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 367,181 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 263Section 143(3)Section 147Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 148Section 143(2)Section 115BBE

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenuemalabar industrialsection 263(1)inadequate enquirylack of enquiryrevision u/s 263assessment order erroneouserroneous and prejudicialsection 263section 119section 26principal commissioner of income-tax

Judgments citing Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT

Sunita Agarwal, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Sh. Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sunita Agarwal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, 98, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Aeopa 9467 R

Section 115Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE HON’BLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SH. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sunita Agarwal, Vs. Pr.CIT-1, 98, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Bikaner. PAN No. AEOPA 9467 R Assessee by Shri Manish Surana, CA Revenue by Smt. Sanchita Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 11/08/2021 Date of Pronouncement 07/10/2021 O R D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Pr.CIT-1, Jodhpur dated 10/03/2021 for A.Y. 2016-17 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act,…

Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporatio Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1452/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 263

…such proposition which are as under: i.Rampyari Devi Sarogi V s. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 ii.Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V s. CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 iii.Swamp Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (ALL) 187 ITR 412 iv.Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl.CIT & Ors (Del.) 99 ITR 375 v.Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, SB-Chennai) 121 ITD 343, 313 ITR(AT) 182 Vi.SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2010-TIOL-646-HC- MAD-IT. vii.Shakti Credits Ltd Vs. CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 3058 (Luck.'A' Trib) viii.Shoreline Hotel Pvt.Ltd. V s. CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 2982 (Mum.'E" Trib.) ix.Kapil Ratan Associates Vs CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT…

Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 724/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 263

…such proposition which are as under: i.Rampyari Devi Sarogi V s. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 ii.Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V s. CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 iii.Swamp Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (ALL) 187 ITR 412 iv.Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl.CIT & Ors (Del.) 99 ITR 375 v.Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, SB-Chennai) 121 ITD 343, 313 ITR(AT) 182 Vi.SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2010-TIOL-646-HC- MAD-IT. vii.Shakti Credits Ltd Vs. CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 3058 (Luck.'A' Trib) viii.Shoreline Hotel Pvt.Ltd. V s. CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 2982 (Mum.'E" Trib.) ix.Kapil Ratan Associates Vs CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT…

Income Tax Officer 5 (1), Indore vs. M/S Satyamitra Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, Indore

In the result, the departmental appeal i

ITA 451/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year:2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 68

…se of CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) a Division Bench of this Court placing reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Shankar Industries vs. CIT (1978) 114 ITR 689 (Cal), Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT vs. Kohinoor Tobacco Products (P) Ltd. (1998) 148 CTR (MP) 536 : (1998) 234 ITR 557 (MP), Nanak Chandra Laxman Das vs. CIT (1982) 28 CTR (All) 280 : (1983) 140 ITR 151 (All) and Malabar Industrial Co, Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1 : (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), expressed the view that when the identity of the parties is given the genuin…

Shri Puneet Talera, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 25/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 25/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Puneet Talera, Cuke P.C.I.T. Vs. 17, Purohit Ji Ka Bagh, M.I. Road, Jaipur-1 Jaipur. Pan No.: Aezpt 8279 D Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pcit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Jaipur-1, Jaipur Dated 28/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit U/S 263 Is Illegal & Bad In Law & The Same Be Quashed. 2. The Ld. Pcit Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That The Order Passed By The Ao Allowing The Loss On Account Of Differential Interest Under The Head Income From Other Sources In The Absence Of Balance Sheet/ Bank Statement Of Relevant Period Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue Ignoring The Fact That:-

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT-DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 57

…essee for the relevant period and utilization of the funds borrowed from Oswal Electrical Conductor are not discernible from the details available on record. We draw strength from the decision as relied by the ld. Pr.CIT in the case of M/s Gee Vee Enterprises 99 ITR 375 (Delhi High Court) wherein it was held by the Hon’ble Court that the Assessing officer (AO) is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator, and failure of the AO to conduct the 15 ITA 25/JP/2021_ Puneet Talera Vs PCIT required inquiring and accepting the statement of the assessee without due verification renders the order erroneous as well as…

Amra Ram Kumawat, Jodhpur vs. CIT, Range-1, Jodhpur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 44/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2014-15 Amra Ram Kumawat, Vs. Cit, B-107, Shastri Nagar, Range-1, Jodhpur. Jodhpur. Pan No. Aavpk 9064 B

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…he scope of powers u/s 263 are widened and if there is no proper enquiry by the AO the assessment can be subjected to 263 proceedings. The PCIT had referred to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cae of Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT reported in 99 ITR 375 (Del) to support his contention that where no enquiry is being made, the order can be said to erroneous. Similar 3 ITA 44/Jodh/2019 Amra Ram Kumwat Vs CIT reliance was also place on the decision of Calcutta High Court in the cae of CIT vs. Maithan International reported in 375 ITR 123(Cal). In these facts the ld. PCIT set aside the order passed b…

Sh. Gurbachan Singh Brar, Moga vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Moga

ITA 207/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 263(1)

…gation. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the order of the AO was erroneous, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Malabar Industrial company Ltd. Vs. CIT reported at 243 ITR 83 (SC). Further in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT & Ors 99 ITR 375 ITA 204 to 207/Amr/2017 12 (Del), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court have held in that not making an inquiry warranted on the facts of a case will make the assessment order erroneous. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of K.A. RamswamyChettiar&Anr Vs. CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad.). Moreover, the facts of the case are squ…

Sh. Santokh Singh Brar, Moga vs. ITO, Ward - 2, Moga

ITA 206/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 263(1)

…gation. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the order of the AO was erroneous, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Malabar Industrial company Ltd. Vs. CIT reported at 243 ITR 83 (SC). Further in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT & Ors 99 ITR 375 ITA 204 to 207/Amr/2017 12 (Del), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court have held in that not making an inquiry warranted on the facts of a case will make the assessment order erroneous. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of K.A. RamswamyChettiar&Anr Vs. CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad.). Moreover, the facts of the case are squ…

J.R.D Tata Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 3739/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 3739/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2009-10 ) J R D Tata Trust, Bombay House, 24, Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 Pan: Aaatt-0165-F ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemptions), 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai 400 012. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Appellant By : Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr.Advocate With Shri Madhur Aggrawal, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr.Advocate with Shri Madhur Aggrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prabhat Kumar Gupta(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator and he cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further inquiry but, as observed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs ACIT [(1195) 99 ITR 375 (Del)], “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. (Emphasis, by underlining, supplied by us). It is, therefore, obvious that when the circumstances are not such as to provoke an inquiry, he need not put every proposition to the test and probe every…

Rutvi Oilfields Services Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. Pr. CIT, Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3291/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…143 CTR 406 (SC) ix. PTC Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (ITA No. 2860/Del/2010 dated 03.04.2018) x. CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. 341 ITR 293 order dated 04.01.2012 (Kar. HC) xi. CIT vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd. 65 ITD 263 xii. Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 xiii. Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 3046/Del/2016 order dated 11.01.2019) xiv. Ramesh Kumar (ITA No. 1982/Del/2018 order dated 25.01.2019) 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment order / proceedings has specifically r…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Desai (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…laims made in the return. The order passed by the Assessing Officer becomes erroneous when an enquiry has not been made before accepting the genuineness of the claim which resulted in loss of revenue. (d) In the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v, Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), it has been held by the Hon'ble Court that the Income-tax Officer is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is a 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…

Rudra Developers, Valsad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 395/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr.Shri Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.395/Srt/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rudra Developers, Vs The Principal Commissioner Pali Hill No.4, Tithal Road, Valsad. . Of Income Tax, Valsad. [Pan: Aadfr 8700 K] अपीलाथ" / Assessee ""थ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…n made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. We derive support for the proposition as stated above from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises 99 ITR 375 (Del). 12. Since in the present case, ld PCIT has exercised jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer (AO) while completing the assessment proceeding did not make enquiries which he ought to have made. Therefore, it is necessary to look into what enquiries the AO made on the issues raised in the order u/s.263 of the…

Shri Krishna Mohan Chuorsiya, Rajgarh vs. The Pr. CIT Ujjain, Ujjain

ITA 626/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Krishna Mohan Pr. Cit Choursiya(Prop. Of M/S Laxmi Ujjain Mp बनाम/ Auto Parts) Vs. Ward No.14, Bus Stand, Kurawar Rajgarh(M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aempc3634G

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…flncome Tax 2. 88 ITR 323 (SC) Rampyaridevi Saraogi V/s Commissioner of Income Tax 67 ITR 84 3 (SC) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. 345 ITR 135 4 Ltd (Delhi HC) Krishna Mohan Choursiya Gee Vee Enterprises V/s Addl. Commissioner oflncome 99 ITR 375 (Delhi HC) 5 Tax Bhushan Steel Ltd. V/s Asstt. Commissioner oflncome IT AT A Bench Delhi 6 Tax Commissioner of Income-tax v.Deepak Kumar Garg 299 ITR 435 (Madhya 7. Pradesh) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahavar Traders 220 ITR 167 (Madhya 8. Pradesh) 9. Smt. Renu Gupta v. Commissioner oflncome-tax 301 ITR 45 (Rajasthan) 10. PT. Lashkari Ram v.…

Shri Ramji V. Joyshar, Valsad vs. The Pr. CIT, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 946/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.946/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Ramji V. Joyshar, Vs. The Pcit, Valsad. Kalpvruksh, Palli Hill-3, ‘E’ Road, Tithal Road, Valsad. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacy1854F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Surji Chheda, Ar Revenue By : Shri O.P. Vaishnav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 10/05/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini:

For Appellant: Shri Surji Chheda, ARFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.946/AHD/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Ramji V. Joyshar, Vs. The PCIT, Valsad. Kalpvruksh, Palli Hill-3, ‘E’ Road, Tithal Road, Valsad. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAACY1854F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Surji Chheda, AR Revenue by : Shri O.P. Vaishnav, CIT(DR) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 10/05/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: By way of this appe…

Shringar Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-4, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 637/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2015-16
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…s. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1 : (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), Gee Vee Enterprises vs. (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1 : (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), Gee Vee Enterprises vs. (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1 : (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 ( Addl. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Del), CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR ITA Nos.01 . (2000) 242 ITR ITA Nos.01-05 & 13-15/Kol/2019 A.Y. 2014 15/Kol/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 Tikmani, HUF Vs. ITO Wed Tikmani, HUF Vs. ITO Wed-28(4) Kol. Page 21 490 (Mad), CWT vs. Prithvi Raj & Co. 28(4)…

Ankit Gupta, Kolkata vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15
Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…1 : (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), Gee Vee Enterprises vs. (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1 : (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), Gee Vee Enterprises vs. (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1 : (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 6 Addl. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Del), CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR ITA Nos.01 . (2000) 242 ITR ITA Nos.01-05 & 13-15/Kol/2019 A.Y. 2014 15/Kol/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 Tikmani, HUF Vs. ITO Wed Tikmani, HUF Vs. ITO Wed-28(4) Kol. Page 21 490 (Mad), CWT vs. Prithvi Raj & C 28(4) Kol. Page 21 490 (Mad), CWT vs. Prithvi Raj & Co. (…

Shri Shaligram Barod, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 625/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 54Section 54BSection 54FSection 54F(1)

…x 2. Smt. Taradevi Aggrawa1 Vis Commissioner 88 ITR 323 (SC) Rampyaridevi Saraogi V Is Commissioner of 67 ITR 84 Income Tax 3 (SC) Commissioner of Income Tax Vis Nagesh 345 ITR 135 Knitwears Pvt. Ltd. 4 (Delhi HC) Gee Vee Enterprises Vis Addl. Commissioner of 99 ITR 375 (Delhi HC) Income Tax 5 Bhushan Steel Ltd. Vis Asstt. Commissioner of IT AT A Bench Delhi lncome Tax 6 Commissioner of Income-tax v.Deepak Kumar 299 ITR 435 (Madhya Garg 7. Pradesh) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahavar Traders 220 ITR 167 (Madhya 8. Pradesh) 9. Smt. Renu Gupta v. Commissioner oflncome-tax 301 ITR 45 (Rajasthan) 21 Shaligram B…

Hill Queen Investment Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 643/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Hill Queen Investment (P) Ltd...……………………....................................……………..…….............Appellant Surobala Apartments Flat No. 202 3Rd Floor Block-B Rekhjuani, Bhatinda Rajarhat Kolkata – 700 135 [Pan : Aaacj 2324 P] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata..................…………...............................…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Devi Sharan Singh, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 6Th, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 21St, 2021 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 20/03/2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 223 (Two Hundred Twenty Three) Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation For Delay, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause In Filing The Appeal In Time. Hence, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.20,40,470/- On 28/09/2015. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny For The Following Reasons:- “(I) Mismatch In Sales Turnover Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Ii) Mismatch In Amount Paid To Related Persons U/S 40A(2)(B) Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Iii) Suspicious Sale Transaction In Shares (Penny Stock Tab In Its)”

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…tely.—Malabar Industrial Co. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CI Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1 : (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), Gee Vee Enterprises vs. T (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1 : (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Addl. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Addl. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad), CWT vs. Prithvi Raj & Co. (1991) 98 CTR Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad), CWT vs. Prithvi Raj & Co. (1991) 98…

Satish Kumar Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 260/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…iry on a relevant issue/point would render the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as decided in the following cases by various courts: (1968) 67 ITR 84(SC) Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi (1973) 88 ITR 323(SC) Tara Devi Aggarwal (1975) 99 ITR 375(Delhi) Gee Vee enterprises (1966) 220 ITR 657 (Mad) K.A. Ramaswami Chettiar & Another (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268…

M/S Venkatesh Technokraft Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-1(5), Ludhiana

ITA 1464/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Him Which Is Arbitrary & Unjustified. 3. That The Assessment Order Having Been Passed By The Assessing Officer After Due Application Of Mind & Taking Into Consideration The Various Replies, Material On Record & Books Of Account, The Action Resorted To By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Unwarranted & Uncalled For.

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Dahiya, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 263

…Vs. ITO & Anr • Jai Commercial Co. Ltd. Vs. Joint CIT(2000) 66 TTJ (Del-Trib) 731 • Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 137 (Mad) • Desai Brothers Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (1998) 66 ITD 203 (Pune-Trib) • Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT & Ors. (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del) • CIT Vs. Pushpa Devi (1987) 164 ITR 639 (Pat) • Lajja Wati Singhal, Smt. Vs CIT (1997) 226 ITR 527(All) • P.K. Fabrics Vs. Asstt. CIT(1998) 67 ITD 326 (Asr-Trib) • V. Narayanan Vs. Dy. CIT (2004) 88 ITD 43 (Chennai Trib) • Ambika Agro Suppliers Vs. ITO(2005) 95 ITD 326(Pune Trib) 4.9 Ld. CIT(A) held that the A.O. completed the assessment wi…