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

Rpw Projects P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3836/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rpw Projects Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of (Earlier Known As Essel Rpw Income Tax Circle-8, Room Vs. Projects Private Limited 135, No. 611, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Continental Building Dr. Annie Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400020. 400018. Pan No. Aaecm1665J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. Advocate & : Mr. Rahul Hakani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2019

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…ationality of invoking provisions u/s 263 of the Act, the Pr. CIT relied on the decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO (2009) 313 ITR (AT) 182 (Chennai) (SB), Geevee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT v. Ralson Enterprises (2007) 288 ITR 322 (SC), CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 161 (Bom) , Sri Manjunatheswara Packing Products & Camphor Works (231 ITR 35). Thus the Pr. CIT held that this action of the AO has resulted in prejudice to the interest of revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act in as much as the clai…

M/S Ansys Software Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 673/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Biswarajan Sasmal, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40Section 92Section 92C

…the assessment. The law is well settled that failure on the part of the AO to make proper and adequate enquiries renders his order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v. ACIT, 99 ITR 375 (Del), has explained this aspect of the effect of failure to make enquiry as follows: - Page 7 of 8 “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…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. Prcit-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1764/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] & [A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Sr Adv

Section 263

…1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd v. 2 2013- Option Price 14 Insufficient CIT [2000] 109 Taxman received given Vide Query 66/243 ITR 83 (Supreme notice equivalent to Court) u/s non-enquiry 142(1) as per 2. Adi. CIT v. Gee Vee dated judgment of Enterprises [1975] 99 ITR 375 20/11/2 Bombay High (Del) 0 Court in case 15, a of Jeevan 3. Jeevan Investment and single Investment Finance Pvt Ltd l/s CIT City 1 point and Mumbai [2017] 88 71 Taxmann.com 552 (Bombay) query Finance Pvt "Details Ltd of and Delhi 4. CIT Vs Harsh J Punjabi Option High Court in [2012] 27 Taxmann.com 175 Price case of CIT (Delhi) /[2012] 345 ITR 45…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. Prcit-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1763/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] & [A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Sr Adv

Section 263

Shri Babulal S. Solanki, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3493/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50Section 50C

…ITA No. 3493/Ahd/2016 Babulal S. Solanki Vs. ITO Assessment year: 2012-13 Page 1 of 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Justice P P Bhatt, President and Pramod Kumar Vice President] ITA No.: 3493/Ahd/2016 Assessment year: 2012-13 Babulal S Solanki ……………...………..Appellant Prajapati Vas, Near Nagarpalika Office Gota, Ahmedabad 382 481 [PAN: APKPS8932C] Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1)(1), Ahmedabad ……………..…........Respondent Appearances by Ankit Talsania, for the appellant Subhash Bains, for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : December 6, 2018 Date of pron…

M/S.Mallelli Industries P. Ltd, Pathanamthitta vs. The DCIT, Cir-1, Thiruvalla

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

ITA 573/COCH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. C.B.M.WarrierFor Respondent: Sri.Sudhanshu Shekhar Jha

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…re was no proper inquiry by the A.O. and held that the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In doing so, the CIT relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl.CIT [99 ITR 375]. 4. The assessee being aggrieved by the order of the CIT passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act, has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned AR strongly relied on the grounds raised. 5. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, strongly supported the order of the CIT passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act. 6. We have heard th…

M/S Kennametal India Ltd, Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 601/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263

…e an enquiry on the issue which calls for an enquiry, that by itself will render the order of assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. It has been so held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. DCIT 99 ITR 375 & 386(Delhi). Since there was a failure on the part of AO to make necessary enquiry, we are of the view that the CIT invoking his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act was justified in the facts and circumstances of the present case. We, however, make it clear that the observations of the CIT in para 5 of the impugned order with regard to liability of…

M/S. Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3376/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Smt Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2012-13] M/S Celebi Delhi Cargo Management Vs. The Pr.C.I.T-2 India Pvt. Ltd New Delhi R. No. Ce-05, First Floor, Import Building – Ii, International Cargo Terminal, Igi Airport, New Delhi Pan : Aadcc 6885 B [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2019

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT- DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…d, in as much as, the Assessing Officer, accepts what is stated in the return of the assessee without making any enquiry called for in the circumstances of the case, that is, proceeds with „undue haste‟. [See Gee Vee Enterprises vs ACIT, Delhi-I & Ors. (1975) 99 ITR 375] (iv) The expression "prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue" while not to be confused with the loss of tax will certainly include an erroneous order which results in a person not paying tax which is lawfully payable to the Revenue. [See Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra)]. (v) Every loss of tax to the Revenue cannot be treated as being "prej…

ITO, WD-5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Purbasa Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1179/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2008-09 Income Tax Officer, V/S. M/S Purbasa Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 5/5 Clive Row, 4Th Ward-5(2), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Floor, Room No.26, 8Th Floor, Room No.6, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No.Aaecp 1267B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 15-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25-01-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.06.2015, Passed In Case No.1575/Cit(A)-2/2015-16, In Proceedings U/S. 144 R.W.S 263 R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Revere The Cit(A)’S Action Deleting Unexplained Cash Credits Addition Of ₹3.14 Lac Made In The Course Of Assessment Framed On 19.03.2015. The Assessee’S Case Before Assessing Officer Was That This Sum Represented Its Share Application / Premium Raised During The Course Of Relevant Previous Year. The Assessing Officer Held In The Course Of Assessment That Assessee Had Failed To Prove Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Investors

Section 144Section 68

…vidences of commission unaccounted money in form of investment in Share Capital. 9. The CIT has also relied on following Judgment: i) Rampyari Devi Saraogivs.CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC) ii) Tara Devi Agarwal vs CIT 88 ITR 323 (SC) iii) Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375, 386 (Del) iv) CIT vs Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Del) v) CIT vs Active Traders P. Ltd. 214 ITR 583 (Cal) ITA No.1179/Kol/2015 A.Y. 2008-09 ITO Wd-5(2), Kol. Vs. M/s Purbasa Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Page 5 vi) CIT vs NivedanVanijya Niyojan Ltd. 263 ITR 623 (Cal) vii) CIT vs Bhagwati Jewels Ltd. 201 ITR 461 (Del) 10. However, the fact of the above…

Smt. Sefali Sarkar, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 17, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2464/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 263Section 273ASection 37(1)

…e Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 & Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). The reasoning for this proposition has been explained by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprise v. AddI.CIT[1975] 99 ITR 375.386 in the following paras:- "It is not necessary for the Commissioner to make further inquiries before cancelling the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer. The Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Officer should have made further inquiries before accepting the stat…

Alok Kumar Sarkar, Hooghly vs. CIT, Kolkata-8, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 454/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Alok Kumar Sarkar..................………...................................…..……………….…...……..…….............Appellant C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Seben Brothers’ Lodge P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly Pin – 712 105 [Pan : Akkps 9552 R] Vs. Commissioner Of Income-(8), Kolkata...............................................………………...…...........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 6Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 40A(3)

…assessee had not provided the contract notes, D-Mat Accounts etc. and hence the ld. CIT was justified in invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act. He relied on decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v. ACIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi). 6. We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 7. The first issue is whether the ld. CIT has recorded satisfaction in accordance with law, before the ITO, (Tech-20), iss…

Mr. Pranjal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1357/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.H. Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Murari, CIT-D.R

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

…he Commissioner can regard the ITO's order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case the ITO should have made further enquiries before accepting the statements made by the assessee in his return - Gee Vee Enterprises Vs Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi). (vii) Not holding an enquiry as is normal and not applying mind to the relevant material would certainly be 'erroneous' assessment warranting exercise of revisional jurisdiction. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (2012) 20 taxmann.com 652/342 ITR 74/249 CTR 529 (Gau.) (viii) Even where prejudice to revenue may not be inferable, non-enquiry is…

M/S Jsk International, Baddi vs. Pr. CIT, Shimla

The appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

ITA 643/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri. Satish AgarwalFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 80I

…ned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 11,, In the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl.CIT 99 ITR 375 (Del), it is held that the ITO being 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 enquiry in the facts and circumstances of the case and the word 'erroneous' in section 263 includes the failure to make such an enquiry. The CIT was justified in…

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

…verification, whereas he should have examined the source of interest from specific FDR and under what circumstances those FDR’s were made. 4.1 She relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises versus Additional CIT, 99 ITR 375 11 (Del) wherein it is held that it is not necessary for the Commissioner to make further enquiries before cancelling the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer. The Ld. DR also referred to the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of NIIT Vs. CIT (Central) (2015) 60 taxmann.com 313 (Delhi) wherein it is held that an en…

Shree Swami Samartha Developers, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Ward - 21, Mumbai

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

ITA 2969/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 263

…dered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (Civil Appeal No.5009 of 2016). The Ld Pr. CIT also took support of following decisions also:- (a) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs. CIT (243 ITR 83)(SC) (b) Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl CIT (99 ITR 375)(Delhi) (c) M/s Subhalakshmi Vanijya Pvt Ltd vs. CIT (ITA No.1104/Kol/2014) (d) Daniel Merchants P Ltd vs. ITO (SC 23976/2017) Accordingly, the Ld Pr. CIT held that the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Accordingly the Ld Pr. CIT directed the AO to do the assessment afresh after examining…

The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Ganesh Housing Corporation Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3083/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) “Ganesh Corporate House” Navjivan Trust Bldg. Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaacg 5590 Q With Co No.216/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd. Navjivan Trust Bldg. “Ganesh Corporate House” Vs. Ahmedabad. 100 Ft. Hebatpur-Thaltej Road Nr. Sola Bridge Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad 380 015. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Dhiren Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri C. Danday, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2018 आदेश/O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri C. Danday, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 253Section 4Section 40A(2)(b)

…hird issue no investigation was made by the AO in the first round of litigation, and therefore, there could not be any allegation of change of opinion. The ld.CIT(A) referred to decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. ACIT, 99 ITR 375 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has propounded the role required to be played by the AO as an adjudicator as well as investigator. The ld.AO was duty bound to investigate each and very issue without getting influenced, whether it will go against or in favour of the assessee/revenue. The moment the AO failed to make inquiry qua any issue, his action…

Ganesh Housing Corporation Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4, Now, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3034/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

For Respondent: Shri C. Danday, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 253Section 4Section 40A(2)(b)

Celebi Delhi Cargo Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3182/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhary[Assessment Year: 2011-12] M/S Celebi Delhi Cargo Management Vs. The Pr.C.I.T India Pvt. Ltd New Delhi R. No. 23, Import Building - 3 International Cargo Terminal Igi Airport, New Delhi Pan : Aadcc 6885 B [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT- DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…d, in as much as, the Assessing Officer, accepts what is stated in the return of the assessee without making any enquiry called for in the circumstances of the case, that is, proceeds with „undue haste‟. [See Gee Vee Enterprises vs ACIT, Delhi-I & Ors. (1975) 99 ITR 375] (iv) The expression "prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue" while not to be confused with the loss of tax will certainly include an erroneous order which results in a person not paying tax which is 18 lawfully payable to the Revenue. [See Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra)]. (v) Every loss of tax to the Revenue cannot be treated as being…

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

…s erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, consequently, the revisional jurisdiction was rightly invoked. 2.18. Our view is fortified by the decision in Indian Textile vs CIT (157 ITR 112) (Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375)(Del.), Thalibai F Jain vs ITO 101 ITR 1 (Karn.) and CIT vs HPFC 186 Taxman 105 (HP), CIT vs Pushpa Devi 164 ITR 639 (Patna). We are aware that before the Ld. Commissioner invokes the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, he should get satisfied that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of…

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

…ance was placed on the following case laws: " Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 412 (All.) " Umashankar Rice Mill Vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 638 (Ori.) " Jagdish Kumar Gulati Vs CIT 269 ITR 71 (All.) " Gee Vee Enterprises Vs Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Del.) " Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) " Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) " Duggal & Co. Vs CIT (1996) 220 ITR 456 (Del.) " Sh. Virendra Kumar Gupta Vs CIT in ITA No. 2595/Del/2009, order dated 21.01.2011 15 Durgesh Autofin P. Ltd. 13. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT set aside the assessment order framed by the AO b…