Everready Industries India Ltd. v. PCIT

181 ITD 528Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2020#13627 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

full value of consideration non-speaking order section 48 malabar industrial amalgamation reasoned order long term capital gains faceless assessment long term capital gain erroneous and prejudicial reason to believe section 43

Judgments citing Everready Industries India Ltd. v. PCIT

Shree Auro Iron Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Saraswant, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 263Section 48

…and even otherwise Explanation 2 to Section 263, inserted vide Finance Act, 2015,cannot override the basic requirements of sub- section (1) of Section 263 1.Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2018) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd.- Trib) 2. Eveready Industries India Ltd. [2020] 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata Trib) 3. M/s. Smira Pune Food Pvt. Ltd(ITA No.3205/DEL/2017, ITAT Delhi Bench. 4. Shri Narayan TatuRane, ITA No2690/Mum/2016, ITAT Mumbai Bench Case was selected for scrutiny for specific purpose for verification of capital gain and therefore, there cannot be any presumption of lack of enquiry(copy of order attached with this PB at 72 to…

Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

…fect that it is not based on facts. It has never been the case of the appellant that the income arising from the said transfer was not in the nature of capital gains. In the case of the Hon'ble Kolkata Tribunal of Everready Industries India Ltd Vs PCIT [2020] 181 ITD 528 (Kol Trib), upon which the appellant has placed very heavy reliance, it has been unequivocally stated in para 39, that "The Ld AR however pointed out that the issue of stamps duty valuation of the immovable property would have been rele- vant only if income arising out of sale of fixed assets of packed Tea factory was assessed under the head Capi…

Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is partly allowed

ITA 372/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2014-15 & Assessment Years: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sriram Sashdari, ARFor Respondent: Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 250Section 43(6)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 928

Naresh Kumar Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 221/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan SoganiFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka, CIT

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…realized. It can mean nothing else…” 7.2.ii G.R. Thangamaligai [2003] 259 ITR 129 (MAD.) “In the absence of any finding that there is loss of revenue, interference under section 263 of the Act was not justified. 7.2.iii Eveready Industries India Ltd [2020] 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata - Trib.) “…The Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that for invoking powers conferred by S.263; the CIT should not only show that the AO's order is erroneous as a result of any of the situations enumerated above but CIT must also further show that as a result of an erroneous order, some loss is caused to the interest of the revenue…” 7.3. Where…

Career Point Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…Finance Act, 2015 cannot override the basic requirements of Sub-section (1) of Section 263. In this regard, we draw strength from the following case laws. 1. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2018) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd.-Trib) 2. Eveready Industries India Ltd.[2020] 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata Trib) 3. M/s. Smira Pune Food Pvt. Ltd (ITA No.3205/DEL/2017, ITAT Delhi Bench. 4. Shri Narayan Tatu Rane, ITA No2690/Mum/2016, ITAT Mumbai Bench In the present case, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny for specific purpose for verification of refund claim and income from house property and, therefore, there cannot be a…

Shri Kalyan Buildmart Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

ITA 126/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Prathviraj Meena (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 6(3)(ii)

…erride the basic requirements of Sub-Section (1) of Section 263. In this regard, reliance is placed on the below mentioned judicial pronouncements: i. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2018] 173 ITD 130 (Ahmedabad- Trib.) ii. Eveready Industries India Ltd [2020] 181 ITD 528 (Kolkata -Trib.) iii. M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd, ITA No. 3205/DEL/2017, ITAT Delhi Bench. iv. Shri Narayan Tatu Rane, I.T.A. No. 2690/Mum/2016, ITAT Mumbai Bench. 6. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for verification of “Share Premium”. The case was not converted for full scrutiny and, therefore, the ld. AO had no jurisdiction to en…

M/S. Datamatrix Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 9(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5358/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 5358/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2016-17) Datamatrix Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The Acit 504, 5 Th Floor, Sai Arpan, P.G. Circle 9(3)(1), Vora Road, Next To P.G. Vora फनाभ/ Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, School, Mira Road (E), Thane- Mumbai-400 020 Vs. 401107 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaacg4096M अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Shri Vipul Joshi, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : Shri. V.Vidyadhar, Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2021

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri. V.Vidyadhar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 48Section 50CSection 5O

…arket value of the scrap and not the price at which the scrap is sold should be reduced from the written down value of the block of assets.” 6. Similarly, on identical facts the ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd. vs. PCIT (2020) 181 ITD 528 (Kol.) held in Para 40 as under:- “40. After considering the rival submissions, we find merit in the ld. AR's submissions that, for the reasons set out in Para 4.3 of the impugned order, the AO's order could not be held to be erroneous. Although in the impugned order, the AO's order was considered erroneous for not making reference to the regist…