How many judgments cite Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT?

543 judgments on BharatTax cite Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 148.

Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT

99 ITR 375High Court1975#115 most cited

What is Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT authority for?

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue if the Assessing Officer fails to make proper inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements or claims. The Commissioner can revise such an order under Section 263 without conducting further inquiries himself.

543

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT · 99 ITR 375 · Section 263 revision · assessment order erroneous and prejudicial · inadequate inquiry by AO · failure to inquire · Commissioner's power under Section 263 · revision for lack of inquiry · AO accepting assessee statements without inquiry · Delhi High Court 1975 · prejudicial to interest of revenue · section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 148 Section 143(2)Section 115BBE

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenue malabar industrial section 263(1)inadequate enquiry lack of enquiry revision u/s 263 assessment order erroneous erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 119 section 26 principal commissioner of income-tax

Judgments citing Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT

Shri Madhopur Kraya Vikraya Sahkari Samiti, Shrimadhopur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Agarwal (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal(CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…uld be erroneous if it is based on an incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law or nonapplication of mind or based on no or insufficient materials 3. Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises v. AdditionalCommissioner of Income-tax (1975) 99 ITR 375, has observed that “The Income-tax Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in the fact of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further inquiry. It is his duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an inquiry. Th…

M/S Uma Glass Works, Agra vs. Pr.CIT.-1, Agra

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

ITA 18/AGR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…t is the duty of the AO to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an enquiry. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Geevee Enterprise vs. Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375). Placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (243 ITR 83). The Ld. DR submits that it has been held that the AO is not supposed to accept a claim in the absence of supporting materials without making an enquiry. The Ld. DR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Suprem…

M/S Uma Glass Works, Firozabad vs. Pr.CIT.-1, Agra

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

ITA 17/AGR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Bbr Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 113/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S.Bbr Projects Private Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward – 1(14), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaccb7153J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy –

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 37Section 40

…t was submitted that the Revenue had filed the paper book whereby the Revenue seek to rely upon the following decisions : 1. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT - 88 ITR 323 (SC) 2. Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT – 67 ITR 84 (SC) 3. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. ACIT – 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) 4. Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT, Mumbai – ITA Nos.895 & 896/Mum/2021 dt.31.05.2022. 16. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Whether the jurisdiction exercised by the ld.PCIT was correct or not, it is essential to point out whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and…

Hindustan Sales Industrial Corporation, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 94/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR

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

…s uphold by the High Court. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed." Reliance has been placed on the following judicial pronouncements in this regard: 1. In the case of M/s Gee Vee Enterprises 99 ITR 375 (Delhi High Court)[1995]. It was held that the Assessing officer (AO) is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator, and failure of the AO to conduct the required inquiring and accepting the statement of the assessee without due verification renders the order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Absence of proper…

Sachin Ramdas Mohite, Satara vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-3, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 395/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena

Section 263Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 69A

…in preceding Paras, the Assessing Officer did not carry out inquiry and verification on apparent issues which ought to have been made by him. 4.6. In this regard, the observation of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addi. CIT (99 ITR 375) is reproduced as under : 5 ITA 395 of 2019 Sachin Ramdas Mohite A.Y. 2013-14 "The intention of the legislature was to give a wide power to the Commissioner. He may consider the order of the ITO as erroneous not only because it contains some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of fact on the face of it but also because it is a stereo-typed…

Bharat Tirtha Rice Mill, Burdwan East vs. PCIT, Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 249Section 253Section 263Section 3Section 5

…tion 2 of section 263 (1) is attracted in this case. Thereby the order passed by the A.O in the instant case is erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. (6) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of GEE VEE Enterprise vs. Addl.CIT reported in 99 ITR 375, 386 (Del) has held that the CIT may consider the order of the Assessing Officer to be erroneous not only if it contain some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of fact on the for in the circumstances of the case and it is an order which simply accepted what the assessee has stated in his return of 9 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Bharat Tirtha…

M/S Sudhir Forgings (P) Ltd., Ludhiana vs. Pr. CIT-3, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 505/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 505/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2013-14

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application)For Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR

Section 14ASection 263Section 68

…tted which would be in terms of Rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules. 5.9 It will be relevant at this juncture to refer to some of the judicial precedents on the powers of the Commissioner u/s 263 of the Act. In the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. ACIT (1975) 99 ITR 375, speaking for High Court of Delhi, their Lordships made a clear distinction between the cases of ITA No. 505-Chd-2018 (A.Y. 2013-14) - M/s Sudhir Forgings (P) Ltd., Ludhiana 19 "inadequate inquiry" and "lack of inquiry" by also considering the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84…

Sasanur Hospital, Vijaypur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee as well as the appeal of revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 415/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Mandur, C.A by RevenueFor Respondent: Shri Vilas Shinde, CIT (DR) by

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…d on the following judgments. 1. Malabar Industrial Co., Ltd [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. Daniel Merchants P. Ltd. 2017- TIOL-455-SC-IT 3. Rajmandir Estates P Ltd. (2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 4. Ashok Logani (2012) 347 ITR 22 (Delhi) 5. Gee Vee Enterprises (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) 6. Vedanta Ltd. (2021) 279 Taxman 358 (Born) 7. V. K. Bharathi (2019) 102 taxrnann.com 255 (Kar) 8. Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO (2009) 121 lTD 343 (Chennai)(SB) 9. Lokesh M. (2021) 187 lTD 342 (Bang) 4. After discussing in detail in his order, he observed that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest Page…

Shri. Umedmal Sonmal Mutha, Gadag vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubballi

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee as well as the appeal of revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 385/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Preethi Patel, Advocate by RevenueFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR) by

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

…owing judgments. 1. Malabar Industrial Co., Ltd [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. Daniel Merchants P. Ltd. 2017- TIOL-455-SC-IT 3. Rajmandir Estates P Ltd. (2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 4. Ashok Logani (2012) 347 ITR 22 (Delhi) Page 4 of 10 5. Gee Vee Enterprises (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) 6. Vedanta Ltd. (2021) 279 Taxman 358 (Born) 7. V. K. Bharathi (2019) 102 taxrnann.com 255 (Kar) 8. Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO (2009) 121 lTD 343 (Chennai)(SB) 9. Lokesh M. (2021) 187 lTD 342 (Bang) 4. After discussing in detail, the ld.Pr.CIT directed the AO to make fresh assessment in accordance with law and set aside the order pass…

Sericulturists Cum Farmers Service Co-Operative Society Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Sericulturists Cum Farmers Service Co-Operative Society Ltd., The Principal 01Sfcs Building, Commissioner Of Near Bus Stop, Income Tax – 2, Sarjapura Town, Bengaluru. Vs. Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 125. Pan: Aaaas6468H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Ranjan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit-2, Bangalore U/S. 263 Of The Act Relating To A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. Tax Effect Relating To Grounds Of Appeal Each Ground Of Appeal The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bengaluru-2 ("Pr. Cit") Dated 30-Mar-2022, Passed Under I. Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ("The Act") N.A Insofar It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To The Law, Weight Of Evidence, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…ndustrial Co. Ltd [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. Daniel Merchants P. Ltd. 2017- TIOL-455-SC-IT 3. Sreelekha Banerjee (196 49 ITR 112 (SC) 4. Rajmandir Estates P Ltd. (2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 5. Ashok Logani (2012) 347 ITR 22 (Delhi) 6. Gee Vee Enterprises (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) 7. Vedanta Ltd. (2021) 279 Taxman 358 (Born) 8. V. K. Bharathi (2019) 102 taxmann.com 255 (Kar) 9. Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO (200 121 ITD 343 (Chennai)(SB) 10. Lokesh M. (2021) 187 ITD 342 (Bang) 20. In view of the above discussion, the aforesaid assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue in terms of sect…

Shri Manoj B. Mansukhani, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…. Reliance is made on following cases: 1. Rampyari Devi Sarogi Vs. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 2. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs, CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 3. Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (ALL) 187 ITR 412 4. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl.CIT&Ors (Del.) 99 ITR 375 5. Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, SB-Chennai) 121 ITD 343, 313 ITR(AT) 182 6. SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd, Vs. ACIT 2010-TIOL-646- HC- MAD-IT. 7. Shakti Credits Ltd Vs. CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 3058 (Luck,'A' Trib) 8. Shoreline Hotel Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 2982 (Mum.'E" Trib.) 9. Kapil Ratan Associates Vs CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT)…

M/S. Jai Maa Hiral Enterprise, Khambhaliya vs. The Pr. CIT, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 128/RJT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…man 331 (MP). f Mammlal Matadeen v. C!T[2006] 152 Taxman 125 (all.). I.T.A No. 128/Rjt/2021 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 6 M/s. Jai Maa Hiral Enterprise vs. Pr. CIT Jamnagar g. CJT v. Bhagwan Das [2005] 142 Taxman 1 (All). h. Gee Fee Enterprises v. Addl. OT[1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi). L CJT Vs. Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 240 Taxman 221 (SC) 7. It may further be mentioned that with effect from 01/06/2015, Explanation 2 to the section 263(1) has been inserted which reads as under:- Explanation 2.-For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be er…

Navunda Abdulla Badruddin, Udupi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Bangalore

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

ITA 508/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Navunda Abdulla Badruddin Vs Pcit, Central O Thuwfeeq Manzil C.R. Building, Queen'S Road Maski Navunda, Kundapur Bengaluru 560001 Udupi 576224 Pan – Aevpa6893G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pcit) U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (The Act), Bangalore In Appeal No. 263/Pr.Cit(C)/2001-02 Dated 28.03.2022 For Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Central], Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 28/03/2022, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Law & On Facts To Set Aside The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143[3] R.W.S. 153D Of The Act Dated 19/12/2019 & Direct

For Appellant: Shri V. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 153DSection 263Section 69C

…ore, we answer the question posed for our answer in the negative and against the assessee. Both appeals are allowed. Parties to bear their respective cost.” 15. We also notice that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v .ACIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del) has held as under – “The reason is obvious. The position and function of the Income-tax Officer is very different from that of a civil court. The statements made in a pleading proved by the minimum amount of evidence may be accepted by a civil court in the absence of any rebuttal. The civil court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the…

Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (Kiit), Patia vs. CIT (Exemp.) Hyderabad, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 48/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack13 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Kalinga Institute Of Industrial Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Cit (Exemptions), Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, Technology (Kiit), Plot No.383, Hyderabad 384, 384, Kiit Kiit Campus Campus-1, Patia, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaatk 3103 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agarwalla, Ar S.K.Agarwalla, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13 /9 9/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/9 9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Ag This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Ainst The Order Of The Ld Cit(E), Hyderabad Hyderabad Passed U/S.263 Of The Act Dated Dated 14.3.2022 In Appeal No.Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021 Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/1040690424(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri S.K.Agarwala, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Agarwala, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Shri S.K.Agarwala, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwalla, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

Section 10Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kalinga Institute of Industrial Kalinga Institute of Industrial Vs. CIT (Exemptions), CIT (Exemptions), Technology (KIIT), Plot No.383, Technology (KIIT), Plot No.383, Hyderabad 384, 384, KIIT KIIT Campus Campus-1, Patia, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. PAN/GIR No.AAATK 3103 C (Ap…

Dishant Jain, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 384/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, Advocate by RevenueFor Respondent: Shri Binod Kumar Singh, CIT (DR) by

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…e following juridical decisions: 1 Malabar Industrial Co., Ltd [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. Daniel Merchants P. Ltd. 2017- TIOL-455-SC-IT 3. Rajmandir Estates P Ltd. (2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 4 Ashok Logani (2012) 347 ITR 22 (Delhi) 5 Gee Vee Enterprises (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) 6. Vedanta Ltd. (2021) 279 Taxman 358 (Born) 7 V. K. Bharathi (2019) 102 taxmann.com 255 (Kar) 8 Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO (2009) 121 lTD 343 (Chennai)(SB) 9. Lokesh M. (2021) 187 lTD 342 (Bang) 7. In view of the above discussion, the assessment order u/s 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue in terms of sect…

Shri Deepak Khanna, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 19/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 80C

…d upon the following judicial decision to drive home to his contentions: • [2000] 109 Taxman 66(SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax • [2007] 158 Taxman 160(SC) Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal Vs. Ralson Industries Ltd. • [1975] 99 ITR 375(DELHI) Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax • [2000] 108 Taxman 464 (Madras) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. • [2006] 101 ITD 405(MUM.) Arvec International Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range 19(1), Mumbai 14. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record an…

M/S Kinnor Kinnoree, Kolkata vs. CIT-X, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/KOL/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

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

…ovoke enquiry. The meaning to be given to the work “erroneous” in Section 263 emerges out of this context. The word erroneous in that section includes cases where there has been a failure to make the necessary enquiries (See Vee Enterprises V. Addl. CIT)1975) 99 ITR 375, 386 (Del). It is incumbent on the Officer to investigate the facts stated in the return, when circumstances would make such an enquiry prudent and the work “erroneous” in Section 263 includes the failure 6 Assessment Year : 2005-2006 M/s. Kinnor Kinnoree to make such an enquiry. The order becomes erroneous because such an enquiry was not made…

Vinod Kumar Gupta, Uttarpradesh vs. Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 664/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 263

…ted in section 263 of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 1.6.2015, the assessment order is deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue ………” • Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375 held that the Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case, ITO should have made further inquiries before accepting the statements made by the assessee in his return. • Further Hon’ble Delhi Bench in the case of Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 3046/Del/2016 for A.Y. 2009-10 order da…

Keshav Saraf, Kolkata vs. PCIT-15, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 156/KOL/2021[2015-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2022AY 2015-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 108Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ation at the relevant time by the AO would constitute “prejudice to the interest of revenue” and would make such order “erroneous”. Reference in this context is invited to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of GEE VEE Enterprise Vs. Addl. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del) and Duggal & Co v. CIT(1996) 226 ITR456(Del), wherein it has been held as under: “The ITO is 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 further enquiry. It is incumbent on the AO to further investigate the facts stated in the return, when circumst…