Co. Ltd. vs CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282(SC) CIT v. Mangal Castings

234 ITR 557High Court1998#15385 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,607 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2022.

Judgments citing Co. Ltd. vs CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282(SC) CIT v. Mangal Castings

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

…roper enquires. Similar views are expressed by the Hon'ble ITAT E Bench Mumbai in the case of TCE Consulting Engineers vs. Addl. CIT in 20 taxmann.com 246 (Mum.) and by the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kohinoor Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. in 234 ITR 557 (M.P) as well as by the Delhi High Court in the case of GEE VEE Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT in 99 ITR 375 (Del.). The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has categorically held that the ITO being not only an adjudicator but also an investigator, he cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further enquiry in the…

Income Tax Officer 5 (1), Indore vs. M/S Satyamitra Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Indore

In the result, the departmental appeal i

ITA 451/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 68

…reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Shankar Industries vs. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal), Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT vs. Kohinoor Tobacco Products (P) Ltd. (1998) 148 CTR (MP) 536 : (1998) 234 ITR 557 (MP), Nanak Chandra Laxman Das vs. CIT (1982) 28 CTR (All) 280 : (1983) 140 ITR 151 (All) and Malabar Industrial Co, Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1 : (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), expressed the view that when the identity of the parties is given the genuineness or the capacity of the lenders and transaction are not to be discarded on the ground tha…

Essar Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…interest of the revenue". This also emerges from the ratio of the decisions such as Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs C1T 243 ITR 83(30, CIT vs Max India ltd. 295 ITR 282(SC), CIT Vs Mangal Castings 303 ITR 23CP&H), CIT v. Kohinoor Tobacco Products(P)Ltd.[1998] 234 ITR 557, CIT v. Mahavar Trader s[1996J 220 ITR 167(MP), Duggal &Co.v. CIT [996] 220 ITR 456, CIT vs MEPCO Industries Ltd 294 ITR 121 (Mad,), MemttRoller Flour Mills Ltd vs CIT[2013J 35 Tatman.com 1S3(AIL), Bharti Hexacom Ltd v CIT [2013] 33 Taxman.com.210(Delhi-Tr.), CIT v RKBK Fiscal Service (P) Ltd [2013] 32 Taxman.com.l53(Cal)/ M.I. Overseas Ltd v DIT…

Deutsche Investments India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3665/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ingful inquiries. This inference is also supported by ratio of various decisions of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282(SC) CIT Vs Mangal Castings 303 ITR 23(P&H), CIT v. Kohinoor Tobacco Products(P)Ltd.[1998] 234 ITR 557, CIT v. Mahavar Traders[1996] 220 ITR 167(MP), Duggal & Co.v. CIT[1996] 220 ITR 456, CIT vs MEPCO Industries Ltd 294 ITR 121 (Mad.), Meerut Roller Flour Mills Ltd vs C1T[2013] 3S Taxman.com 183(AH.), Bharti Hexacom Ltd v CIT [2013] 33 Taxman.com.153(Cat.), M.I. Overseas Ltd v DIT (Int. Tax)[2012] 28 Taxman. com.279(Uttarakhand), Bharat Overseas B…

Sh. Nittan Aneja, Sbs Nagar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, both the assessee’s appeal and the Revenue’s C

ITA 288/ASR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 288/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Joshi (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ctive Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal); CIT vs. Mahavar Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); CIT v. Everest Cold Storage [1996] 220 ITR 241 (MP); K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar vs. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 657 (Mad); CIT v. Kohinoor Tobacco Products (P.) Ltd. [1998] 234 ITR 557 (MP); Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 867 (Mad); CIT vs. Export House [2002] 256 ITR 603 (P&H); CIT vs. Arunaben Sumankumar [2003] 259 ITR 386 (Guj); Pt. Lashkari Ram vs. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 309 (All); CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT vs. Toyota Motor Corpn. [2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del) (affirmed by th…

Arabinda Roy, Hooghly vs. C.I.T Kolkata - Xx, Hooghly

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1367/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2008-09

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

…Smt. D. Valliammal (1997) 140 CTR (Mad) 433 : (1998) 230 ITR 695 (Mad) and Andhra Valley Power Supply Co. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT (1995) 53 TTJ (Bom) 647 : (1995) 55 ITD 24 (Bom) relied on; CIT vs. Kohinoor Tobacco Products (P) Ltd. (1998) 148 CTR (MP) 536 : (1998) 234 ITR 557 (MP) distinguished. AO, before making the assessment, having called for details and having discussed the matter with the representative of the assessee, such an order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial to interests of Revenue only because the AO made a brief assessment order without discussing such details therein.” ITA No.1367/Kol/2013…