CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products

231 ITR 53Supreme Court of India1998#602 most cited

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.

163

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products · Section 263 · meaning of record · revisional power · material available to Commissioner · erroneous and prejudicial · inadequate enquiry · 231 ITR 53 · scope of 263(1) · examination by CIT

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 145A(b)

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquirylack of enquirydoctrine of mergersection 263(1)malabar industrialrevision u/s 263non application of minderroneous and prejudicialmercantile system of accountingsection 263section 26income-tax officer

Judgments citing CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products

M/S Sainath Developers, Bhopal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 178/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 153ASection 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 Sainath Developers, Bhopal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 176/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 153ASection 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 Sainath Developers, Bhopal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 177/IND/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 153ASection 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 Sainath Developers, Bhopal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 175/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad

Section 132Section 153ASection 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…

Sh. Sanjeev Singh, Karnal vs. Pr. CIT, Karnal

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

ITA 1781/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Sanjeev Singh, Vs Pr. Cit, 861, Sector-9 U.E, Karnal. Karnal. Pan: Chkps0618H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shri Somil Aggarwal & Sobhit Revenue By : Shri Kanwaljit Singh, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 3Rd February, 2016 Passed U/S 263(1) Of The It Act, 1961 By The Pcit, Karnal, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th July, 2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,58,105/- & Agricultural Income Of Rs.5 Lakhs. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) On 10Th January, 2014 Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.6,30,545/- & Agricultural Income Of Rs.5 Lakhs. Subsequently, The Ld.Cit Issued

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh GuptaFor Respondent: Shri Kanwaljit Singh, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…o. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83(SC); (iii) Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta); 7 Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC); (v) Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works vs. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC); (vi) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200 (SC); and (vii) PTC Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (ITA No.2860/Del/2010, order dated 03.04.2018) (ITAT Delhi). 10. Referring to the explanation 2 that has been inserted in section 263 of the IT Act by the Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015, he submitted that the order passed by the Assessing O…

Sheth Commercial Co., Kolkata vs. CIT-14 Kolkata, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1406/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Sheth Commercial Co. V/S. Pr. Cit-14, C/O D.J. Shah & Co. 3, Government Place, Kalyan Bhavan, 2 Elgin Kolkata-700001 Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan No.Aakfs 409 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Shrhari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-04-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-14, Kolkata’S Order Dated 20.03.2017 Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame Afresh Assessment After Setting Aside The Regular One Framed Dated 23.03.2015 In Exercising Revision Jurisdiction Vested U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). We Have Heard Shri Miraj D Shah Learned Authorized Representative For Assessee & Shri P.K.Srihari, Cit/Dr Appearing At Revenue’S Behest. Case File Perused. 2. It Transpires During The Course Of Hearing That The Assessee’S Pleading Challenge Correctness Of The Pcit’S Order Revising The Regular Assessment In Issue Framed By The Assessing Officer On 06.07.2016 With Directions To Frame

Section 1Section 263Section 35(1)(c)

…passed by Assessing Officer and i.e. why revisionary powers haves 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 Vs. 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…

Philips India Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-IV, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1142/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…by the Commissioner implicit in the manner in which the amounts were borrowed and advanced by the assessee-company." (g) Reference in this regard may also be made to the judgment in the case of CIT v. Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53/96 Taxman 1 (SC) wherein the following views were expressed :— 22 I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited 'The section did not at first contain any Explanation. An Explanation was added to section 263 (1) by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984. By the Finance Act, 1988, the said Explanation was substituted w…

Rpw Projects P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3836/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rpw Projects Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of (Earlier Known As Essel Rpw Income Tax Circle-8, Room Vs. Projects Private Limited 135, No. 611, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Continental Building Dr. Annie Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400020. 400018. Pan No. Aaecm1665J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. Advocate & : Mr. Rahul Hakani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2019

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…D 343 (Chennai) (SB) (Trib), Geevee Enterprises v. Add. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) (HC), CIT v. Ralson Inds. (2007) 288 ITR 322 (SC), CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 161 (Bom) (HC), CIT v. Shree Manjunatheware Packing Products and Comphor (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC). 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the decision in CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd. (2014) 44 taxmann.com 138 (Del), wherein it is held that “where as per the finding recorded by the Commissioner, view taken by the Assessing Officer was not correct, erroneous and was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, then order of the Commission…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. Prcit-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1764/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] & [A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Sr Adv
Section 263

…queries price received is PCIT (ITA No. 2999/Del/2017) CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66/243 asked attached ITR 83 (Supreme Court) Rajmandir 2. Estates Pvt Ltd Vs PCIT (2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC), Shree 3. Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works vs CIT (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC) 4. CIT Vs Harsh J Punjabi [2012] 27 Taxmann.com 175 (Delhi) /[2012] 345 ITR 451 (Delhi) 5. CIT V. Sheshasayee paper and Boards Ltd [2000] 108 Taxman 464/242 ITR 490 (Mad.) 6. Shankar Tradex Pvt Ltd Vs PCIT (ITA No. 2999/Del/2017) 4 2008- Regarding option Insufficient 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd v. 09 money, it is to Query- CIT [2000] 109 Ta…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. Prcit-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1763/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] & [A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Sr Adv
Section 263

…queries price received is PCIT (ITA No. 2999/Del/2017) CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66/243 asked attached ITR 83 (Supreme Court) Rajmandir 2. Estates Pvt Ltd Vs PCIT (2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC), Shree 3. Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works vs CIT (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC) 4. CIT Vs Harsh J Punjabi [2012] 27 Taxmann.com 175 (Delhi) /[2012] 345 ITR 451 (Delhi) 5. CIT V. Sheshasayee paper and Boards Ltd [2000] 108 Taxman 464/242 ITR 490 (Mad.) 6. Shankar Tradex Pvt Ltd Vs PCIT (ITA No. 2999/Del/2017) 4 2008- Regarding option Insufficient 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd v. 09 money, it is to Query- CIT [2000] 109 Ta…

Monika Gupta, Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 21, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2859/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR
Section 263

…here. In support of this proposition that subsequent information or material can be considered as part of assessment record, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Shri Manjunath Eeshware Packing Products and Camphor Works, 231 ITR 53 (SC). Here in this case, based on specific information in this particular case, ld. Pr. CIT has directed the Assessing Officer to carry out the inquiry and verification of expenses, for which there could be no grievance. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant findings given in the impugned orders as well as material…

Monika Gupta, Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 21, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2858/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-DR
Section 263

…here. In support of this proposition that subsequent information or material can be considered as part of assessment record, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Shri Manjunath Eeshware Packing Products and Camphor Works, 231 ITR 53 (SC). Here in this case, based on specific information in this particular case, ld. Pr. CIT has directed the Assessing Officer to carry out the inquiry and verification of expenses, for which there could be no grievance. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant findings given in the impugned orders as well as material…

Ramesh Kumar Goyal HUF, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1983/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaidr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar Ito, H.No.467, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…capital, 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 Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works Vs CIT T19981 96 Taxman 1 (SC)/ri9981 231 ITR 53 (SC)/f19971 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 conside…

Ramesh Kumar, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaidr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar Ito, H.No.467, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…capital, 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 Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works Vs CIT T19981 96 Taxman 1 (SC)/ri9981 231 ITR 53 (SC)/f19971 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 conside…

Smt. Sefali Sarkar, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 17, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2464/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 263Section 273ASection 37(1)

…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. 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 Assessing…

Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. Pr CIT, Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3046/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kambleperfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Cit(A) Global Business Park, Gurgaon Tower-A, 1St Floor, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road Gurgaon Aaacp2626A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 144CSection 263Section 80Section 80I

…dustrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) (b) Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Cal.) (c) Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC) (d) Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works vs. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC) (e) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC) (f) PTC Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ITA No. 2860/DEL/2010 order dated 03.04.2018. 11. We have heard both the parties and perused all the records. It is pertinent to note that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of a variety of confectionary productions which includes Big Babool, Alpenli…

Jitinder Singh Chadha, New Delhi vs. Prcit-18, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. Cit-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpc6181D Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit-18, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT in ITA No. 2158/Del/2017 (ITAT Del.) " Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) " Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Cal.) " Shree manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works Vs CIT (19981) 231 ITR 53 (SC) " CIT Vs Amitabh Bachhan 384 ITR 200 " CIT Vs Ralson Industries Ltd. 288 ITR 322 12. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the ld. Pr. CIT passed the Assessment Order which could have been passed by the Assessing Officer only, s…

Alok Kumar Sarkar, Hooghly vs. CIT, Kolkata-8, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 454/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Alok Kumar Sarkar..................………...................................…..……………….…...……..…….............Appellant C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Seben Brothers’ Lodge P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly Pin – 712 105 [Pan : Akkps 9552 R] Vs. Commissioner Of Income-(8), Kolkata...............................................………………...…...........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 6Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 40A(3)

…stands at the time when the order in question was passed by the Assessing Officer but 10 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Alok Kumar Sarkar also the record as it stands at the time of examination by the CIT [see CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products, [1998] 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.' 5. In the present case, inquiries were certainly conducted by the Assessing Officer. It is not a case of no inquiry. The order under Section 263 itself records that the Dir…

Vijaya Bank, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 1163/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Vijaya Bank, Head Office, Central Accounts Dept. 41/2, M.G. Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aaacv 4791 J Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Large Tax Unit, Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.Ananthan, Ca. Respondent By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr). Date Of Hearing : 30/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/12/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee-Bank-Bank, Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short].

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 40

…nly the record as it stands at the time Page 8 of 9 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 v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing & Products Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53 / 98 Taxman 1 (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. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2000] 243 ITR 83 / 109 Taxman 66 (SC), had obse…

Durgesh Autofin P.Ltd, Bijnor vs. Prcit, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2539/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2539/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Durgesh Autofin P. Ltd., Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Director, Muzaffarnagar-251002 S/O Late Sh. Tejpal Singh, Mandi Kotla, Near Nehru Murti, Chandpur, Bijnot, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd0768P Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rachna Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit, Muzaffarnagar U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 41(1)Section 68

…sion taken by the AO. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2009) 227 CTR 133 (Del.) " ITO Vs D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.) " CIT Vs Shree Manjunathesware Packing & Products Camphor Works (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC) " DIT Vs Jyoti Foundation (2013) 357 ITR 388 (Del.) " CIT Vs Kamal Galani (2018) 95 Taxmann.com 261 (Guj.) " CIT Vs Jawahar Bhattacharjee (2012) 341 ITR 434 (Gauhati) 24 Durgesh Autofin P. Ltd. " CIT Vs Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) " Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) " CIT Vs Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 I…