How many judgments cite CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd.?

53 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (221 ITR 155), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 115BBE, Section 142(1), Section 144, Section 147, Section 133(6).

CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd.

221 ITR 155High Court1996#2196 most cited

What is CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. authority for?

An assessment order is not automatically erroneous or prejudicial under Section 263 merely because it lacks a detailed discussion on a particular issue, provided the Assessing Officer has made an enquiry and accepted the assessee's explanation.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Section 263 · revision · erroneous and prejudicial · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · absence of discussion in assessment order · CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. · AO enquiry · PCIT powers · complete scrutiny

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 115BBE Section 142(1)Section 144 Section 147 Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

public servant revision u/s 263 inadequate enquiry malabar industrial lack of enquiry erroneous and prejudicial change of opinion complete scrutiny limited scrutiny agricultural income section 119 section 263

Judgments citing CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd.

BALUBHAI KIKABHAI PATEL,VALSAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 461/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.461/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Balubhhai Kikabhai Patel Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ Nahuli, Karmbele, Umbergon, Income-Tax, Valsad, Room No. Vs. Surat-396 105 301, 3Rd Floor, Palak Arcade, Shanti Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Akqpp 2563 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 13/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

…lk Producers Union Ltd. 263 ITR 645 (Guj) and CIT vs. Shashi Theater (P.) Ltd. 248 ITR 126 (Guj); CIT vs. Amit Corporation 81 CCH 69 (Guj); CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj); CIT vs. R.K. Construction Co. 313 ITR 65 (Guj) and Rayon Silk Mills vs. CIT 221 ITR 155 (Guj). ITA No.461/SRT/2024/AY.18-19 Balubhai K Patel 5. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue supported the order of Ld.PCIT. He submitted that the order of AO is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We have also deliberated on the d…

MS. SHREE WAHEGURU FASHIONS PVT. LTD.,RING ROAD, SURAT vs. PCIT , AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 402/SRT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.402/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2020-21) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Shree Waheguru Fashions Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd., B-1110, Radha Krishna Vs. Income-Tax (Central), Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat Central Circle-1, Surat, Aayakar - 395002 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aahcs 9568 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 263

…echanically set aside the case on the ground that AO did not make any enquiry. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld.PCIT has not recorded objective satisfaction on the submission made by assessee. He relied on the decisions in the case of Rayon Silk Mills vs. CIT 221 ITR 155 (Guj) and CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 152 taxmann.com 242 (Raj). The Ld. AR further stated that the Ld.PCIT 5 ITA No.402/SRT/2024/AY.2020-21 Shree Waheguru Fashions Pvt. Ltd. has not made any enquiry u/s 263 of the Act. Even in case of no enquiry made by the AO, the Ld.PCIT is expected to conduct minimum enquiry as held in case of PCIT vs. Delh…

GENUS POWER INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITTED,NOIDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTERAL), LUCKNOW

ITA 74/LKW/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kumar, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…elhi IV ITA No. 3398/Del/2010 A. Y. 2006-7 vide order dated 29.02.2012 Hon'ble ITAT observed as under: As far as absence of discussion in the assessment order is concern, this is what has been la down b_ this court in the case of Rayon Silk Mills v. CIT 1996 221 ITR 155: "In the first instance it was contended by learned Counsel for the assessee that the very premise on which order under section 263 was made against the assessee, namely, that the Income Tax Officer has not at all examined the goodwill account is not existent. According to him, it is apparent from the record that the goodwill account was thorough…

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 459/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha (CIT-DR)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54

…’ble courts. Kindly refer direct decisions in case of Smt. Leela Choudhary v/s PR. CIT 289 ITR 226(Gau.) also refer, Saw Pipes Ltd v/s Add. PR. CIT 94 TTJ 1036(Del) Also refer Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s PR. CIT 159 CTR(1)(SC), PR. CIT v/s Rayn Silk Mills 221 ITR 155(Guj.) Same view has been expressed in the case of Kamal Kumar Gupta v/s Pr. CIT 142 TTJ 9(Jp) wherein it has been held that “assessee was asked by the AO to file the 21 Sajjad Ali vs DCIT (intl.), Jaipur details of trade creditors which are shown in the name of agriculturalist. In the reply, assessee filed written submission enclosing the list…

SHREE ALEKH,BHAVNAGAR vs. PCIT AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…A 427/Abd/2020 Veer Plastics P. Ltd. vs. PCIT – ITA 456/Ahd/2020 Harshadkumar Manilal Patel vs. PCIT – ITA 365/Ahd/2020 CIT vs. Nirma Chemicals Works (P.) Ltd. – 309 ITR 67 (Guj) Gujarat Power Corporation vs. ACIT – 350 ITR 266 (Guj) Rayon Silk Mills vs CIT – 221 ITR 155 @ 158-159 (Guj Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT – [2003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. – [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers – 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products – 333 ITR 547 @ 557-558 (Del)” 5.1 The Ld. AR further summited that it is settled law that if two views are possible as regards to a particular…

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 203/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT

Section 115JSection 263Section 35ASection 36(1)(viia)

…the assessee in his reply to the show cause notice under section 263 had specifically mentioned that the entire matter was scrutinised and accepted while passing the assessment order.” [Para 21 & 22] Rayon Silk Mills Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax. (1996) 221 ITR 155 [09.11.1995] The judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of State Bank of India vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax and Ors. [2019] 411 ITR 664 (Bom) [15.06.2018] wherein it was held that: M/s. AU Small Finance Bank Limited & Avas Financiers Limited “Moreover, the Assessment order in regular assessment proceedings in terms disa…

ARUN KUMAR PALAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PR CIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Bhatra (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT D/R

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…’ble courts. Kindly refer direct decisions in case of Smt. Leela Choudhary v/s PR. CIT 289 ITR 226(Gau.) also refer, Saw Pipes Ltd v/s Add. PR. CIT 94 TTJ 1036(Del) Also refer Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s PR. CIT 159 CTR(1)(SC), PR. CIT v/s Rayn Silk Mills 221 ITR 155(Guj.) 16 Shri Arun Kumar Palawat, Jaipur. Same view has been expressed in the case of Kamal Kumar Gupta v/s Pr. CIT 142 TTJ 9(Jp) wherein it has been held that “assessee was asked by the AO to file the details of trade creditors which are shown in the name of agriculturalist. In the reply, assessee filed written submission enclosing the list of…

SMT ANUPAMA ASSWA,INDORE vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 59/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniआयकर अपील सं. / I.T.A. No. 59/Ind/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Smt. Anupama Asawa, Pcit-I, बनाम/ Indore Indore Vs.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Agrawal & ShriFor Respondent: 20.09.2022 & 19.12.2022

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

…peal lies, would be filed, only against disallowances which an assessee feels aggrieved with. 23. As far as absence of discussion in the assessment order is concerned, this is what has been laid down by this court in the case of Rayon Silk Mills v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 155 :— "In the first instance it was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise on which order under section 263 was made against the assessee, namely, that the Income-tax Officer has not at all examined the goodwill account is not existent. Anupama Asawa 7 According to him, it is apparent from the record that the goodwill a…

M/S. PYROTECH ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/JODH/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

…evices vs. Pr. CIT ITA No. 171/Jodh/2018 20th March, 202 16. Smt. Leela Choudhary v/s PR. CIT 289 ITR 226(Gau.) also refer, Saw Pipes Ltd v/s Add. PR. CIT 94 TTJ 1036(Del) 17. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s PR. CIT 159 CTR(1)(SC), PR. CIT v/s Rayn Silk Mills 221 ITR 155(Guj.) 18. CIT v/s Paras Cotton Co. 288 ITR 211(Raj.) 19. Gaberial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 20. CIT v/s Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292(Raj.) 8 ITA 3/JODH/2021 PYEROTECH ELECTRONICS PVT LTD VS PR. CIT, UDAIPUR 2.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR has supported the order of the ld. Pr. CIT and stated that the AO has not done proper and detailed…

LABDHI JEWELLERD PVT. LTD.,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 106/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

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

…der of Assessing Officer calls for interference by ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act. To support his submission, ld. AR for the assessee relied upon following decisions:  CIT vs. Nirma Chemicals Works (P.) Ltd. 309 ITR 67 (Guj)  Rayon Silk Mills vs. CIT 221 ITR 155 (Guj)  Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT 263 ITR 437 (P&H)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom)  CIT vs. Vikas Polymears 341 ITR 537 (Del)  CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products 333 ITR 547 (Del) 9. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that if two views are possible, revision under section 263 is not justified as the Assessing Officer has tak…

K. N. DIAMOND,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

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

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SHUJALPUR MANDI vs. ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 21/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Mehta & Shri ApurvaFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 80C

…peal lies, would be filed, only against disallowances which an assessee feels aggrieved with. 23. As far as absence of discussion in the assessment order is concerned, this is what has been laid down by this court in the case of Rayon Silk Mills v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 155 :— "In the first instance it was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise on which order under section 263 was made against the assessee, namely, that the Income-tax Officer has not at all examined the goodwill account is not existent. According to him, it is apparent from the record that the goodwill account was thorou…

MOJILAL RAJPUT,SUJALPUR MANDI vs. THE ITO, SHAJAPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 20/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Mehta & Shri ApurvaFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 44ASection 80C

…peal lies, would be filed, only against disallowances which an assessee feels aggrieved with. 23. As far as absence of discussion in the assessment order is concerned, this is what has been laid down by this court in the case of Rayon Silk Mills v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 155 :— "In the first instance it was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise on which order under section 263 was made against the assessee, namely, that the Income-tax Officer has not at all examined the goodwill account is not existent. According to him, it is apparent from the record that the goodwill account was thorou…

SHRI PRASHANT AGRAWAL,BHOPAL vs. PR. CIT -I , BHOPAL

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 561/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N. DFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mitra, CIT.D.R

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

…peal lies, would be filed, only against disallowances which an assessee feels aggrieved with. 23. As far as absence of discussion in the assessment order is concerned, this is what has been laid down by this court in the case of Rayon Silk Mills v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 155 :— "In the first instance it was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise on which order under section 263 was made against the assessee, namely, that the Income-tax Officer has not at all examined the goodwill account is not existent. According to him, it is apparent from the record that the goodwill account was thorou…

SAMIR YOGENDRABHAI PARIKH,NA vs. ARIVS.THE PCIT, VALSAD, VALSAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 102/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh. The Pr.Cit, Alka Society, Chhapara Road, Valsad. Vs. Dist.-Navsari-396445, Gujarat. Pan No. Abgpp 6727 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

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

…Section 263 of the Act. To support such submissions, the ld. Senior Counsel relied upon the following case laws: (i) CIT Vs Nirma Chemicals Works (P) Ltd. 309 ITR 67 (Guj) (ii) Gujarat Power Corporation Vs ACIT 350 ITR 266 (Guj) (iii) Rayon Silk Mills Vs CIT 221 ITR 155 @ 158-159 (Guj) (iv) Hari Iron Trading Co. Vs CIT (2003) 263 ITR 437 (P&H) (v) CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (vi) CIT Vs Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del) (vii)CIT Vs Honda Siel Power Products 333 ITR 547 @ 557-558 (Del) 7. The ld. Senior Counsel submits that the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice dated 30/01/2019 for…

M/S. YATHARTH INFRASTRUCTURES (P) LTD.,UJJAIN vs. PR. CIT, UJJAIN

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 532/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore10 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Parth Jhavar, ARs

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

…peal lies, would be filed, only against disallowances which an assessee feels aggrieved with. 23. As far as absence of discussion in the assessment order is concerned, this is what has been laid down by this court in the case of Rayon Silk Mills v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 155 :— "In the first instance it was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise on which order under section 263 was made against the assessee, namely, that the Income-tax Officer has not at all examined the goodwill account is not existent. According to him, it is apparent from the record that the goodwill account was thorou…

VEER PLASTICS PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT -4, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/AHD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: ShriA. P. Singh, CIT

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 263Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…ng Officer calls for interference by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the followings decisions: " CIT vs. Nirma Chemicals Works (P.) Ltd. - 309 ITR 67 (Guj) " Gujarat Power Corporation vs. ACIT - 350 ITR 266 (Guj) " Rayon Silk Mills vs CIT - 221 ITR 155 @ 158-159 (Guj) " Had Iron Trading Co. v. CIT 12003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) " CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom) " CIT vs. Vikas Polymers - 341 ITR 537 (Del) " CIT vs Honda Siel Power Products - 333 ITR 547 @ 557-558 (Del) " Jai Rashmikant Patel vs. PCIT - IT A 427/A/2020 The Ld. AR submitted that it is settled law that if two views ar…

GUNVEER SINGH CHHABRA ,INDORE vs. THE PR CIT -1, INDORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 117/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Shubhash Jain, A.R

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

…peal lies, would be filed, only against disallowances which an assessee feels aggrieved with. 23. As far as absence of discussion in the assessment order is concerned, this is what has been laid down by this court in the case of Rayon Silk Mills v. CIT [1996] 221 ITR 155 :— "In the first instance it was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that the very premise on which order under section 263 was made against the assessee, namely, that the Income-tax Officer has not at all examined the goodwill account is not existent. According to him, it is apparent from the record that the goodwill account was thorou…

SHRI RADHA GOVIND LASHKARI,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Savita Bundas, (CIT D/R)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…s Hon’ble Courts. Kindly refer direct decisions in case of Smt. Leela Choudhary v/s PR. CIT 289 ITR 226(Gau.). Also refer Saw Pipes Ltd v/s Add. PR. CIT 94 TTJ 1036 (Del), Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v/s PR. CIT 159 CTR(1)(SC), PR. CIT v/s Rayn Silk Mills 221 ITR 155(Guj.). Same view has been expressed in the case of Kamal Kumar Gupta v/s Pr. CIT 142 TTJ 9(Jp) wherein it has been held that “assessee was asked by the AO to file the details of trade creditors which are shown in the name of agriculturalist. In the reply, assessee filed written submission enclosing the list of creditors. Thus, the AO made the in…

SACH ELECTRO MECH PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-2, SURAT

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 392/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 145ASection 14ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 40A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Hearing in Virtual Court) Sach Electro Mech Private Limited Pr. Commissioner of Income C/2, Maheshwari Apartment, Tax-2, Vs. Nanpura, Timaliawad, Room No. 227, 2nd Floor, Surat. Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, PAN : AAICS 8963 M Surat-395001 APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by Shri H. P. Meena, CIT-DR Date of hearing 21/01/2022 Date of pronouncement 06/04/2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Thi…

Showing 1–20 of 53 · Page 1 of 3