How many judgments cite CIT v. Vikas Polymers?

318 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 537), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Vikas Polymers come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 147, Section 148.

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

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiry lack of enquiry prejudicial to interest of revenue malabar industrial revision u/s 263 section 263(1)revision under section 263 assessment order erroneous erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 26 principal commissioner of income-tax

Judgments citing CIT v. Vikas Polymers

Olive Hospitals Private Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 770/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Olive Hospitals Pvt Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax-4, Pan: Aabco 0749 G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri D.V.Anjaneyulu Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.01.2019 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

For Appellant: Sri D.V.AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Olive Hospitals Pvt Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Hyderabad. of Income Tax-4, PAN: AABCO 0749 G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri D.V.Anjaneyulu Revenue by: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 10.01.2019 Date of pronouncement: 30.01.2019 ORDER PER Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.: This is assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2012-13 against the revision order passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 date…

Shri Sahadeb Paik, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Kolkata - 17, Kolkata

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

ITA 768/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.768/Kol/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Smt. Bhoomija Verma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajoy Kumar Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…n the assessment order, that would not by itself lead to the conclusion that the order of the Assessing Officer called for interference and revision. For that we rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 wherein the same ratio has been decided. 11. We note that according to the ld. Principal CIT, the order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 23.02.2016, which is the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act, is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue because the Assessing Officer has not conducted proper investigation in respect…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble Vice President and Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Judicial Member ITA 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, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31.03.2018 of ld. Pr. CIT-18, New De…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Technip Uk Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection is allowed

ITA 1116/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT-DR

Section 44BSection 44DSection 9

…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…

Sahabuddin Quadiri, Murshidabad vs. DCIT, Circle-42, Murshidabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1617/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Saini[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Sahabuddin Quadiri, Vs Dcit, Saratpally, Chuanpur, Circle-42, Laldighi, 57, Berhampore, R.N.Tagore Road, Berhampore, Murshidabad-742101. Murshidabad-742101. Pan-Aaapq7976P (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 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…

Ultratech Cement Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Central - 1, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2999/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhita No. 3000/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ita No. 3001/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, D.R

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(2)Section 80I

…P a g e | 1 ITA No. 2999/Mum/2018 & ors A.Y 2009-10 & ors Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT, C-1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member ITA No. 3000/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) ITA No. 3001/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ultratech Cement Limited Pr. Commissoiner of Income Tax Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing, Central -1 2nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO. Bldg. Road, Andheri (E), M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400093 Mumbai PAN – AAACL6442L Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Arv…

M/S. H.M. Agriexports Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. Pr. CIT, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2012-13 H.M. Agriexports Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit, Hm Agriexports, Muzaffarnagar. Chilkana Road, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh-247001 (Pan: Aacch5350D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Shri Piyush K. Kamal, D.K. Gandhi, Adv. Respondent By : Smt. Meeta Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.09.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri Piyush K. Kamal, D.K. Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Meeta Singh, CIT DR

Section 263

…including books of accounts, confirmations, bank statements etc. have been furnished in the course of assessment proceedings. I.T.A. No. 2524/Del/2017 Assessment year 2012-13 8.1 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers reported in 341 ITR 537 has held as under: “13. It is also trite that there is a fine though subtle distinction between "lack of inquiry” and "inadequate inquiry”. It is only in cases of "lack of inquiry" that the Commissioner is empowered to exercise his revisional powers by calling for and examining the records of any proceedings under the Act and passing orders ther…

Sree Alankar, Ganjam vs. Principal CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/CTK/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2012-2013

For Appellant: Sri S.K.Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 263

…ails therein, as held by the Hon'ble Tribunal, 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…

Lhotse Developerrs & Traders P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 12, Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2811/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Lhotse Developers & Traders Dcit, Ward 12(3)(2) Pvt. Ltd., Raheja Chambers, Room No. 363, Aayakar Linking Road, Santaxruz (West), Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400054. Mumbai-20. Pan: Aabcl0079N Apellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nishit Gandhi (Ar) Respondent By : Shri R.P. Meena (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh;

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…sion in CIT Vs Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom) [SLP in the above case has been dismissed holding that there are no reasons to entertain the SLP reported in (2017) 244 Taxman 194 (SC)] and MOIL Vs CIT (2017) 396 ITR 244 (Bom), CIT Vs Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) and CIT Vs Krishna Capbox P. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 310 (Allahabad). 8. On the other hand the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of ld. PCIT. The ld. DR for the revenue submits that the assessee borrowed the funds for Hyderabad Project. The part of the amount was given by the assessee to third party on the pretext of advance. The adv…

The J.K. Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…he assessee relied upon following case law in support of his contentions:— (i) CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108/71 Taxman 585 (Bom.) (ii) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167/[2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (iii) CIT v. Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537/[2010] 194 Taxman 57 (Delhi) (iv) CIT v. Arvind Jeweller [2003] 259 ITR 502/[2002] 124 Taxman 615 (Guj.) 5. The Ld Pr. CIT was not convinced with the contentions of the assessee and accordingly held that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Accordingly he set aside the assessment orders of both the years…

Maharashtra Airport Development, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

Late Smt. Giriraj Kaur L/H Sri Ravinder Gill, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 931/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishilate Smt. Giriraj Kaur, Vs. Ito, C/O. L/H Sri Ravinder Gill, Ward-1(2), 861, Mangal Bhawan, Muzaffarnagar Bhopa Road, Muzaffarnagar Pan: Dtppk0005J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT Dr

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…is not a case of no inquiry: TTie (acfe of any discussion on the issue cannot lead to the assumption that the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind. Hence no revision is permissible under section 263 of the Act. 194 Taxmann 57 (Del) CIT vs Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 537) In this case also, the Jurisdictional High Court have held that the bare reading of section 263 makes it clear that the CIT has to be satisfied of twin conditions. As regards the scope and ambit of expression “erroneous”, Hon‟ble Court has relied upon the judgement of Bombay High Court in CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108, wherein, af…

Ge Capital Services India, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for the A

ITA 231/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…t a conclusion that particular income had escaped assessment on account of non application of mind by the AO. The Tribunal was right and the order of revision was not valid.” 8.6. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers reported in 341 ITR 537 (Del) has held as follows. “Held, that the Commissioner had mentioned that the A.O. had not examined the cash credits of the partners or deposits of chit fund. Assuming this to be so, this might make the order erroneous, but how it was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue had not been stated by the Ld.CIT as he did not deal with the explan…

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1(1), Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3198/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

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

…at inadequate enquiry by the Assessing Officer cannot result in order being revised u/s 263 for 3 The Mumbai District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. which reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd., (2011} 332 ITR 167, CIT v/s Vikas Polymers, 341 ITR 537 (Del.), CIT v/s Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Del.) and various other decisions mentioned in the written submissions. It was submitted that a well reasoned assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer considering the details filed by the assessee, thus, the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to th…

Surendra L. Hiranandani, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result all the appeals for A

ITA 3226/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri N. K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: ShriManjunatha Swamy

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 24Section 263

…afely be held to have failed the fundamental requirement for valid assumption of jurisdiction as per the mandate of law. We find our aforesaid view to be supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del). 40. Accordingly, we hold that the CIT has to conduct minimal inquiry by examining the details filed by appellant and after due application of mind on the details and replies filed by appellant has to come to a conclusion that the order passed by Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. (IV) Specific conten…

Satnam Transport Company, Indore vs. The ACIT Circle-5(1), Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 514/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…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: 2008-09 M/s. Satnam Transport Company CIT-II 137, Transport Nagar, Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No.AARFS4063L Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Satnam Transport Company DCIT-5(1) 137, Transport Nagar, Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No.AARFS4063L Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT-5(1) M/s. Satnam Transport Company Indore 137, Transport Nagar, Indore बनाम/ (Revenue) (Respondent) V…

The DCIT, 5(1), Indore vs. M/S. Satnam Transport Company, Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 285/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

M/S Satnam Transport Company, Indore vs. The CIT- II, Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 248/IND/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

The Asst Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri K.C.K.A.Gupta

The Appeal is dismissed

ITTA/251/2005HC Telangana03 Jan 2018

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

For Appellant: Mr.J.V.PrasadFor Respondent: Mr.C.P.Ramaswami

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 263

…Mr.C.P.Ramaswami GIST: HEAD NOTE: ? Cases cited: 2000 Law Suit (SC) 305 = 2000 (243) ITR 83 2007 Law Suit (SC) 1524 = 2007 (295) ITR 282 Referred Case No.18 of 2001, Dated: 22-12-2017 (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) CVNR, J & TA, J ITTA.No.251 of 2005 Dt: 03-01-2018 3 The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy and The Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Amarnath Goud ITTA.No.251 of 2005 Dt: 03-01-2018 Between: The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4086/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja

Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4062, 4063, 4064 & 4086/MUM/2017 (A.Ys: 2008-09 TO 2011-12) M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JSW Centre, Central – 4, 6th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 051 PAN NO: AAACJ 4323 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Joshi Department by : Shri S.K. Saikja Date of Hearing : 11.09.2017 Date of pronouncement : 30.11.2017 O R D E R P…