DIT v. Jyoti Foundation

357 ITR 388High Court2013#429 most cited

What is DIT v. Jyoti Foundation authority for?

An assessment order cannot be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer conducted an inquiry and applied their mind during the original assessment, as Explanation 2 to Section 263 does not permit unending inquiries by the revisional authority.

210

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

DIT v. Jyoti Foundation · Section 263 · revisional powers · erroneous and prejudicial · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · non-application of mind · AO's inquiry · original assessment · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. · Explanation 2 to Section 263 · Delhi High Court

Also reported as

38 Taxmann.com 180219 Taxmann 105

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 132
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenueinadequate enquirymalabar industrialsection 263(1)lack of enquiryrevision u/s 263non application of minderroneous and prejudicialsection 194asection 263section 26section 56(2)

Judgments citing DIT v. Jyoti Foundation

Divya Creation, Noida vs. Pr.CIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2715/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Divya Creation, Vs. Pr. Cit, Plot No. 97, Nsez, Noida Aayakar Bhawan, A2 D- Block, Sector 24, Noida Pan :Aadfd4879K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40

…n the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Del.); 2. Decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. International Travel House Ltd, 344 ITR 554 (Del.); 3. Decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388 (Del.); 4. Decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Pr CIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd 2017-TIOL-1814-HC-DEL-IT; 5. Decision of Delhi High Court in the case of ITO Vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del.); 6. Decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs New Delhi Television Ltd. 2013-TIOL-776-HC- DEL-IT; 7. Decision of…

Gumpro Drilling Fluids Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 15, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2868/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids Vs Pr. Cit-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5Th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, Lbs M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcg2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri L.K.S. Dahiya Cit-Dr

Section 120Section 144ASection 263Section 35

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,जी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids vs Pr. CIT-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, LBS M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AADCG2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue b…

Durgesh Autofin P.Ltd, Bijnor vs. Prcit, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2539/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2539/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Durgesh Autofin P. Ltd., Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Director, Muzaffarnagar-251002 S/O Late Sh. Tejpal Singh, Mandi Kotla, Near Nehru Murti, Chandpur, Bijnot, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd0768P Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rachna Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit, Muzaffarnagar U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 41(1)Section 68

…the following case laws: " CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2009) 227 CTR 133 (Del.) " ITO Vs D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.) " CIT Vs Shree Manjunathesware Packing & Products Camphor Works (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC) " DIT Vs Jyoti Foundation (2013) 357 ITR 388 (Del.) " CIT Vs Kamal Galani (2018) 95 Taxmann.com 261 (Guj.) " CIT Vs Jawahar Bhattacharjee (2012) 341 ITR 434 (Gauhati) 24 Durgesh Autofin P. Ltd. " CIT Vs Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) " Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) " CIT Vs Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) 19. It was contended that detailed en…

Adambandh Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT - 8, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1206/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. S.S.Godara[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Vs Cit, Adambandh Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Kol-8, 54/1, Rafi C/O-S.L.Kochar, Advocate, 86, Ahmed Kidwai Road, Canning Street, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata-700016. Pan-Aaaaa2455 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Anil Kochar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2018 Order

Section 143Section 143(1)(e)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…ny other records which are available at the time of examination by him and to take into consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. Now we examine the following judgements. :- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court ) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the Commissioner/Director of Income Tax when an order passed by the lower authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Orders which are passed without inquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Rev…

Manoir Petro India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

ITA 2626/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manoir Petro India Limited, Pr. Cit-1 602, B-Wing, Universal Room No.387, बनाम/ Business Park, Chandivali 3Rd Floor, Vs. Farm Road, Off Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aafcm5210J

Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘आई’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “I”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2010-11 Manoir Petro India Limited, Pr. CIT-1 602, B-Wing, Universal Room No.387, बनाम/ Business Park, Chandivali 3rd Floor, Vs. Farm Road, Off Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAFCM5210J 2 Manoir Petro India Limited ITA No.2626/Mum…

Vijay Kundu, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 808/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 808/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Vijay Kundu, Vs Pr. Cit, C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Delhi-21, Cas, L-7A (Lgf), South Ext., New Delhi Part-2, New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ajnpk7914P Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.03.2016 Of The Ld. Cit(A)-21, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 263

…of correct factual and legal position. It was accordingly submitted that the assessment order passed by the AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " DCIT Vs Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del.) " Jagjit Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT 60 ITD 295 (Del.) " Y. V. Ramana Vs CIT (2017) 183 TTJ (Vishaka) 337 " CIT Vs Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd. 341 ITR 180 (Del.) " CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.) " CIT Vs Anil Kumar Sharma 38 DTR 305 (Del.) " Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 (SC) " CIT Vs Kelvinator of India…

Mumbai Sez P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3429/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarmumbai Sez Limited Dcit, Cc-39. 1St Floor, Jai Centre, 34, P D Mello Road, Vs. Opp. Red Gate, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Aabcg2739C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Kumar Sanjay (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 23.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.07.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Kumar Sanjay (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai SEZ Limited DCIT, CC-39. 1st Floor, Jai Centre, 34, P D Mello Road, Vs. Opp. Red Gate, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. PAN: AABCG2739C Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Madhur Agarwal (AR) Respondent by : Shri Kumar Sanjay (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing : 23.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 11.07.2018 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax-III, Mumb…

S.P.Textworld Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 608/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G S Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year : 2011-12 S P Textworld Private Limited, Pr Cit-8, A/3, Aidun Bldg., 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 1St Dhobi Taloa Lane, Mumbai Near Metro Cinema, Opp Kayani Bakery, Marine Lines, Mumbai 400 002

For Appellant: S/Shri Reepal Tralshawla & Mahendra SanghviFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…said decision does not help the case of the assessee. 14. The second decision relied upon by the learned representative is the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income-tax vs. Jyoti 8 S P Textworld Private Limited Foundation (357 ITR 388). The said decision has been relied upon for the proposition that where the revisionary authority finds lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer, the assessment order cannot be set aside on that count before the revisionary authority himself makes the relevant enquiry. In our view, the factual situation in the instant case does not invite the pro…

Ashok M Jain, Navi Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 28, Mumbai

In the result, ground of appeal raised by

ITA 6764/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhmr. Ashok M. Jain, Pr. Cit-28, Room No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi B-2501, Emerald Bay Chs, Plot No. R3/B, Off. Palm Railway Station Complex, Beach Road, Nr. B.P. Petrol Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. Pump, Sector-14, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400706. Pan: Aaipj9350L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri V.D. Parmar (Ar) Respondent By : Shri R.P. Meena (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income -Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. The Instant Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of Income Tax Act Dated

For Appellant: Shri V.D. Parmar (AR)For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 164Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 67A

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Ashok M. Jain, Pr. CIT-28, Room No. 301, 3rd Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi B-2501, Emerald Bay CHS, Plot No. R3/B, Off. Palm Railway Station Complex, Beach Road, Nr. B.P. Petrol Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. Pump, Sector-14, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400706. PAN: AAIPJ9350L Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri V.D. Parmar (AR) Respondent by : Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing : 01.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2018 Order under Section 254(1) of Income -Tax Act PER…

Saigal Sea Trade, Mumbai vs. CIT -18, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2511/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

Section 142(1)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,‘ई’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘E’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s Saigal Sea Trade, CIT-18, J.V. House, 02nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No. AAAFS6920K "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Jitendra Jain Shri Manjunatha Swamy-CIT राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by 07/05/2018 सुनवाई…

M/S/ Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 816/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

…any other records which are available at the time of examination by him and to take into consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. Now we examine the following judgements. :- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court ) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the Commissioner/Director of Income Tax when an order passed by the lower authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Orders which are passed without inquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Rev…

M/S/ Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 815/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

…any other records which are available at the time of examination by him and to take into consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. Now we examine the following judgements. :- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court ) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the Commissioner/Director of Income Tax when an order passed by the lower authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Orders which are passed without inquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Rev…

M/S/ Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 814/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

…any other records which are available at the time of examination by him and to take into consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. Now we examine the following judgements. :- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court ) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the Commissioner/Director of Income Tax when an order passed by the lower authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Orders which are passed without inquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Rev…

M/S/ Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 813/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

…any other records which are available at the time of examination by him and to take into consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. Now we examine the following judgements. :- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court ) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the Commissioner/Director of Income Tax when an order passed by the lower authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Orders which are passed without inquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Rev…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3609/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘जी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member ITA NOs.3608 & 3609/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Gautam Tube Corporation, Pr. CIT-19, 1st Floor, 7, Doshi Bhavan, Room No.228, 02nd Floor, बनाम/ 02nd Carpenter Street, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Raod, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AADFG0524A "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Mr. Rajesh Chamaria…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3608/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘जी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member ITA NOs.3608 & 3609/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Gautam Tube Corporation, Pr. CIT-19, 1st Floor, 7, Doshi Bhavan, Room No.228, 02nd Floor, बनाम/ 02nd Carpenter Street, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Raod, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AADFG0524A "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Mr. Rajesh Chamaria…

Shri Abhimanyu Gupta, Patiala vs. Pr. CIT, Patiala

ITA 771/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263

…3 ITR 831. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [372 ITR 303]. Attention was also invited to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT Vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 for the proposition that in case the Reviewing Authority is of the view that there is inadequate enquiry then the Reviewing Authority must make enquiry and show that the assessment order is erroneous. Reviewing Authority it was submitted has no authority to remand. The scope of revision it was submitted was subject to the Pr.CIT demonstrating tha…

M/S. Castron Technologies Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Hqrs.-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 945/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judical Member] I.T.A. No. 945/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Castron Technologies Ltd……...……………………...………………………….......… Appellant 14, Bentinck Street Room No.8 1St Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aabcc 0646 G] A.C.I.T. Hqrs.- (1), Kolkata….…….………………………………………….……………....Respondent Ayakar Bhawan P-7, Chowringhee Square Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Siddharta Jhaharia, Fca & Shri Sujoy Sen, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 8Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 04Th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 263(1)

…any other records which are available at the time of examination by him and to take into consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. Now we examine the following judgements. :- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court ) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the Commissioner/Director of Income Tax when an order passed by the lower authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Orders which are passed without inquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Rev…

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

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ, जे, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI श्री जोगगन्दय स िंह, न्मायमक दस्म एवुं श्री एन. के. प्रधान, रेखा दस्म, के भक्ष Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment 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, C…

Puja Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur

ITA 440/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 263

…Pr. CIT has only directed the Assessing Officer to make afresh assessment without himself enquiry which is not justified in the eyes of law. In support, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) and ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). It was further submitted that a view taken by the ld Pr CIT which is different from the view taken by the Assessing Officer cannot be the basis for invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act. It was further submitted that it is not known to the assessee as to whether st…