Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. v. ACIT

19 ITR 746Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#8090 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2024.

Also reported as

51 SOT 1151 ITD 385

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 260A Section 37

Issues it is cited on

malabar industrial erroneous and prejudicial capital expenditure section 26 section 263 section 11 previous year section 143 opportunity of being heard person company section 14

Judgments citing Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. v. ACIT

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

ITA 200/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Ravi Shankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 45(5)Section 54

…ates stand as a testimony to prove that the AO did inquire into this aspect during the course of assessment proceedings and before concluding the assessment u/s 143 (3). We wish to rely on the following case laws; i. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. v. ACIT [2012] 19 ITR 746 (Mum.)CTrib). ii. Roshan Lal Vegetable Products (P) Ltd. v. ITO [2012] 51 SOT 1 (URO) (Asr.) (Trib.) iii. Antala Sanjaykumar Ravjibhai v. CIT [2012] 135 ITD 506 (Rajkot) (Trib.) 6. The Hon'ble Principal Commissioner of Income Tax erred in stating that the assessing officer passed the assessment order without causing inquiry or verification on the…

ACIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI vs. SNAPDEAL LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 184/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT-DR

…division (315 ITR 125), the Bombay High Court in the case of Geoffrey Manner and Co, Ltd. (315--ITR 13d), the ITATMumbai decision in the— case of Kaya Ltd. (ITA no. 3175/Mum/2013), Asian Paints Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (ITA 78Q1/MUM/2010), Fine Jewellery (I) Ltd. (19 ITR 746), Warner Lambert India Ltd. (ITA 954 & 3063/Mu m/2006), Delhi ITAT decisions in Spice Communications Ltd. (35 SOT 78) and CIT v. Modi Revlon Pvt. Ltd. (78 DTR 342). The judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Adidas India Marketing (P.) Ltd. [2010] 195 Taxman 256 (Delhi) recognized that brand promotion exercises undertaken through media campaigns,…

ROOP KUMAR CHOPRA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT JAIPUR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Him By The Assessee In Compliance To The Notice Notices Issued To Him U/S 142(1) As Well As U/S 143(2) Of The Act By The Ao As Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue For The Purpose Of Section 263 Of The Act & Consequently Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed Dated 01-01-2021 To Be Made Afresh Made Is Most Arbitrarily, Unjust, Untenable & Liable To Be Vacated.’’

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…his opinion order passed is weak and not a detailed order. Antala Sanjaykumar Ravjibhai v. CIT [2012] 135 ITD 506 (Rajkot) (Trib.), Roshan Lal Vegetable Products (P) Ltd. v. ITO [2012] 51 SOT 1 (URO) (Asr.)(Trib.), Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. v. ACIT [2012] 19 ITR 746 (Mum.)(Trib.) held that in these cases, since the Assessing Officer made proper enquiry and examined accounts, it could not be said that there was non-application of mind by him. Hence, the action under Section 263 was held invalid. 14 ROOP KUMAR CHOPRA VS PR. CIT-1, JAIPUR Anil Shah v. ACIT [2007] 162 Taxman 39 (Mum.)(Trib.) held that if the As…

R V DESHPANDE HUF,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE-1, BANGALORE

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

ITA 340/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…e Assessing Officer made proper enquiry and examined accounts, it could not be said that there was non-application of mind by him. Hence, the action under Section 263 was held invalid. Held in the following cases. i. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. v. ACIT [2012] 19 ITR 746 (Mum.)(Trib). ii. Roshan Lal Vegetable Products (P) Ltd. v. ITO, 51 SOT 1 (URO) (Asr.)(Trib.) iii. Antala Sanjaykumar Ravjibhai v. CIT [2012] 135 ITD 506 (Rajkot) (Trib.) 9. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in arriving at conclusion that the short-term losses carried forward from the previous years has not been examined by the AO, The…

CHAMBAL ALUMS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX-UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 147/JPR/2022[/2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT

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

…/s 263 was held invalid. Few cases are also reproduced as below. Antala Sanjay Kumar Ravjibhai vs CIT (2012) 135 ITD 506 (Rajkot – Trib) Roshan Lal Vegetable Products (P) Ltd. vs ITC (2012) 51 SOT 1 (URO) (Asr- Trib) Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. vs ACIT (2012) 19 ITR 746 (Mum-Trib) From above it has been clarified the assessment order was not erroneous and also not prejudicial to the interest of revenue. All the details was filed before the AO at the time of assessment u/s 143(3) and after considering all the details the order was passed u/s 143(3) as such to look into all these details again to change the opinion…

M/S N.R.COMPANY,INDORE vs. PR . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3(1), INDORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal i

ITA 101/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore17 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. N.R. Company, Indore Pan – Aagfn 6169 F … Appellant Vs. Pcit-I, Indore … Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…IT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT v. Vikash Polymers [2010] 194 Taxman 57 (Delhi) (HC) 5. CIT v. Escorts Ltd. [2011] 338 ITR 435 (Delhi) (HC) 6. Antala Sanjaykumar Ravjibhai v. CIT [2012] 135 ITD 506 (Rajkot) (Trib.) 7. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. v. ACIT [2012] 19 ITR 746 (Mum.)(Trib.) 9. On consideration of above facts in the light of the judicial pronouncements (supra) and the fact that since the assessee firm has offered income u/s 44AD at much higher profit rate then prescribed, the Ld. AO passed the order after discussing the same issue through requisite query and verification in detail and there is no loss o…

ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. JASPER INFOTECH PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 2605/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Singh [CIT] – D. R

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA. No. 2605/Del/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Addl. CIT, M/s. Jasper Infotech Special Range : 5, Vs. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 246, 1st Floor, Okhla Phase–III, Okhla Indl. Area, New Delhi–110 020. PAN: AABCJ8820B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : N o n e; Department by : Ms. Sarita Singh [CIT] – D. R.; Date of Hearing : 07/10/2021 Date of pronouncement : 10/11/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is…

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

ITA 493/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jul 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…lication of mind by him. Hence, the action under section 263 was held invalid. Antala Sanjay Kumar Raviji Bhai V. CIT 135 ITD 506 (Rajkot) (Trib.), Roshan Lal Vegetable Products (P) Ltd. v. ITO 51 SOT 1 (URO) (Asr.)(Trib.), Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. v. ACIT 19 ITR 746 (Mum.) (Trib.); e. In case, where the High Court found that the Assessing Officer examined all the details with respect to assessee’s claim of deduction, the order could not be said to be erroneous or was passed without application of mind merely because the same was not elaborate order. CIT v. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay)(P) Ltd. 323 IT…

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…

ACIT, NAMAKKAL vs. JANSONS INDUSTRIES LIMITED, NAMAKKAL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 615/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri M. Balaganeshआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.613, 614 & 615/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. C. Yamuna, JCITFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Subramaniam, CA

Section 37

…various judgments of the Apex Court, including Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1980) 3 Taxman 69 and Alembic Chemical Works Company Limited v. CIT (2002-TIOL 160) and the decision of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. v. ACIT (2014) 151 ITD 385. 5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the assessee incurred expenditure in advertisement. While making advertisement, the assessee has displayed the brand name “Jansons”. In the books of account the assessee referred the expenditure as brand promotion expen…

ACIT, NAMAKKAL vs. JANSONS INDUSTRIES LIMITED, NAMAKKAL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 614/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri M. Balaganeshआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.613, 614 & 615/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. C. Yamuna, JCITFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Subramaniam, CA

Section 37

ACIT, NAMAKKAL vs. JANSONS INDUSTRIES LIMITED, NAMAKKAL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 613/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri M. Balaganeshआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.613, 614 & 615/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. C. Yamuna, JCITFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Subramaniam, CA

Section 37

SANJAY B. PAYMASTER,MUMBAI vs. CIT 21, MUMBAI

ITA 3211/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263oSection 48

…oned above and decided the case in favour of the assessee. ci Antala Sari jaykuniar Ravjibhai v. Cli 120121 135 lTD 506 (Rajkot) (Trib.), Roshan Lal Vegetable Products (P) Ltd. v. ITO [2012] 51 SOT 1 (URO)(Asr.)(Trib.) Fine Jewellery(lndia)Ltd. v. ACIT [2012] 19 ITR 746 (Mum.)(Trib.) Held that the Assessing Officer made proper enquiry and examined accounts, it could not be said that there was non- application of mind by him. Hence, the action U/s 263 was invalid. 3 d] CIT v. Design & Automation Engineers ( Bombay) (P) Ltd. 120081 323 LTR 632 (Born.) ([IC). Manish Kumar v. CIT 120121 134 lTD 27 ( Indore ) (Trib.)…

SMT. PREETHI PRASAD,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 472/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazsmt. Preethi Prasad, 423, 19Th Cross, 1St & 3Rd Block (East), Jayanagar, Bangalore. . Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore-Ii, Bangalore. . Respondent Appellant By : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Gr Reddy, Cit Date Of Hearing : 09-9-2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-9-2015 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri GR Reddy, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…the AO made proper enquiry and examined accounts, it could not be said that there was non application of mind by him. Hence, the action u/s 263 was held invalid. Held in the following cases. ITA No.472/B/14 4 i. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd., Vs. ACIT [2012] 19 ITR 746 (Mum.) (Trib). ii. Roshan Lal Vegetable Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO [2012] 51 SOT 1 (URO) (Asr) (Trib) iii. Antala Sanjaykumar Ravjibhai Vs. CIT [2012] 135 ITD 506 (Rajkot) (Trib) 4. Further, the learned CIT not justified in denying the claim of exemption u/s 54F of the IT Act, 1961 which the investment in house property outside India and that fun…