AO during assessment proceedings, which had a particular r…

SMT ELIZEBETH VASHEELAKUMARI,NAGERCOIL vs. ACI, CIRCLE-I, NAGERCOIL RANGE, NAGERCOIL

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

ITA 783/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.783/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Elizebeth Vasheelakumari, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 3, Parama Street, W.C.C. Road, Income Tax, Circle I, Nagercoil 629 001. Nagercoil Range, Nagercoil. [Pan:Abqpe8121P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit 1, Madurai, Dated 21.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 54F

…, the assessing officer failed to apply the provisions of section SOC of the Act and therefore the revisional powers under section 263 would be justified in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Raja Industries (340 ITR 344). 7. In view of the above, I am satisfied that the order dated 18.12.2017 6 I.T.A. No.783/Chny/20 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, in exercise of powers conferred u/s 263 of Income Tax Act, I set aside the aforesaid order with t…

RAMANBHAI BHOLIDAS PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 84/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT/D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54B

…652/342 ITR 74/249 CTR 529 (Gau.) iii) Where enquiry is warranted but not made, it would certainly constitute prejudice to revenue, so that jurisdiction for the Commissioner is available for remanding the matter for such enquiry. C/7 Vs Raja Industries (2C12) 340 ITR 344 (P&H). iv) Commissioner is free to exercise his jurisdiction on consideration of all relevant facts, provided an opportunity of hearing is afforded to assessee to contest facts on basis of which he had exercised revisional jurisdiction. CIT, Mumbai Vs. Amitabh Bachchan [2016]69 taxmann.com 170[SC] v) Where no inquiry was conducted by the Assessin…

SH. GURDEEP SINGH,SIRMOUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH-1

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 453/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Disposed Off.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…stock company. The decision proceeded on failure of the AO to apply his mind and was purely factual. Said decision, it was submitted, has no play in the facts of the present case. 3.27 Similarly in the decision in the case of CIT Vs Raja Industries (2012) 340 ITR 344 of the jurisdictional High Court relied upon by the ld. PCIT, it was submitted that in the facts of the said case, there was a surrender of Rs. 12 lacs made during search carried out u/s 133A which was forming part of the return filed. The AO without carrying out any enquiries instead of calling forth for the surrendered amount to be included…

SMT. E. SANTHAKUMARI,,KANYAKUMARI vs. ITO, WARD -4, , NAGERCOIL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 2365/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. ARV. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

…0,000/- in the Axis Bank A/c. No.005100050309160 was accepted as explained and therefore the revisional powers under section 263 would be justified in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Raja Industries also (340 ITR 344). 6. The learned Counsel for the Assessee then took us through the assessment order and stated that this case was selected for limited scrutiny under the Computer-Aided Scrutiny Selection [CASS] for the reason of cash deposit at the saving bank account and accordingly a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued. The Assessee, before the Assessing…

MR. PRANJAL PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-2,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1357/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.H. Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Murari, CIT-D.R

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

…CIT (2008) 307 ITR (AT) 52 (Del). (x) Where enquiry is warranted but not made, it would certainly constitute prejudice to revenue, so that jurisdiction for the Commissioner is available for remanding the matter for such enquiry. CIT Vs Raja Industries (2012) 340 ITR 344 (P&H).” 5. During the course of appellate proceedings before us the Ld. Counsel has submitted paper book containing details of information submitted before the assessing officer and ld.CIT(A) at the time of assessment proceeding and appellate proceeding. The Ld. Counsel has contended that ld. Commissioner of income tax has erred in passing the o…

VIJAY KUNDU,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 808/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 808/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Vijay Kundu, Vs Pr. Cit, C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Delhi-21, Cas, L-7A (Lgf), South Ext., New Delhi Part-2, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajnpk7914P Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2016 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-21, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 263

…000/- in the specified banks as undisclosed income of the assessee and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) " CIT Vs Raja Industries (2012) 340 ITR 344 (P&H) " Dawjee Dadabhoy & Co. Vs S.P. (1957) 31 ITR 872 (Cal.) " CIT Vs T. Narayana Pai (1975) 98 ITR 422 (Kar.) " CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) 15. The ld. CIT cancelled the order passed by the AO and directed him to make fresh assessment by observing in para 3.2.4 of the impugned order as under: “In the assessment order un…

SHRI PRABHAT KUMAR SINGHAL,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. PR.CIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

ITA 2382/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Senior DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…h of March at higher rate; that the assessment order passed by AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue and relied upon the decisions rendered by Hon’ble High Court cited as Commissioner 6 ITA No.2382/Del./2016 of Income Tax vs. Raja Industries (2012) 340 ITR 344 (P&H) and Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Active Traders Pvt. Limited 214 ITR 583. 7. From the arguments addressed by the parties to the present appeal, orders passed by the authorities below and case law relied upon, the first question arises for determination in this case is :- “as to whether the assessment order dated 28.02.2014 passed by t…

LAKSHYA SETH,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and impugned notice

ITA 218/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri Suresh K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gajanand Meena, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 69A

…ould not produce Sales Tax/V AT details in this regard. In such a situation the entire cash deposits in different bank accounts of the assessee should be treated as unexplained money of the assessee u/s 69A of the I.T. Act. 5. In CIT vs Raja Industries (2012) 340 ITR 344 (P&H), it has been held that where enquiry is warranted but not made, it would certainly constitute prejudice to revenue, so that jurisdiction for the Commissioner is available for remanding the matter for such enquiry. 6. In Jyoti Electric Motors Ltd. vs CIT (1999) 237 ITR 280 (Guj), it was held that even where facts are disclosed by the assesse…