How many judgments cite Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT?

194 judgments on BharatTax cite Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT (321 ITR 92), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

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

Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT

321 ITR 92High Court2010#483 most cited

What is Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

This case clarifies the scope of the Commissioner's revisional powers under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, holding that an assessment order can only be revised if it is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, echoing the principles laid down in Malabar Industrial.

194

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT · Grasim Industries 321 ITR 92 · Section 263 Income Tax Act · revision u/s 263 · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · scope of revisional powers · inadequate enquiry · non-application of mind · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. · CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd · assessment order erroneous

Also reported as

188 Taxmann 32723 Taxmann.com 31

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 144B Section 148 Section 10(37)Section 145A(b)

Issues it is cited on

malabar industrial inadequate enquiry revision u/s 263 prejudicial to interest of revenue lack of enquiry revision under section 263 section 263(1)non application of mind assessment order erroneous erroneous and prejudicial income-tax officer section 244a

Judgments citing Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT

Siddappa B T, Mandya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 363/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudavathu Harish Chandra Naik

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…bstantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.” 14. The scope of revision proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act was considered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. V CIT (321 ITR 92) by taking into account the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant observations are extracted below: Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and, if he considers that any order passed therein, by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so…

Niagara Financial Consultants P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, City-6, Mumbai

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

ITA 762/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.762/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ Niagara Financial Pr. Cit, City-6 Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C-201, Kailash Explanade, Aayakar Bhavan, Lbs Marg, Opp. Sheryas Maharshi Karve Road, Theatre, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400086. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn1918R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Revenue By: Shri Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-06, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015-16 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. 1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Iii Law, Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Passing The Revision Order U/S.263 Though The Reassessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) Is Not Erroneous Anti In So Far Is Not Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue 2.0 The Ld. Pr. Cit, Before Setting Asides The Assessment Ordev.De Novo On Invoking Sec 263(I), Ought To Have Considered The Understated Facts, Being;

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.762/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ Niagara Financial Pr. CIT, City-6 Room No.501, 5th Floor, Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C-201, Kailash Explanade, Aayakar Bhavan, LBS Marg, Opp. Sheryas Maharshi Karve Road, Theatre, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400086. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCN1918R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Revenue by: Shri Mahesh Akhade (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date…

M/S. Asaria Lalji Vador, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 559/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blem/S. Asaria Lalji Vador V. Office Of Pcit – 27 C-21, Mahavir Jyot Room No. 401, 4Th Floor Opp. Odeon Shopping Centre Tower No. 6 Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400077 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan: Aabpv0149A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

…CIT (2005) 96 TTJ 827 (Jodh) (Trib) ii. Laj Exports, 142 ITD 306 (Cha) iii. Patkai Coal Products (P.) Ltd. 356 ITR 258 (Gau). iv. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) v. CIT v. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC) vi. Grasim Industries Ltd. V. CIT, 321 ITR 92 7 M/s. Asaria Lalji Vador vii. Sutures India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 431 ITR 432 (Kar.) viii. Delhi Tribunal Special Bench in the case of Salora International Ltd. v. Ad. CIT [2005] 2 SOT 705 (Delhi)(Trib.)] ix. PCIT vs. V. Dhana Reddy & Co. — [2018] 100 taxmann.com (SC) x. CIT vs. International Society For Krishna Consciousness - [2020] 117 taxmann.com…

K R Mahesha, Maddur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore-3, Bangalore

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

ITA 365/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessmentyear:2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 263Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

M/S. Shree Shivalingeshwara Arecanut Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 142/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT (DR OSD)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 263

…PCIT. 8. We heard the parties and perused the record. The scope of revision proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act was ITA Nos.140 to 142/Bang/2021 Page 6 of 13 examined by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. V CIT (321 ITR 92) by taking into account the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant observations are extracted below: Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and, if he considers that any order passed therein, by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so…

M/S. Shree Shivalingeshwara Arecanut Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 141/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT (DR OSD)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 263

M/S. Shree Shivalingeshwara Arecanut Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 140/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore07 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT (DR OSD)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 263

M/S. Doddanna Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 139/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 263

…he Ld D.R supported the orders passed by Ld PCIT. 8. We heard the parties and perused the record. The scope of revision proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act was examined by Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. V CIT (321 ITR 92) by taking into account the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant observations are extracted below: “Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner to call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and, if he considers that any order passed therein, by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so…

M/S. Doddanna Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 138/BANG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 263

M/S. Doddanna Traders, Shivamogga vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 137/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 263

Reliance Life Sciences P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-8, Mumbai

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 533/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.533/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.534/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit - 8 Dhirubhai Ambani Life Sciences Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बिाम/ R-282, Ttc Area Of Midc Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Thane Belapur Road, Rabale, Navi Mumbai-400 701 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcr-7594-L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Nimesh Vora-Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anand Mohan-Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 07/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 05/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 As Per The Provisions Of Section 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961, The Revenue Authorities Namely Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax / Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Vested With The Supervisory Powers Of Suo-Moto Revision Of Any Order Passed By The Assessing Officer [Ao]. For The Said Purpose, The Appropriate Authority May Call For & Examine

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan-Ld. CIT-DR

Section 263

…cer is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been reiterated by Hon’ble Court in its subsequent judgment titled as CIT V/s Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). Similar principal has been followed by jurisdictional High Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). 1.2 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (supra), further observed that as regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)], held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" means "one rendered according to c…

Reliance Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (PCIT)-3, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 578/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 263

…cer is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been reiterated by Hon’ble Court in its subsequent judgment titled as CIT V/s Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). Similar principal has been followed by jurisdictional High Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). 1.2 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (supra), further observed that as regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)], held with reference to Black's Law 3 M/s Reliance Industries Limited Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dictionary that…

Misys Trade & Risk Management India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 7(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1800/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Misys Trade & The Acit, Risk Management India Circle-7(2)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No.573, 5Th Floor, 1302, Tower-3, Aayakar Bhavan, Indiabulls Finance Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Centre, Mumbai - 400020 Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaect1497K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nitessh Joshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.11.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nitessh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…preme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Also, support his drawn from the judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd (1993)203 ITR 108 (Bom). Accordingly, not being able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by the Pr.CIT that the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3), dated 23.12.2016 was erroneous insofar it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, we „set aside‟ his order and restore the order pass…

Keva Frgrances Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 4 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 334/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Bhat, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, D.R

Section 115J

…preme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT Vs. Max India Ltd (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). Also, support his drawn from the judgments of the Hon‟ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) and CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd (1993)203 ITR 108 (Bom). Accordingly, not being able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by the Pr.CIT that the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3), dated 19 ITA No.334/M/2020 & ors. M/s. Keva Fragrances P. Ltd. & ors. 23.12.2016 was erroneous insofar it was prejudicial to the interest of…

Vaghasiya Exports, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 32, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2288/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2288/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Vaghasiya Exports Pr. Cit-32 Ae-2080, 2Nd Floor C-11, 2Nd Floor, Pratyakshakar Bhavan बिाम Bharat Diamond Bourse Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) / Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai- 400 051. Mumbai 400 051 Pan: Aaafa-2061-Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Dr. K.Shivram- Ld. Sr. Counsel Revenue By : Shri H.N.Singh – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/05/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 27/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Challenges The Invocation Of Revisional Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-32, Mumbai (Pr. Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Vide Order Dated 18/03/2019. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:- 1. The Ld. Pr.Cit Erred In Passing Revision U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) Revising Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) On The Issue Of Addition Of Alleged Bogus Purchases Without Appreciating That Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue As During Assessment Proceedings Ld. Ao Had Specifically Raised Queries Pertaining To Alleged Bogus Purchases & After Considering The Evidences Produced By The Appellant, Made

For Appellant: Dr. K.Shivram- Ld. Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri H.N.Singh – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…was found that the action of Ld. AO was not in accordance with law or perverse, in any manner. This being the case, the revision could not be held to be justified as per the ratio laid down by jurisdictional High court in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (2010; 321 ITR 92). 8. Proceeding further, we find that revisional jurisdiction was exercised by revisional authority on similar facts in assessee’s own case for AY 2009-10 which came up for challenge before this Tribunal. The coordinate bench quashed the revision by observing as under: - 7. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we not…

Shrimati Ravinder Bawa, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 703/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…e of jurisdiction under section 263, was that the order sought to be revised must be erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue. When two views were possible, the assessment could not be revised. Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 / 229 CTR 347 / 35 DTR 142 (Bom. Since an enquiry was specifically held with reference to which a disclosure of details was called for by the Assessing Officer and made by the assessee, the observation of the CIT that the Assessing Officer had arrived at his findings without conducting an enquiry was erroneous and therefore the CIT wrongly exercis…

The Sasme Co-Op. Society Ltd, Surat vs. Pr, CIT-2, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/SRT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.Ta No.185/Srt/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Sasme Co-Op. Society Ltd, Vs. The Principal Sasme Bhavan Kotsafil Main Commissioner Of Income Road, Surat – 395 003. Tax, Surat-2. [Pan: Aaaas 3507 M] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रतीकीओर से/Assessee By Shri Hiren R.Vepari – Ar राज"कीओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra - Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 25.02.2021 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 03.03.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat-2, (Pcit), Passed Under Section 263 Of Income-Tax Act Dated 16Th March 2020. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “(1) The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Was Not Justified In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Without Satisfying Conditions. (2) The Appellant Submits That The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Ought Not To Have Invoked Provision Of Section 263 On The Very Same Point On Which The Assessing Officer Had Made Enquiry & Had Taken Position. (3) The Appellant Further Submit The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Did Not Appreciate The Subtle Portion Of Law We Are Proceeding Under Section 263 Do Not Extend To Sustain A Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Office To Take A Different View In The Same Matter. (5) The Learned Pcit Was Driving By Extraneous Consideration In Not Dropping The Proceeding Under Section 263.”

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

…JHM Hotels Ltd., vs. PCIT, ITA No.301/SRT/2018.  Aryan Arcade Ltd., Vs. PCIT, [2019] 412 ITR 277 (Guj).  CIT Vs Mepco Industries Ltd., [2007] 207 CTR 642 (Mad).  Ranka Jewellers Vs. Addl. CIT [2010] 38 DTR 293 (Bom).  Grasim Industries Ltd Vs. CIT [2010] 321 ITR 92(Bom).  Skyline Builders Vs. CIT [2019] 412 ITR 182 (Ker).  CIT Vs. Sunil Lamba [2019] 412 ITR 480 (Delhi).  Siddh International Vs. CIT [2009] 19 DTR 281 (Ahd Trib.).  Shaileshbhai Shah Vs. ACIT [2005] 98 TTJ 154 (Ahd).  Jet Electronics Vs. ACIT [2008] 116 TTJ 225 (Ahd).  Gujarat Guardian Ltd., Vs. DCIT [2008] 11 DTR 370 (Delhi Tribunal). …

Vrutti Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-29, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1085/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Batham-Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…aw. The said principal has been reiterated by Assessment Year: 2014-15 Hon’ble Court in its subsequent judgment titled as CIT V/s Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). Similar principal has been followed by jurisdictional High Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (194 Taxman 57 16/08/2010) observed that as regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)], held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" means "one rendered according t…

Jai Hind Co-Op Hsg. Soc Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-25, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1762/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1763/Mum/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1762/Mum/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Jai Hind Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Acit-25(2) 2Nd Floor, Room No.241 Plot No.51, N.S.Road No.11 बनाम Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle(W) Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block / Vs. Mumbai-400 049 Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400 051 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaaj-2782-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rajesh R. Shah-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Pratap Singh-Ld.Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 10/02/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 12/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh R. Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Pratap Singh-Ld.CIT DR

Section 263Section 80(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(d)

…rt in its subsequent judgment titled as CIT V/s Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). Similar principal has been Jai Hind Co-operative Housing Society Limited Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 followed by jurisdictional High Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (194 Taxman 57 16/08/2010) observed that as regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)], held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" means "one rendered according t…

Versova Shanti Co-Operative Housing Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 25, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1056/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Tikekar-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Lalit Dehiya -Ld.CIT-DR

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

…cer is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been reiterated by Hon’ble Court in its subsequent judgment titled as CIT V/s Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282). Similar principal has been followed by jurisdictional High Court in Grasim Industries Ltd. V/s CIT (321 ITR 92). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (194 Taxman 57 16/08/2010) observed that as regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993 203 ITR 108 (Bombay)], held with reference to Black's 5 Versova Shanti Co-op. Housing Soc. Ltd. Assessment Year : 2015-16 Law Di…