CIT v. Vikas Polymers

341 ITR 537High Court2012#244 most cited

What is CIT v. Vikas Polymers authority for?

An assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial under Section 263 merely because the Assessing Officer did not record an enquiry and its satisfactory answer in the assessment order, provided such an enquiry was conducted. For revision under Section 263, the Commissioner must also provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard and examine their explanation.

318

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Vikas Polymers · Section 263 · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · AO not recording enquiry · opportunity of being heard · revisionary powers · assessment order erroneous · Section 143(3)

Also reported as

194 Taxmann 57244 CTR 380

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 133(6)Section 1961

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquirylack of enquiryprejudicial to interest of revenuemalabar industrialrevision u/s 263section 263(1)revision under section 263assessment order erroneouserroneous and prejudicialsection 263section 26principal commissioner of income-tax

Judgments citing CIT v. Vikas Polymers

M/S. Devi Shakuntala Thkaral Charitable Foundation, Bhopal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

ITA 322/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Devi Shakuntala Dcit Thakral Charitable (Exemption) बनाम/ Foundation Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aaatd2943B

Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…[ITA No.322/Ind/2018] [M/s. Devi Shakuntala Thakral Charitable Foundation, Bhopal] आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Devi Shakuntala DCIT Thakral Charitable (Exemption) बनाम/ Foundation Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AAATD2943B Appellant by Shri Girish Agrawal & Miss Nisha Lahoti, A.Rs Respondent by Shri S.B. Prasad, D.R. Date of Hearing: 17.02.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 20.02.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT,…

Kritika Wires Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.C.I.T.-2, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 709/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IT 243 ITR 83 (SC) - CIT vs.Max India Ltd. 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT vs. Kwalaity Steel Suppliers Complex 395 ITR - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC) - CIT vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd. 343 ITR 161 (Bom) - CIT vs. Vikas Plymers 341 ITR 537 (Del) - CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (Del) - CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd 323 ITR 206 (Bom) - Vimgi Investment (P) td 290 ITR 5050 (Del) - Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT 263 ITR 437 (P&H) - CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 6.3 It may be further noticed that in order to provide clarity on the issue of “erroneous in so far…

Sl Lumax Limited, Kanchipuram vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 1692/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddy*नधा,रण वष, /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.Sl Lumax Ltd., V. The Principal Commissioner G-14, 15 & 25, Sipcot Industrial Of Income Tax, Room No.602, Park, Irrungattukottai, Vi Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Sriperumbudur-602 117. New Block, Mahatama Gandhi Kancheepuram District. Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034. [Pan: Aaacl 1857 B] (अपीलाथ//Appellant) (01यथ//Respondent) : Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, अपीलाथ/ क2 ओर से/ Appellant By Adv. : Mr. A.Sundararajan, Cit 01यथ/ क2 ओर से /Respondent By : 28.11.2019 सुनवाई क2 तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2020 घोषणा क2 तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar:

For Respondent: 28.11.2019
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 263Section 92C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी र"मत कोचर, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु$वु% आर.एल. रे'डी, "या*यक सद"य के सम+ BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU R.L.REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER *नधा,रण वष, /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s.SL Lumax Ltd., v. The Principal Commissioner G-14, 15 & 25, SIPCOT Industrial of Income Tax, Room No.602, Park, Irrungattukottai, VI Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Sriperumbudur-602 117. New Block, Mahatama Gandhi Kancheepuram District. Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600034. [PAN: AAACL 1857 B] (अपीलाथ//Appellant) (01यथ//Responde…

M/S Chengmari Tea Co. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 812/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

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

Section 115JSection 263Section 33A

…, Kol. Page 4 CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (Sell CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd: 343 ITR 161 (Born.) CIT v. Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.: 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Born.) Vimgi Investment (P) Limited: 290 ITR 505 (Del) Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H) CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Born). 6.5 It may be further noticed that in order to provide clarity on the issue of “erroneou…

Shri Pramod Kumar Tekriwal, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, these three appeals of three assessees are allowed

ITA 1136/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Himat Singhka, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 263

…herein, as held by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Chroma Business Ltd. vs. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ 540 (Cal).Further support in this connection is taken from the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del). Relevant part of the observation in this regard reads as under : " This is for the reason that if a query is raised during the course of scrutiny by the Assessing Officer, which was answered to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, but neither the query nor the answer was reflected in the assessment order, that would not by itself lea…

Sandip Kumar Tekriwal HUF, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, these three appeals of three assessees are allowed

ITA 1135/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Himat Singhka, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 263

…herein, as held by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Chroma Business Ltd. vs. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ 540 (Cal).Further support in this connection is taken from the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del). Relevant part of the observation in this regard reads as under : " This is for the reason that if a query is raised during the course of scrutiny by the Assessing Officer, which was answered to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, but neither the query nor the answer was reflected in the assessment order, that would not by itself lea…

Binod Kumar Tekriwal HUF, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, these three appeals of three assessees are allowed

ITA 1134/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Himat Singhka, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 263

…herein, as held by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Chroma Business Ltd. vs. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ 540 (Cal).Further support in this connection is taken from the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del). Relevant part of the observation in this regard reads as under : " This is for the reason that if a query is raised during the course of scrutiny by the Assessing Officer, which was answered to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, but neither the query nor the answer was reflected in the assessment order, that would not by itself lea…

M/S. Y.R. Traders (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Kolkata - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1006/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1006/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…herein, as held by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Chroma Business Ltd. vs. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ 540 (Cal).Further support in this connection is taken from the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del). Relevant part of the observation in this regard reads as under : " This is for the reason that if a query is raised during the course of scrutiny by the Assessing Officer, which was answered to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, but neither the query nor the answer was reflected in the assessment order, that would not by itself lea…

Syscom Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-3, Mumbai

ITA 1608/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1608/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Hariom TulsyanFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Billa, DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263

…been taken by this Court in the matter of CIT vs. Shreepati Holdings & Finance (?) Ltd., unreported (IT Appeal No. 1879 of 2013, dt. 5th Oct., 2013), by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2010) 236 CTR (Del) 476 : (2010) 47 DTR (Del) 348 : (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del) and in DG Housing Projects (supra). In fact the Delhi High Court in DG Housing Projects (supra) while so holding placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Gabriel (India) Ltd. (supra). It is very important to note that the CIT in his order under s. 263 of the Act has recorded the fact that there has been no adequate inquiry. Thus,…

Asian Homes P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 9, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2593/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri Paras Nath &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma-Ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56

…1 M/s. Asian Homes Private Limited Assessment Year-2013-14 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी श""जीत दे,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमारअ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2593/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) M/s. Asian Homes Private Limited Pr. CIT-9 बनाम/ 2nd Floor, Room No.214 GF, Kiraboo Building CTS, E/291, 13th Road, Khar (West) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 052. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAGCA-6734-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ("…

Anand Lilaram Raisinghani, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 16, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed to the extent specified in the order

ITA 3385/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Anadi Varma - Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 43B

…1 Mr. Anand Lilaram Raisinghani Assessment Year-2014-15 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ऐ” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3385/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Mr. Anand Lilaram Raisinghani Pr. CIT-16 A-3205/3206 R.No.442, Aaykar Bhawan बनाम/ Oberoi Springs, Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. M.K.Road Vs. Off Link Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai. Mumbai-400 053. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AACPR-…

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee ITA No

ITA 2996/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. G. Manjunatha & Shri. Ravish Sood

Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI. RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2996 & 2997/Mum/2015 (Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Small Industries Development Vs. Pr.CIT-03 Bank Of India Mumbai 4th Floor, Corporate Accounts Department MSME Development Centre C-11, Block-G Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East) Mumbai-400 051 PAN/GIR No.AABCS3480N Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Rakesh Joshi, AR Revenue by Shri. R.Manjunatha Swamy, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing 09/10/2019 Date of Pronouncement 13/12/2019 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश…

M/S. Jabibur Rahaman, Murshidabad vs. Principal CIT - 14, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1171/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1171/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 147Section 263

…also rely on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Chroma Business Ltd. vs. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ 540 (Cal). Further our view is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del). Relevant part of the observation in this regard reads as under: "This is for the reason that if a query is raised during the course of scrutiny by the Assessing officer which was answered to the satisfaction of the Assessing officer but neither the query nor the answer was reflected in the assessment order that would not by itself lead to…

Supreme Auto, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1141/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh&Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1141/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 बनाम M/S. Supreme Auto, Principal Commissioner Of Vs. Bilimora Road, National Income-Tax- Valsad Highway No.8, Samroli, At Chikhli, Navsari - 396521. [Pan: Aamfs 3499 K] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Prasenjit Singh, Cit(D.R.) राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By 22.10.2019 सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 10.12.2019 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax- Valsad [In Short “The Pr. Cit ”] Dated 22.03.2016 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12 Passed Under Section 263 Of Income Tax Act,1961 ( In Short ‘The Act’).

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…Delhi High Court, Pr. CIT v. Modicare Limited I.T.A.No. 759/2017 Delhi High Court, ITO V. DG Housing Projects Limited [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del), CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) [2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) and CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) .The learned counsel for the assessee submitted as a settled position of law that when the assessing officer has taken a certain view on the basis of evidence before him, in the details of brokerage/ commission , confirmation of unsecured loan and details of booking advances from customers to enquiries made by the assessing officer, the C…

Jitf Water Infra (Naya Raipur) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-13(3), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1103/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1102 & 1103/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 बनाम Jitf Water Infra (Naya Raipur) Ito, Ltd., Vs. Ward 13(3), 28, Shivaji Marg, West Delhi, New Delhi. New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Pan No. Aaccj2374D

Section 263

…mind to the issue in question, the ld. CIT cannot invoke section 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion. Relevant observation of the High Court reads as under: 63. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas Polymer reported in 341 ITR 537 has held as under: “We are thus of the opinion that the provisions of s. 263 of the Act, when read as a composite whole make it incumbent upon the CIT before exercising revisional powers to : (i) call for and examine the record, and (ii) give the assessee an opportunity of being heard and thereafter to make or cause to be made such enquiry as he…

Jitf Water Infra (Naya Raipur) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-13(3), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1102/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1102 & 1103/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 बनाम Jitf Water Infra (Naya Raipur) Ito, Ltd., Vs. Ward 13(3), 28, Shivaji Marg, West Delhi, New Delhi. New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Pan No. Aaccj2374D

Section 263

…mind to the issue in question, the ld. CIT cannot invoke section 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion. Relevant observation of the High Court reads as under: 63. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas Polymer reported in 341 ITR 537 has held as under: “We are thus of the opinion that the provisions of s. 263 of the Act, when read as a composite whole make it incumbent upon the CIT before exercising revisional powers to : (i) call for and examine the record, and (ii) give the assessee an opportunity of being heard and thereafter to make or cause to be made such enquiry as he…

Sai Enterprises, Thane vs. Pr. CIT- 2, Thane

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 3075/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3075/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sai Enterprises Pr. Cit-2 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista Ashar I.T. Pak, “B” Wing बनाम/ 6Th Floor, Wagle Indl. Estate Opp. Suraj Water Park Vs. Ghodbunder Road, Thane(W) Thane(E), Maharashtra. Maharashtra. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaefs-0841-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh - Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 15/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1.1 As Per The Provisions Of Section 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961, The Revenue Authorities Namely Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax / Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Vested With The Supervisory Powers Of Suo-Moto Revision Of Any Order Passed By The Assessing Officer [Ao]. For The Said Purpose, The Appropriate Authority May Call For & Examine

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh - Ld.Sr.DR
Section 263

…1 Sai Enterprises आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “जी” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। Assessment Year :2014-15 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी सी. एन. "साद,"ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3075/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sai Enterprises Pr. CIT-2 2nd Floor, Rosa Vista Ashar I.T. Pak, “B” Wing बनाम/ 6th Floor, Wagle Indl. Estate Opp. Suraj Water Park Vs. Ghodbunder Road, Thane(W) Thane(E), Maharashtra. Maharashtra. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAEFS-…

Citystar Ganguly Projects LLP, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 9, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1103/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm ]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…nadequate enquiry. 11 I.T.A No.1103/Kol/2019 A.Y 2014-15 This view has been taken by this Court in the matter of CIT v. Shreepati Holdings & Finance (P.) Ltd. [ITA 1879 of 2013 dated 5th October, 2013], by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537/194 Taxman 57 and in D.G. Housing Projects (supra). In fact the Delhi High Court in D.G. Housing Projects (supra) while so holding placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Gabriel (India) Ltd. (supra). It is very important to note that the CIT in his order under Section 263 of the Act has recorded the fact that there has been no adequat…

M/S. La Opala RG Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Range - 12, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 559/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80ISection 80l

…y the following judicial pronouncements; - CITVs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Del HC); - CIT Vs. Developement Credit Bank Ltd. 323 ITR 206 (2010); - CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (1993); 9 La Opala RG Ltd.., AY- 2013-14 - CIT Vs. Vikash Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del); 8. In this regard, the ld AR also placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Fab India Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, 201 Taxman 173 wherein under the similar facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble court quashed the order passed u/s 263 by the CIT, by observing as under: ''In view of aforesaid, it is reitera…

Radiant Hues Crm Solutions Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. Pr. CIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3846/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Shivam, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…mind to the issue in question, the ld.. CIT cannot invoke section 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion. Relevant observation of the High Court reads as under: 63. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas Polymer reported in 341 ITR 537 has held. as under: “We are thus of the opinion that the provisions of s. 263 of the Act, when read as a composite whole make it incumbent upon the CIT before exercising revisional powers to : (i) call for and examine the record, and (ii) give the assessee an opportunity of being heard and thereafter to make or cause to be made such enquiry as h…