What is CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products authority for?

The term 'record' under Section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act includes all material available to the Commissioner at the time of his examination, not merely the records that were available to the Assessing Officer when the original assessment order was passed.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products?

163 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products (231 ITR 53), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 148, Section 151, Section 10(37).

CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products (231 ITR 53)

The Peerless Gen. Fin. & Inv. Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 892/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 50

…t passed by Assessing Officer and i.e. why revisionary powers have been given to the Commissioner and such power were held to be of wide amplitude by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53/96 Taxman 1. Therefore, normally when Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry on a particular issue, then such order in view of the above detailed discussion has to be construed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and therefore, the impugned assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as Assessin…

Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3285/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 17(2)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…into the order as 9 pointed out in the notice u/s 263 which have caused prejudice to the interests of revenue. It has been observed by the Hon’bie Apex Court in another case of CIT vs. Shree Manjuathesware Trading Products and Comphor Works, report in (1988) 231 ITR 53, that the revisional power conferred on the Commissioner of Income Tax is of wide amplitude. The Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 232 hasf held that the Commissioner may consider an order of the Assessing Officer to be erroneous not only if there is some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of fact but…

M/S. Om Prakash Badaya (HUF), Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT, Alwar

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

ITA 217/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agrawal (AR)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (ACIT-DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

…h the CIT can rely includes not only the record as it stands at the time when the order in question was passed by the Assessing Officer but also the record as it stands at the time of examination by the CIT [see CIT vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products, 231 ITR 53 (SC)]. Nothing bars/prohibits the CIT from collecting and relying upon new/additional material/evidence to show and state that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. 18. It is in this context that the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), had observed that the phrase „prejudi…

M/S Mbl Infrastructures Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 427/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.427/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Mbl Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata . 1St Floor, Divine Bliss, 2/3, Judges Court Road, Kolkata – 700027. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccm0564C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ram Bilash Meena, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/10/2020

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 35DSection 80Section 80I

…h the CIT can rely includes not only the record as it stands at the time when the order in question was passed by the Assessing Officer but also the record as it stands at the time of examination by the CIT [see CIT vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products, 231 ITR 53 (SC)]. Nothing bars/prohibits the CIT from collecting and relying upon new/additional material/evidence to show and state that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. 18. It is in this context that the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), had observed that the phrase „prejudi…

Kaushal Kishore Bihani, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-45(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 690/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

…assed by Assessing Officer and that is why revisionary powers have been given to the Commissioner and such power were held to be of wide amplitude by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53/96 Taxman 1. Therefore. normally when Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry on a particular issue, then such order in view of the above detailed discussion has to be construed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore, the Impugned assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to-the interest of revenue as Assessin…

Raghavendra Laxmikanth Vernekar, Mangalore vs. Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2457/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. K. Chandrasekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ssed by Assessing Officer and i.e. why revisionary powers u/s. 263 have been given in the statute and such power were held to be of wide amplitude by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53/96 Taxman 1. Therefore, in the instant case, when Assessing Officer has not verified the facts correctly, then such order in view of the above detailed discussion has to be construed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Moreover, in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 263(1) of the Act, an order passed by the AO is deemed to be e…

Ravish Laxmikanth Vernekar, Mangalore vs. Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2455/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. K. Chandrasekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ssed by Assessing Officer and i.e. why revisionary powers u/s. 263 have been given in the statute and such power were held to be of wide amplitude by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53/96 Taxman 1. Therefore, in the instant case, when Assessing Officer has not verified the facts correctly, then such order in view of the above detailed discussion has to be construed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Moreover, in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 263(1) of the Act, an order passed by the AO is deemed to be e…

M/S Sri Mangaladevi Jewellers, Mangalore vs. Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2459/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. K. Chandrasekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ssed by Assessing Officer and i.e. why revisionary powers u/s. 263 have been given in the statute and such power were held to be of wide amplitude by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53/96 Taxman 1. Therefore, in the instant case, when Assessing Officer has not verified the facts correctly, then such order in view of the above detailed discussion has to be construed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Moreover, in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 263(1) of the Act, an order passed by the AO is deemed to be e…

Rajesh Laxmikkanth Vernekar, Mangalore vs. Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2458/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. K. Chandrasekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ssed by Assessing Officer and i.e. why revisionary powers u/s. 263 have been given in the statute and such power were held to be of wide amplitude by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53/96 Taxman 1. Therefore, in the instant case, when Assessing Officer has not verified the facts correctly, then such order in view of the above detailed discussion has to be construed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Moreover, in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 263(1) of the Act, an order passed by the AO is deemed to be e…

Sonar Laxmikanth Vernekar, Mangalore vs. Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2456/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri. K. Chandrasekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ssed by Assessing Officer and i.e. why revisionary powers u/s. 263 have been given in the statute and such power were held to be of wide amplitude by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53/96 Taxman 1. Therefore, in the instant case, when Assessing Officer has not verified the facts correctly, then such order in view of the above detailed discussion has to be construed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Moreover, in terms of Explanation 2 to Section 263(1) of the Act, an order passed by the AO is deemed to be e…

Shri Gurvinder Singh Suri, New Delhi vs. Pr CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2644/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2644/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Gurvinder Singh Suri, Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Tax (Central)-1, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaps8291D Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Sushma Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.05.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT DR

Section 119Section 263Section 263(1)Section 57

…apital, raised huge sum on account of premium, exercise of revisionary powers by Commissioner opining that this could be a case of money laundering was justified. 5. Shree Maniunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works Vs CIT [1998] 96 Taxman 1 (SC)/[1998] 231 ITR 53 (SC)/[1997] 143 CTR 406 (SC) Hon’ble Supreme Court held that word 'record' used in section 263(1) would mean records as it stands at time of examination by Commissioner but not as it stands at time of order passed by Assessing Officer. Material which had already come on record though subsequently to making of assessment could be taken into consid…

M/S. Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 355/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 35A

…h the CIT can rely includes not only the record as it stands at the time when the order in question was passed by the Assessing Officer but also the record as it stands at the time of examination by the CIT [see CIT vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products, 231 ITR 53 (SC)]. Nothing bars/prohibits the CIT from collecting and relying upon new/additional material/evidence to show and state that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous. 18. It is in this context that the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), had observed that the phrase “prejudi…

Al Champdany Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 1, Kolkata

Appeal is disposed off in above terms

ITA 843/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.843/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ai Champdany Industries Ltd. Vs. Pcit-1, Kolkata. C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite- 213, 2Nd Floor, Kol-700069. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca4860D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 21.03.2018 Involving Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Shri Subash Agarawal, Learned Authorized Representing Assessee & Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit-Dr Appearing At The Revenue’S Behest. 2. Relevant Facts Involved In The Instant Lis Is In Narrow Compass. Both The Learned Representatives Are Ad Idem During The Course Of Hearing That This Assessee A Company Manufacturing & Trading In Jute, Jute Blending, Flax Goods, Had Claimed To Have Been Deriving House Property Income From Various Asset(S) For The Past Very Many Assessment Years. They Invited Our Attention To The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT

Section 24Section 263

…ar Industries Co. (2000) 243 ITR 83, Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84, Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323(SC), Gee Vee Enterprise vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375, CIT vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53. This leaves the assessee aggrieved. 4. We have heard Shri Agarwal and Mr. Sankar reiterating both the parties’ respective stands against and in support of the PCIT’s assumption of revision jurisdiction. The assessee’s case is that it had claimed the impugned depreciation relief by mistake only and therefore, the PCIT has erred in law and on fact…