CIT v. South India Shipping Corpn. Ltd.

233 ITR 546High Court1998#8343 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 48

Issues it is cited on

erroneous and prejudicialsection 263section 26transfersection 143(3)indiatotal incomebusinessinterest

Judgments citing CIT v. South India Shipping Corpn. Ltd.

PRAVIN BABANRAO TAMBE,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 692/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Vs. Pcit, Pune-4. Sr. No.14, Shree Datta Colony, Akashwani, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aimpt5087G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Pr.Cit, Pune- 4 [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Ld Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Setting Aside Assessment Order For Fresh Assessment On The Ground That Assessment Has Been Framed

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 48

…ction 283 of the Act are rightly invoked in this case. 5.2 Reliance can be placed on the decision in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Add CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 (1975) 90 ITR 375 (Del), CIT vs. South India Shipping Corp. Ltd. (1998) 147 CTR (Mad) 433 (1996) 233 ITR 546 (Mad). CIT V. M.M. Khambhatwala (1992) 195 ITR 144 (u), CIT v. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works, 231 ITR 53. 6. In the light of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, it is evident that the Assessing Officer failed to make necessary enquiries and verifications with regard to the facts of the case on account of which the a…

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 360/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…ITA Nos. 356 to 360/PAT/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Hybrid Court Hearing] Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. Nos. 356, 357, 358, 359 & 360/PAT/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited,… Appellant 401B, Capital Tower, Block-‘B’, Fraser Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [PAN:AADCM2976R] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,..…Respondent Central, Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path,…

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 359/PAT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…ITA Nos. 356 to 360/PAT/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Hybrid Court Hearing] Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. Nos. 356, 357, 358, 359 & 360/PAT/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited,… Appellant 401B, Capital Tower, Block-‘B’, Fraser Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [PAN:AADCM2976R] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,..…Respondent Central, Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path,…

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 358/PAT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…ITA Nos. 356 to 360/PAT/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Hybrid Court Hearing] Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. Nos. 356, 357, 358, 359 & 360/PAT/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited,… Appellant 401B, Capital Tower, Block-‘B’, Fraser Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [PAN:AADCM2976R] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,..…Respondent Central, Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path,…

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 357/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…ITA Nos. 356 to 360/PAT/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Hybrid Court Hearing] Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. Nos. 356, 357, 358, 359 & 360/PAT/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited,… Appellant 401B, Capital Tower, Block-‘B’, Fraser Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [PAN:AADCM2976R] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,..…Respondent Central, Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path,…

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL , PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 356/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…ITA Nos. 356 to 360/PAT/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Hybrid Court Hearing] Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. Nos. 356, 357, 358, 359 & 360/PAT/2024 Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited,… Appellant 401B, Capital Tower, Block-‘B’, Fraser Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [PAN:AADCM2976R] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,..…Respondent Central, Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path,…

KALYANRAO VASANTRAO KALE HUF,PHANDHARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 184/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…of the case making the assessment order erroneous and so as to be prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT Vs. South India shipping Corpn. Ltd. 1998) 147 CTR (Mad) 433 : (1998) 233 ITR 546 (Mad) CIT Vs. M.M. Khambhatwala (1992) 198 ITR 144 (Guj) and CIT Vs. Bhagwan Das (2004) 191 CTR 531 : (2005) 272 ITR 367 (All). 7. We have perused the assessment order as well as the order of the ld. Pr. CIT. We find that in the assessment order, the ld. A.O has not brought out specific facts after due verification regarding the extent of agricul…

M/S KINNOR KINNOREE,KOLKATA vs. CIT-X, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/KOL/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

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

…oints discussed above.Thus , the AO failed to make necessary enquiry which was expected of him before concluding the assessment. The assessment is, thus, erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Ref. CIT V. South India Shipping Corpn. Ltd. (1009) 233 ITR 546, Rampyari Devi Saraogi V. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Agarwal V. CIT (1973) 323 (SC). In this connection, the relevant judicial pronouncements need to be reviewed. It is beyond dispute that u/s. 263, the Commissioner does have the power to set aside the assessment order and send the matter for a fresh assessment if he is satisfied th…

GIRAFFE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 9 , MUMBAI

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

ITA 2663/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegiraffe Developers Pvt Vs. Pr. Cit – 9, Ltd Room No. 214, 2Nd 111, G Wing, Akruti Floor, Aayakar Commercial Complex, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Next To Akruti Centre Churchgate, Point, Central Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn2778D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Madhur Agrawal & Shri.Fenil Bhatt.Ar Respondent By : Shri.S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri.S.Anbuselvam.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 271BSection 40Section 40A(2)Section 92D

…he order of the AO was found to be completely non speaking order, therefore, it was found to be fit case for the CIT to exercise his provisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Likewise, in the case of CIT vs. South India Shipping Corporation Ltd. 233 ITR 546 (Mad.) is held that the CIT having arrived at a finding on the basis of materials available on record that the claim under section 35B was allowed in a perfunctory manner and without indicating the sub clauses of section 35 B (1)(b) under which the claim would fall, he could validly exercise his jurisdiction under section 263 even without recordi…

ICICI BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE DY CIT -2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result we hold that the learned principal

ITA 737/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

For Appellant: Ms Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263(2)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…f expenditure and eligibility of the claim. Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT(1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del)m Addl. CIT v. Mukur Corporation (1978) 111 ITR 312 (Guj), Duggal and Co. v. CIT (1996)220 ITR 456 (Del) and CIT v. South India Shipping Corporation Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 546 (Mad). In the case of Duggal & Co. V/s. CIT 220 ITR 456 (Del), it is also held that word "erroneous" used in Section 263 of the Act, includes the failure to make enquiries as it is incumbent on the A.O. to investigate the facts stated in the return. The ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Nakland Diamonds vs. ACIT 67 TTJ 388 (Ahd) has also held that w…

SH. SURINDER PAL SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jan 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…from the contention raised by the Revenue.-CIT Vs. Maithan International (2015) 277 CTR (Cal) 65; (2015) 117 DTR (Cal) 401, Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs. CIT (2003) 181 CTR (Mad) 332 and CIT Vs. South India Shipping Corporation Ltd. (1998) 147 CTR (Mad) 433; (1998) 233 ITR 546 (Mad) distinguished. 8.2 Similarly the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. (supra) held as under: “ The prerequisite to the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction under s. 263 by the CIT is that the order of the AO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Two conditions are to b…

M/S. MAA TARINI INDUSTRIES LTD.,SUNDARGARH vs. PR. CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 292/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sahu, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…interests of the revenue. To this extent, the initiation of action under section 263 by the Commissioner was quite proper.” P a g e 19 | 21 ITA No.2 92/CTK/201 9 Assessm ent Y ear : 20 14- 201 5 37. In the case of CIT vs. South India Shipping Corpn. Ltd. [233 ITR 546], Hon’ble Madras High Court held as under :- “Even assuming that the Income-tax Officer had called for the particulars, which were also furnished by the assessee, if the Income-tax Officer without probing into the matter further had allowed the claim of the assessee for weighted deduction and if the Commissioner on the basis of materials formed…

M/S. KALINGA MINING CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK CHARGE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 168/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Jesthi, ARFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…tions and also that want of such enquiry had resulted in prejudice to the interests of the revenue. To this extent, the initiation of action under section 263 by the Commissioner was quite proper.” 10. In the case of CIT vs. South India Shipping Corpn. Ltd. [233 ITR 546], Hon’ble Madras High Court held as under :- P a g e 4 | 7 ITA No.168/CT K/2019 Asse ssment Year : 20 14- 15 “Even assuming that the Income-tax Officer had called for the particulars, which were also furnished by the assessee, if the Income-tax Officer without probing into the matter further had allowed the claim of the assessee for weighted d…

CIT v. South India Shipping Corpn. Ltd. (233 ITR 546) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax