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 367,154 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

Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-03, New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2813/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Smt. Beena A. Pillaii.T.A. No. 2813/Del/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI L. P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2813/Del/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12) Delhi Airport Metro Pr. CIT VS. Express Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. Reliance Center Maharaja Ranjit Singh Marg, New Delhi GIR/PAN : AAAFE2646N (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Deepshree Raw, Adv. Respondent by : Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT (DR). Date of hearing : 02.01.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 12.01.2017 ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM: 1. The present appeal has b…

Kukreja Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. CIT Cen -2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1090/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am M/S Kukreja Development Corporation. Commissioner Of Income Tax 4Th & 5Th Floor, Sai Central-2, Mumbai Commercial Building, B.K.S. Vs. Devshi Marg, Govandi (E), Mumbai-400007 Pan No.Aabfk0411A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By .. Shri.Naresh Kumar, Ar Revenue By .. Shri. R.P Meena, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing .. 22-12-2016 .. Date Of Pronouncement 22-12-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43Section 43(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI N.K. PRADHAN, AM M/s Kukreja Development Corporation. Commissioner of Income Tax 4th, and 5th Floor, Sai Central-2, Mumbai Commercial Building, B.K.S. Vs. Devshi Marg, Govandi (E), Mumbai-400007 PAN No.AABFK0411A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by .. Shri.Naresh Kumar, AR Revenue by .. Shri. R.P Meena, CIT DR Date of hearing .. 22-12-2016 .. Date of pronouncement 22-12-2016 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the revision order of CIT Central-2, Mumbai passed u/s 263 of the Inc…

Shri Bhupinder Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2500/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava:A.Y. 2007-08 Bhupinder Singh Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 10/3, Old Rajinder Nagar, Ward-33(4), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaups 9406 N ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Salil Agarwal Adv. & Shri Shailesh Gupta Ca Respondent By : Shri Ravi Jain Cit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 263Section 44ASection 68

…s also the income declared therein. It is his duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return. Where the circumstances indicate to provoke an inquiry, then the same should not be withhold. In a landmark decision in the case of G. V. Enterprises, 99 ITR 375, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that "inadequacy of inquiry is a good reason for invoking the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act." In any case, we are not confining our decision entirely on the issue of "lack of inquiry" or "inadequate inquiry". From the side of the assessee the learned AR, Mr. Tushar P. Hlmani has argued that this is not the c…

M/S. India Habitat Centre, New Delhi vs. CIT(E), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2340/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y. : 2011-12 India Habitat Centre, Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Lodi Road, Vs. Pratyakash Kar Bhavan, E- New Delhi - 110003 2, Block, 26Th Floor, Dr. (Pan: Aaati0499M) Shyama Prasad Mukherjeemarg, Civic Centre, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi – 110 002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Ananthraman, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Satpal Gulati, CIT(DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ot be interfered with only because another view is possible.” An order would be erroneous only when the AO makes no enquiries during the course of assessment proceedings. This principle was noticed by the Delhi High Court in Geevee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Del.). In arriving at this decision, the Delhi High Court drew strength from the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Agarwal vs. CIT, 88 ITR 324 (SC). The underlying principle which emerges from these judgments is that if an assessment order is passed without making any enquiries,…

Sh. Surinder Kumar Jain, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2481/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. AshishFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 13 ITR 83 (SC). The word erroneous in section 263 of the Act includes failure to make such enquiry as warranted by the facts of the case, as held in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. ADDL. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi). Further, failure to make enquiries making the order without evidence or enquiry renders the order erroneous and prejudicial held in the case of Addl. CIT vs. Mukur Corporn. (1978) 111 ITR 312 (Guj) and Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC). In this regard, the following observations of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in…

Krishi Rasayan Export Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, 4, Kolkata

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

ITA 1504/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M. &Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

For Appellant: Shri SanjeevKadel, FCAFor Respondent: Shri RajatSubhra Biswas, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA No.1504 /Kol/2015 KrishiRasayan Export (P) Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘A’, KOLKATA (Before Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M. &Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.) ITA No. 1504/Kol/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 KrishiRasayan Export (P) Ltd., Vs Principal Commissioner of 29, LalaLajpatRaiSarani, Income-Tax-4, Kolkata-700020 AaykarBhawan, PAN: AACCK 4124G P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by: Shri SanjeevKadel, FCA Respondent by:Shri RajatSubhra Biswas, CIT Date of Hearing : 05.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement :- 23/09/16 ORDER Per Dr. A.L.Saini, A.M.: The c…

M/S Ashiana Housing Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 523/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Years:2012-13

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ssment. In such circumstances various courts have held the order of the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. In this connection we rely in the judgement of Honourable High Court of Delhi in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. ACIT & Ors 99 ITR 375 where it was held as under:- “The position and function of the ITO 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 basis of the pleading and evidence w…

Francis Klein & Company Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT, Kolkata-1, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 771/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “A” KOLKATA Before Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member Assessment Years:2009-10 Francis Klein & Co. Ltd., बनाम / Commissioner of OM Tower, 7th Floor, Flat Income Tax, V/s. No. 701-702, 32- Kolkata-1, P-7,, Chowringhee Road, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 071 Kolkata-700 069 [PAN No.AAACF 3913 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Smt. Nilima Joshe, अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sachchidananda Srivastava, CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 29-06-2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date…

Jessop & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT, Kolkata-1, Kolkata

In the result, ITA No. 702/kol/14 is allowed for statistical purpose, while ITA

ITA 702/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 702 & 1045/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S. Jessop & Co.. Ltd. -Vs.- C.I.T., Kolkata-1, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaacj 6969 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 263

…, which in the given facts and circumstances of the case, calls for an enquiry then the order of the AO should held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) clearly supports of the stand of the revenue in this regard. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the aforesaid decision has held that the ITO being not only an adjudicator but also an investigator, he cannot remain passive in the 11 Jessop & Co.LTd. A.Yrs.2008-09 & .2009-10 face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further en…

Real Trade Technologies, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 28, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 2929/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Pawan Singh (Jm)

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

…sec. 263 of the Act in the case of Horizon Investment Co Ltd (ITA No.1593/Mum/2013 dated 27.06.2014) by considering the decisions rendered in the following cases:- (a) Malabar Industrial Company Ltd (243 ITR 83)(SC) (b) Addl CIT Vs. Gee Vee Enterprises (1975)(99 ITR 375)(Delhi) (c) Rampyari Devi (67 ITR 84) (d) Tara Devi Agarwal (88 ITR 323) The Co-ordinate bench held that the failure on the part of the AO to make proper enquiries as warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case would render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Ld D.R also relied upon the deci…

Shri Bikram Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5609/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2016AY 2011-12
Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Bikram Singh, 8/34, Mehram Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Nagar, New Delhi Tax, Circle-15(1), New Delhi GIR/PAN : ABKPS5232P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by S/sh. C.S. Agarwal & Ravi Mall, Advocates Respondent by Ms. Richa Rastogi, Sr.DR Date of hearing 28.04.2016 Date of pronouncement 19.07.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 07/09/2015 of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (A…

Namita V Samant, Mumbai vs. CIT City II, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1065/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Namita V. Samant, Cit, City-11/Acit-11(3)(2), बनाम/ 405, Raheja Crest Building No.1, Mumbai Off Link Road, Oshiwara, Vs. Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aazps 4624 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. R. Agarwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Jha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 18.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-11, Mumbai (‘Cit’ For Short) Dated 23.2.2016 Setting Aside Her Assessment For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 Vide Order Dated 14.2.2014. 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual & Her Husband, Shri Vivek V. Samant (Vvs), Both Individually Hold Substantial Voting Power (I.E., In Excess Of 10%) During The Relevant Year In Three Companies In Which Public Is Not Substantially Interested, I.E., Ybpl, Ycpl & Yiepl, As Under:

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Jha
Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…venue on the ground of non-application of mind and failure to make proper enquiry (refer, inter alia, Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC); Toyota Motor Corporation vs. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC); Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del); and Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 343 (Ch.)(SB)). So, however, the ld. CIT, the competent authority, has given a definite direction to the AO to frame fresh assessment, setting aside that made in the first instance, in terms of his directions, i.e., of the loan/s amount being assessable as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) in th…

M/S Spml Infra Ltd., Kolkata vs. The PCIT, Kolkata-3, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 134/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jul 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 134/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 80

…and also payments to M/s. Sintex Infra Projects Ltd and therefore the assessee cannot 7 M/s. SPML Infra Limited . A.Yr.2011-12 have any grievances. Reliance was placed by him on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee.Enterprises 99 ITR 375 (Del). 12. We have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. It is clear from the material on record that the AO while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act did not make any enquiries whatsoever with regard to the provision for future losses on construction contract of Rs.14,83,51,419/- claimed by the assessee. The su…

Ayyazuddin J, Khan, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT- 22

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2881/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2881/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ayyazuddin J. Khan Ito-22(3)-1, Block No. 103, Aggarwal Upavan, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway बनाम/ Plot No. 11, Sector – 19, Nerul, Station, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 706 Navi Mumbai-400 073 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Atxpk 4365 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kishore K. Poddar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri H. N. Singh

For Appellant: Shri Kishore K. PoddarFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “ए” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2881/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ayyazuddin J. Khan ITO-22(3)-1, Block No. 103, Aggarwal Upavan, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway बनाम/ Plot No. 11, Sector – 19, Nerul, Station, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 706 Navi Mumbai-400 073 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. ATXPK 4365 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Kishore K. Poddar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri H.…

Good Morning, Mumbai vs. CIT 15, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2533/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2533/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Good Morning Cit-15, बनाम/ Shivtirth No. 2, E Wing, 124, Matru Mandir, 1St Floor, Tardeo Road, 4/6 Bhulabhai Desai Road, Haji Ali, Vs. Mumbai-400 026 Mumbai-400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aadfp 2489 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vidisha Kalra सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.6.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Revision Of Its Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 16.12.2011 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-15, Mumbai (‘Cit’ For Short) Vide His Order U/S. 263 Of The Act Dated 24.3.2014 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10. 2. None Appeared For & On Behalf Of The Assessee When Its’ Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing. In Fact, We Observe No Appearance By The Assessee-Appellant On Any Date Of Hearing Despite Service Of Notices Of Hearing Per Registered Post. There Is Also No Adjournment Application On Record & Neither Has The Assessee, On The Basis Of The Material On Record, Appointed/Authorized Any Counsel To Represent Its’ Case Before The 2 Good Morning Vs. Cit Tribunal. The Appeal Contests The Order Of Revision, Which Is To Be Taken Up On A Priority Basis In-As-Much As It Has Implication On Quantum Assessment. It Was, Accordingly, Considered Proper To Proceed To Hear This Appeal Ex Parte The Assessee & Decide The Same On Merits After Hearing The Party Before Us & Considering The Material On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vidisha Kalra
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ue. Succinctly put, these are: incorrect assumption of facts; incorrect application of law; without applying the principles of natural justice; and without application of mind. This, as explained by the Hon’ble High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises vs. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del), is for the reason that the assessing authority under the Act is both an adjudicitor as well as an investigator. Relying on two decisions by the Apex Court, viz. Rampyari Devi Saraogi [1987] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC), it stands explained therein that the position and function/s of an Income Tax Officer is d…

Jai Durga Traders, Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3414/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263Section 40

…y the Assessing Officer to examine 5 AY:2008-09 the low profit rate of the assessee. In support of her contention, she relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) and Duggal & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1996) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC). The learned CIT (DR) also relied on the decisions of the Tribunal Delhi bench in the case of Kavadi Narsimha Vs. Commi…

Khoday Eshwarsa & Sons, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1117/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. Sunil Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sukumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT -III
Section 263

…ITA No.1117/Bang/2010 & ITA.614/Bang/2010 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. I.T.A No.1117/Bang/2010 2. I.T.A No.614/Bang/2011 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) M/s. Khoday Eshwarsa & Sons, No.9, Seshadri Road, Bengaluru 560 009 .. Appellant PAN : AACFK8629H v. 1. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 3(1), Bengaluru 2. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengaluru-II, Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. S. Sukumar, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. Sibichen K. Mathew, CIT -I…

Vinati Organics Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 2828/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. Vinati Organics Ltd. Commissioner Of Income Tax-8 1102, 11Th Floor, Parinee Room No. 259, Àayakar Bhavan Cresenzo, Plot No. C-38 Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 G-Block, Behind Mca, Bkc Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan - Aaacv6538K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil HirawatFor Respondent: Shri G.M. Doss
Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…sessee, the decision of the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous simply because in his order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard. 4.3.2 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT & Ors. (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del.) has propounded the role required to be played by the Assessing Officer. "The reason is obvious. The position and function of the Income Tax Officer is very different from that of a civil court. The statements A made in a pleading proved by the minimum amount of evidence may he accepted by a civil court in the absence of any rebuttal. The ci…

Marsons Limited, Kolkata vs. CIT-I, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1140/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri K.M.Roy, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263

…to the interest of revenue. The following decisions are relevant in this regard :- i)Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC) ITA No.1140/Kol/2014 – Marsons Limited A.Y.2009-10 ii)Tara Devi Aggarwal vs CIT 88 ITR 323 ((SC) iii)G.B.Enterprises vs Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Delhi.) Whenever jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act is exercised by the CIT and an order of assessment is revised on the ground that the AO before completing an assessment did not make the required enquiries, than the question for consideration in an appeal against the order of CIT u/s.263 of the Act would be limited to the question whether the AO m…

People Infocom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. C.I.T. Cir.7, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 People Infocom Private Ltd. Cit-7, C/O- Samria & Co. Room No.611, बनाम/ Chartered Accountants, 6Th Floor, Vs. 2E, Court Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, 35, New Marine Lines, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aadcp5658H (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 263Section 51

…R (SC) 30 (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC) b. CIT vs. Mysore Spun Concrete Pipe (P) Ltd. (1991) 97 CTR (Kar) 117 (1992) 194 ITR 159 (Kar) c. CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad) d. Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Add!. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del) e. Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 139 CTR (SC) 555 (1997) 225 ITR 802 (SC) f. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1 : (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) 20 3.7. Now, we shall deal with the contention of the ld. CIT-DR with respect to amendment made by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01/06/2015. The provi…