CWT v. Sampathmal Chordia

256 ITR 440High Court2002#10451 most cited
10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Judgments citing CWT v. Sampathmal Chordia

ANSHIT BUILDERS & HOME FIN CO. PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR,CIT DELHI-1, NEW DELHI

ITA 1168/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…nd Hotels (P) Ltd reported in 418 (Allahabad) (Page 10-22 of the JPB). iii. M/s Vision Habitate & Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT (ITA No.214/CTK/2019) (Page 42-54 of the JPB); iv. CWT vs. Sampathmal Chordia, Executor to the Estate of Late Neni Kavur Bai [2002] 256 ITR 440 (Madras); v. Pr. CIT vs. H. Nagaraja [2018] 406 ITR 242 (Karnataka); vi. S.K. Jain v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2010] 127 ITD 217 (Agra) (TM) 3.5 Ld. DR on the contrary has relied the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of EIMCO K.C.P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 3 [2000] 242 ITR 659 (SC) but same is resisted by Ld. AR as n…

M/S. VISION HABITATE & SERVICES PVT. LTD.,SAMBALPUR vs. PR. CIT, SAMBALPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 214/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.214/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Vision Habitate & Services Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur-768004 Private Limited, Kadambari Complex, Gole Bazar, Sambalpur-768001 Pan No. : Aadcn 4768 J (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.N.Agrawal/Binod Agrawal, Ars राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2020 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per L.P.Sahu, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Dated 30.03.2019 For The A.Y.2014-2015 On The Following Grounds :- 1. That The Order U/S. 263 Is Bad In Law As Well As In Facts. 2. That The Order U/S. 263, Stated To Have Been Passed On 30.03.2019, Is Ante Dated & Barred By Limitation, Being Issued & Served Upon The Appellant On 30.04.2019, Which Is After The Expiry Of Period Of Limitation On 31.03.2019. 3. That The Assessment Order Dt.29.12.2016 Making An Addition Of Rs.27,51,100 To The Returned Income U/S.56(2)(Viib) Consequent Upon Valuation Of Book Value Of 4,510 Nos. Of Equity Shares @ Rs.739 Per Share As On 31.03.2013 Allotted On 31.03.2014 @ Rs.1,349 Per Share. Thus, The Difference Of Rs.610 Per Share Multiplied By 4,510 Nos. Of Shares Allotted Coming To Rs.27,51,100 Has Been Added As Above By The Id. Ao. The Said Valuation & The Consequential Addition Has Been Disputed By The Appellant In The Appeal In Form No.35 E-Filed Before The Id.

For Appellant: Shri B.N.Agrawal/Binod AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

…ion to revise the valuation of the same shares u/s.263, thereby depriving the appellate authority of the power to examine the correctness of the assessment order under appeal vide CWT v. Sampathmai Chordia, Executor to the Estate of Late Neni Javur Bai (2002) 256 ITR 440 (Mad.) and referred to in Aerens Infrastructure & Technology Ltd. vs. CIT (2004) 271 ITR 15 (Delhi). 7. That the in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order u/s. 263 based upon mere change of opinion or possibility of a second view is not sustainable in law vide CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) and Malabar Industr…

VSL STEELS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. PR. CI.T., BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 735/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Assessment Year : 2005 – 06 M/S Vsl Steels Limited, No. 539, Ashwini Complex, 4Th Floor, Cmh Road, Indiranagar, Hal 2Nd Vs. Dcit, Circle – 2 (3), Stage, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560038 Pan: Aaics1510N Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2005 – 06 M/S Vsl Steels Limited, No. 539, Ashwini Complex, 4Th Floor, Cmh Road, Indiranagar, Hal 2Nd Vs. Pcit – 7, Stage, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560038 Pan: Aaics1510N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Ramasubramanian, C. A. Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2019

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR
Section 147Section 153C

…e of this para, name of Sri Aseem Kumar Gupta and accommodation entry of Rs. 65 lacs were also noted in the context of reopening of assessment. He placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court rendered in the case of CWT vs. Sampathmal Chordia, 256 ITR 440 and submitted that this was held in this case that revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised in a manner which would result in depriving the appellate authority of the power to examine the correctness of the order under appeal when an appeal has been filed and was pending. Learned DR of the revenue supported the impugned order passed by PCIT u/…

VSL STEELS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1492/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Dec 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Assessment Year : 2005 – 06 M/S Vsl Steels Limited, No. 539, Ashwini Complex, 4Th Floor, Cmh Road, Indiranagar, Hal 2Nd Vs. Dcit, Circle – 2 (3), Stage, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560038 Pan: Aaics1510N Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2005 – 06 M/S Vsl Steels Limited, No. 539, Ashwini Complex, 4Th Floor, Cmh Road, Indiranagar, Hal 2Nd Vs. Pcit – 7, Stage, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560038 Pan: Aaics1510N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Ramasubramanian, C. A. Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.12.2019

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramanian, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT DR
Section 147Section 153C

…e of this para, name of Sri Aseem Kumar Gupta and accommodation entry of Rs. 65 lacs were also noted in the context of reopening of assessment. He placed reliance on the Judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court rendered in the case of CWT vs. Sampathmal Chordia, 256 ITR 440 and submitted that this was held in this case that revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised in a manner which would result in depriving the appellate authority of the power to examine the correctness of the order under appeal when an appeal has been filed and was pending. Learned DR of the revenue supported the impugned order passed by PCIT u/…

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

…ng the powers of enhancement. As to whether the learned Commissioner could have exercised his revision powers under section 263 at this point of time, we find guidance from Hon'ble Madras High Court's judgment, in the case of CWT Vs Sampathmal Chordia [(2002) 256 ITR 440 (Mad)], which observes, inter alia, as follows: 2. The revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised in a manner which would result in depriving the appellate authority of the power to examine the correctness of the order under appeal, 51 M/s J.K. Trust Bombay when an appeal, has, in fact, been filed in respect of those matters and was pending b…

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

…ng the powers of enhancement. As to whether the learned Commissioner could have exercised his revision powers under section 263 at this point of time, we find guidance from Hon'ble Madras High Court's judgment, in the case of CWT Vs Sampathmal Chordia [(2002) 256 ITR 440 (Mad)], which observes, inter alia, as follows: 2. The revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised in a manner which would result in depriving the appellate authority of the power to examine the correctness of the order under appeal, when an appeal, has, in fact, been filed in respect of those matters and was pending before the appellate authori…

DEV STEEL,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 4, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3752/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…e Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), therefore, revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked for which reliance was placed upon the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX v. SAMPATHMAL CHORDIA, EXECUTOR TO THE ESTATE OF LATE NENI KAVUR BAI 256 ITR 440 (Mad.). It was also pleaded that appraisal report was not confronted to the assessee for which reliance was placed upon the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Orient (Goa) Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 66 ITD 479 (Pune). In reply, the Ld. CIT-DR contended that the facts of the are squarely covered by the decision of Gauhati High Court COMMISSI…

DEV STEEL,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 4, NAVI MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3748/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…e Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), therefore, revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked for which reliance was placed upon the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX v. SAMPATHMAL CHORDIA, EXECUTOR TO THE ESTATE OF LATE NENI KAVUR BAI 256 ITR 440 (Mad.). It was also pleaded that appraisal report was not confronted to the assessee for which reliance was placed upon the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Orient (Goa) Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 66 ITD 479 (Pune). In reply, the Ld. CIT-DR contended that the facts of the are squarely covered by the decision of Gauhati High Court COMMISSI…

DEVANG GANDHI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 4, MUMBAI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3747/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…e Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), therefore, revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked for which reliance was placed upon the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX v. SAMPATHMAL CHORDIA, EXECUTOR TO THE ESTATE OF LATE NENI KAVUR BAI 256 ITR 440 (Mad.). It was also pleaded that appraisal report was not confronted to the assessee for which reliance was placed upon the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Orient (Goa) Ltd. vs DCIT (1998) 66 ITD 479 (Pune). In reply, the Ld. CIT-DR contended that the facts of the are squarely covered by the decision of Gauhati High Court COMMISSI…

PEOPLE INFOCOM PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. C.I.T. CIR.7, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 People Infocom Private Ltd. Cit-7, C/O- Samria & Co. Room No.611, बनाम/ Chartered Accountants, 6Th Floor, Vs. 2E, Court Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, 35, New Marine Lines, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aadcp5658H (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 263Section 51

…ng the powers of enhancement. As to whether the learned Commissioner could have exercised his revision powers under section 263 at this point of time, we find guidance from Hon'ble Madras High Court's judgment, in the case of CWT Vs Sampathmal Chordia [(2002) 256 ITR 440 (Mad)], which observes, inter alia, as follows: 2. The revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised in a manner which would result in depriving the appellate authority of the power to examine the correctness of the order under appeal, when an appeal, has, in fact, been filed in respect of those matters and was pending before the appellate authorit…

CWT v. Sampathmal Chordia (256 ITR 440) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax