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

Sh. Baljit Singh, Ludhiana vs. Pr. CIT, Ludhiana -1, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 416/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Kaushal &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68Section 92C

…have been done and also includes the order which is passed allowing any relief without enquired into the claim. 7.4 The Ld. PCIT has recorded in para 5.4 as under: 5.4 Further it has also been held in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT &Ors. (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del.) that an order can be regarded as erroneous when either it does not decide a point and record a finding on'an issue which ought to have been done or decides it wrongly. The word 'erroneous' in the section includes cases, where there has been a failure to make necessary inquiries. The Patna HC in CIT v. Pushpa Devi (1987) 164 ITR 639 (Pat), h…

M/S.Appollo Tyres Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The Pr CIT, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 72/COCH/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms.Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Sri.Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 32A

…. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 381 (Ker), furnishing the legal basis for revision and, in fact, stands since co-opted on the statute by way of Explanation 2(a) to s. 263(1) by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015. As explained in Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del), again with reference to judicial precedents, that the order of the AO becomes erroneous on a failure to make enquiry where the circumstances call for it. This is not because there is anything wrong in the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. However, the AO is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator and,…

Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 809/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd….…......................…...……………....Appellant 48/6, Suman Villa, 2Nd Floor, 155, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcd1131H] Vs. Pcit, Asansol….....….........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 158 Days. A Separate Application Of Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That After Receipt Of The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit, The Assessee, Through Its Director, Shri Deep Kishan Saraf, Immediately Approached One Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Chartered

Section 253Section 263Section 5

…pinion of the Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, - a) The order is passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made" 5.1 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 face of it but also because the Assessing Officer has failed to make enquiries which are called for in the circumstances of the case and it is an order which simply acc…

Pallathukadavil Ibrahimkutty Abdul Kabeer, Ernakulam vs. The PCIT Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed on the above terms, and his SA dismissed

ITA 428/COCH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicialmember & Sa No. 78/Coch/2023 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pallathukadavil Ibrahimkutty Principal Cit – 1 Abdul Kabeer C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road 71, Pallathukadavil Vs. Kochi 682018 Kanjoor P.O., Ernakulam 682575 [Pan: Aaopi0584P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Padmanathan K.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54B

…attribute, a manifestation, of this non-application, so that an order imbued therewith would be liable to revision. This represents trite law, since co-opted on the Statute itself vide Explanation 2(a) to s. 263(1). In Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del), again with reference to judicial precedents, it stands explained that the order of the AO becomes erroneous on a failure to make enquiry where the 3 | P a g e SA No. 78/Coch/2023 Pallathukadavil Ibrahimkutty Abdul Kabeer v. Pr. CIT circumstances call for it. This is not because there is anything wrong in the order if all the facts stated th…

Jameson Abraham, Kollam vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Trivandrum

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 979/COCH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasjameson Abraham Principal Commissioner Emmanuel Cashes Industries Of Income Tax Chepara P.O., Kottarakara Vs. Thiruvananthuparam Kollam 691520 [Pan: Afopa7312Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITR 381 (Ker), and toward which the ld. Pr. CIT cites two. The same, rather, stands since, i.e., by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01/6/2015, co-opted on the statute, by way of Explanation 2(a) to s. 263(1). As explained in Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del), again with reference to judicial precedents, that the order of the AO becomes erroneous on a failure to make enquiry where the circumstances call for it. This is not because there is anything wrong in the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. However, the AO is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator and,…

M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 654/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dascochin Shipyard Ltd. Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle 1(1) Administrative Building C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Shipyard Premises Kochi 682018 Vs. Perumanoor P.O. Kochi 682015 [Pan:Aaacc6905B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh L. Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial Member Cochin Shipyard Ltd. Dy. CIT, Corporate Circle 1(1) Administrative Building C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Shipyard Premises Kochi 682018 vs. Perumanoor P.O. Kochi 682015 [PAN:AAACC6905B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Radhesh L. Bhat, CA Respondent by: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 16.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 28.03.2024 O R D E R Per: Sanjay Arora, AM The instant Appeal by the Assessee agitates the Order under section 263 of Income Tax…

S D Educational Society, Hisar vs. Pr CIT (Exemption), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1179/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishanan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 119Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270A

…uiries/ investigation is erroneous. The courts have unanimously held this view in several cases. For instance in the cases of Ramapriya Devi Saraogi Vs CIT(SC) 67 ITR 84, Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. Vs CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83, Gee VEE Enterprises Vs Addl. CIT(Del) 99 ITR 375 etc, the courts have held that unlike civil court which is neutral to give a decision on the basis of evidence produced before it, an Assessing Officer is not only an adjudicator but is also an investigator. He cannot remain passive on the facts of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further enquiry. It is his duty to ascertain the…

Sarvottam Caps Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, ITA No. 202/KOL/2021 is dismissed

ITA 202/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…2 to Section 263(1) is attracted in this case. Accordingly, it is held that the assessment order is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 5. 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 face of it but also because the Assessing Officer has failed to make enquiries which are called for in the circumstances of the case and it is an order which simply acc…

Sterling Farm Research and Services Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. The PCIT, Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 661/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Feb 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassterling Farm Research & Services Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Pvt. Ltd. Kochi 29/2469 C2, Sterling House Vs. Pettah, Poonithura S.O. Ernakulam 682038 [Pan:Aadcs3199J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raja Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50Section 50B

…g the same would be subject to sec. 263. The decision by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, reported at [1992] 198 ITR 611 (Ker), holding the assessment as without application of mind, was, accordingly, affirmed. In Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del), again with reference to judicial precedents, it stands explained that the order of the AO becomes erroneous on a failure to make enquiry where the circumstances call for it. This is not because there is anything wrong in the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. However, the AO is not only an adjudicator but also…

Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited, Thrissur vs. DCIT Circle 1(1) & Tps Thrissur, Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 628/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin16 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Daskerala State Financial Dy. Cit, Circle - 1(1) & Tps Enterprises Ltd. Thrissur Bhadratha, Museum Road Vs. Chembukkavu - 680020 Thrissur [Pan:Aabct3817A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harikrishnanunny, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 40

…the AO accepting the same would be subject to sec. 263. The decision by the Hon’ble High Court, reported at [1992] 198 ITR 611 (Ker), holding the assessment as without application of mind, was, accordingly, affirmed. In Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del), again with reference to judicial precedents, it stands 2 Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. v. DCIT, Circle - 1(1) & TPS explained that the order of the AO becomes erroneous on a failure to make enquiry where the circumstances call for it. This is not because there is anything wrong in the order if all the facts stated therein are as…

Bhagwati Abhilasha Conventure, Mumbai vs. Circle 26(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1698/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalbhagwati Abhilsha Conventure A/30, Patil Bhuvan, N.S.B. Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400080 Pan: Aahfb9198D ...... Appellant Vs. Pcit, Mumbai-41, Circle 41(2)(1) R. No. 541, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(5)Section 263

…view on the taxability of deemed rent on unsold stock of flats hold by assessee as under: 1. Smt. Tara Devi Agarwal v. CIT [88 ITR 0323] and also Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [67 ITR 0084] 2. Gee Vee Enterprises v Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (1975), 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), 3. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (243 ITR 83) 4. Vedanta Ltd. vs. CIT (2021)124 taxmann.com 435 5. ATC Telecom Tower (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 86 taxmann.com 97 6. CIT v. Bhagwan Das [2005] 272 ITR 367. 7. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. vs. DCIT (2019) 111 taxmann.com 353 8. CIT vs. Sunil Goyal (2009) 176 Taxman 184 (Uttarancha…

Parshottambhai Maganlal Ramotia, Rajkot vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Rajkot-1 - PCIT-1 Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 29/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2017-18 Parshottambhai Maganlal Ramotia, Vs. Pr. Cit-1 C/O. Parli Cosmetic Laser Centre Rajkot. Usha Kiran Apartment 10, Sardar Nagar Main Road Rajkot. Pan : Abjpr 3979 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri R.K. Takwani, Ld.Dr Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Takwani, ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 68Section 69A

…aw. 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.'A1 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) 2931…

Sourabh Sharma, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

…revenue-CIT need not prove that it is erroneous and he can revise it u/s 263. 7 Sourabh Sharma vs. PCIT Rampyari Devi Saraogi v/s CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 Swarup Vegetable Products Industries v. CIT (All) 187 ITR 412 Gee Vee Enterprises v/s. Addl. CIT &Ors. (Del.) 99 ITR 375. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., v. CIT (SC) 243 ITR 83 Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd., v. ITO (ITAT, SB-Chennai), 121 ITD 343: 313 ITR (AT) 182 SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT 2010-TIOL-646-HC-MAD-IT Madras High Court in the case of Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 490 (Mad.) wherein it is held that the powers of the Commissioner are…

Ashish Niranjan Shah, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax -4, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 697/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43(5)

…d. Vs.PCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC)  Sesa Sterlite Limited 92021)123 taxmann.com 217 B(ombay)  Swarup Vegetable Products Vs. CIT [1991] 54 Taxman 175 (Allahabad)  CIT Vs. Maithan International 375 IR 123 (Calcuta)  Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Delhi)  CIT Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bombay)  CIT Vs. M.M.Khambhatwala 198 ITR 144 (Guj)  CIT Vs. Ashok Logani (11 taxmann.com 208, 347 ITR 22) (Delhi HC) 11 Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]  PCIT Vs. Shri Braham Dev Gupta ITA 907/2017 and 1162/2017 (Del HC)  CIT Vs. Toyota Motor Corporation (Delhi) (174 Taxman 395)…

Guala Closures (India) Pvt. Ltd., Panaji vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji., Select City

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 205/PAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Shivshankar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 253Section 263Section 4

…rightly subjected to PCIT’s jurisdiction. We also quote Malabar Industrial Company Ltd., vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC); Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC); Taradevi Aggarwal vs. CIT 1973 AIR 254 (SC); Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del.) and recently reiterated in CIT vs. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd., [2023] 453 ITR 447 (SC); to reject learned counsel’s arguments. The assessee fails in it’s instant substantive ground therefore and the Revenue’s vehement submissions supporting the same stand accepted. 36 ITA.No.205/PAN./2019 10. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above t…

Lalita Sanjivreddy Bodkurwar, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 90/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ven circumstances of the case after placing reliance on Malabar Industrial Company Ltd., vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC); Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC); Taradevi Aggarwal vs. CIT 1973 AIR 254 (SC); Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del.) and recently reiterated in CIT vs. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd., [2023] 453 ITR 447 (SC). The assessee fails in it’s instant appeal therefore. 8 ITA.No.90/Nag./2020 7. We make it clear before parting that the assessee shall be very much at liberty to raise all his factual and legal arguments on all issues in deciding non-applicability of sec…

Gillette India Limited, Spa-65A, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, District- Alwar vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 313/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. ParwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194Section 195Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 313/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 Gillette India Ltd cuke PCIT, Vs. SPA-65A, Industrial Area, Jaipur-1 Bhiwadi District- Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACI 3924 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Ajay…

Shri Champakbhai D. Patel, Bardoli vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (It & Tp), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 15/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.15/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) M/S. Champakbhai D. Patel, Vs. The Cit(It & Tp), Mota Sardar Chowk, Bardoli, Ahmedabad Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Atlpp0997K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Shri S. M. Keshkamat, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ITA No.15/SRT/2023/AY.2013-14 M/s. Champakbhai D. Patel he cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further inquiry but, as observed by Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl CIT [1995] 99 ITR 375], "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. 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 everything stated in the income tax return. In a way, h…

ADIT Infrapower & Multitrading Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4944/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4944 /Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Adit Infrapower & Multitrading Pvt. Vs Pcit, Ltd., Da-08, 2Nd Floor, Vikas Marg, Gurgaon Shakarpur, New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahca5582H Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…entries and whether it is non- genuine.” 9. We have gone through the jurisprudence on this issue relied upon by the ld. PCIT while setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer. 10. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) has observed as under: "The reason is obvious. The position and junction 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…

Shri Budhraj Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-43(6), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the legal issue as well as on merit

ITA 431/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजेश कुमार, लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री संजय शमाा, न्याधयक सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 431/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Budhraj Agarwal.............................................Appellant [PAN: AFBPA 7021 B] Vs. ITO, Ward-43(6), Kolkata [Formerly known as ITO, Ward- 45(2), Kolkata]……………………………………………….Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by – Sh. Sunil Surana, FCA. Department represented by – Sh. Abhijit Kundu,…