CIT v. Saravana Developers

387 ITR 239Reported decision2016#17809 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 114(f)Section 133(6)Section 139 Section 147 Section 154 Section 239 Section 244A Section 263

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 263(1)section 264 malabar industrial non-application of mind principal commissioner of income-tax reasoned order erroneous and prejudicial section 133 income-tax officer section 263 section 26 scrutiny assessment

Judgments citing CIT v. Saravana Developers

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

…Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court 243 ITR 83 7 4 Virtusa Consulting Services HC-Madras 442 ITR 385 12 (P.) Ltd. 5 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. HC-Delhi 332 ITR 167 22 6 Spectra Shares & Scrips HC-Andhra 354 ITR 35 33 (P.) Ltd. Pradesh 7 Saravana Developers HC-Karnataka 387 ITR 239 57 8 Chemsworth (P.) Ltd. HC-Karnataka 119 taxmann.com 65 358 9 Hari Iron Trading Co HC-Punjab & 263 ITR 437 69 Haryana 10 Shriram Properties Limited ITAT-Chennai 2023 (4) TMI 375 76 11 Cavinkare (P.) Ltd. ITAT-Chennai 149 taxmann.com 97 296 12 Rajkumar Impex Pvt. Ltd. ITAT-Chennai 2023 (6) TMI 812 108 13 FCA Engineering India Pvt. ITAT-Chennai I…

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

ITA 248/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…liance on following case laws:- (i) CIT vs M/s. Chemsworth Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.423 of 2013 – Judgement dated 16.9.2020 (ii) CIT vs M/s. Aztec Software Technology Ltd. in ITA No.348 of 2013 – Judgement dated 16.9.2020 (iii) CIT v. Saravana Developers (2016) 387 ITR 239 (Karn), wherein held that From close scrutiny of section 263, it is evident that twin conditions are required to be satisfied for exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, firstly, the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and secondly, that it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on account of error in the order of a…

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bengaluru

ITA 415/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

M/S. Samprasiddhi Infratech, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 129/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R

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

…f the Act. Hence, on this ground also, the order passed by the assessing officer is not erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. We rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High court in the case of CIT Vs Sarvana Developers 387 ITR 239 (enclosed at page no 85 to 90 of the paper book) wherein it was held that the lack of enquiry cannot be equated M/s. Samprasiddhi Infratech, Bangalore Page 6 of 24 with inadequate enquiry and therefore, the order cannot be faulted with. There is no doubt that assessing officer has sought for explanation from the assessee about the provision for…

Biocon Limtied, Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is allowed as indicated above

ITA 907/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Sundar Rao, CIT-I (D.R)

Section 10ASection 10BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 35Section 92Section 92C

…views with that of the Assessing Officer in the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act, which is impermissible. In coming to this view, we drew support from the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Saravana Developers (2016) 387 ITR 239 wherein it was held that in the absence of lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer, the order of assessment cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and any further enquiry ordered by the CIT would amount to fishing / roving enquiry in the matter already concluded. In this regard, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in…