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

M/S Mag India Industrial Automation Systems Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Bangalore-4, Bangalore

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

ITA 2218/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear: 2014-15

For Appellant: Smt. K. Soumya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…regard to the power of Learned CIT to invoke revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act. 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 in the case of M/s. Mag India Industrial Automation Systems Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 3 of 5 Malabar Industrial Co Ltd (243 ITR 80). The relevant observations made by Hon’ble Bombay High Court are extracted below: “Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 empowers the Commissio…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2370/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Vaghasiya Exports, Pr. Cit-32, C-11, Bharat Diamond Bourse, 2Nd Floor, Ae-2080, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Bandra Kurla Compex, Bandra Kurla Compex, Bandra (E), Bandra East, Mumbai Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aaafv 2061Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Shivram, A.R. & Shri Rahul Hakani, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2018 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Hereinafter Referred To As The Pcit Relevant To Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “Order Passed U/S. 263 Is Bad-In-Law & Liable To Be Quashed 1. The Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Issuing Notice U/S.263 Of The Act Based Upon The Proposal Received From Ito / Jt. Cit & Not By Suo-Moto Examination Of Records & Application Of Mind & Thus, The Revision Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act Are Carried Out Upon The Directions Of Ito / Jt. Cit Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Sec. 263 Of The Act & Hence, Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivram, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law or against the facts of the case, the revisionary proceedings under section 263 by the Ld. PCIT is invalid and without jurisdiction. The Ld. A.R. relied on the decision of Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom.) and CIT vs. Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom.). The Ld. A.R. also submitted that SLP filed by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court also stands dismissed as reported in CIT vs. Nirav Modi (2017) 77 Taxman.com 78 SC. The Ld. A.R. submitted that where there are two possible views and AO has taken one of the possible views, then resor…

Goldmohur Design and Apparel Park Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm. of Income Tax - 7, Mumbai

ITA 3971/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodgoldmohar Design & Pr. Cit-7 R. No. 628, 6Th Floor, Apparel Park Ltd. 145, Goldmohar Mill, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Dada Saheb Phalke Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Dadar (E), Mumbai- 400 014 Pan – Aadcg1613M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri. T. Kipgen &

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

…the judgments of the Hon‘ble High Court of Bombay in the case of viz. (i) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom); (ii) Goldmohar Desine and Apparel Park Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT-7 20 ITA No.3971/Mum/2017 A.Y 2012-13 Grasim Industry Ltd. Vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom); (iii) CIT Vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 458 (Bom); (iv) CIT Vs. Gera Development (P) Ltd. (2016) 387 ITR 691 (Bom); and (v) CIT Vs. Kiran Hirji Shah (2015) 56 Taxman.com 360 (Bom). On the basis of his aforesaid contentions, it was the claim of the ld. A.R that if the A.O while framing the assessment had adopted one of the poss…

M/S. Subhlabh Steels (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2047/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2047/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.2047/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) M/s Subhlabh Steels (P) Ltd. Vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata 2nd Floor, Room No. 202, 1, British India Street, Kolkata- 700069 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAECA 4597 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA Respondent by :Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 29/01/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 20/03/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Dr. A.L. Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the Ass…

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT 9, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 3159/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3159/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Afcons Infrastructure Limited Pr. Cit-9 16, Afcons House Room No.214, Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, M.K. Road Shah Industrial Estate Vs. Veera Desai Road, Andheri West Mumbai. Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-9067-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Nitesh Joshi-Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anadi Varma-Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 05/09/2019 & 19/12/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 17/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri J.D. Mistry & Nitesh Joshi-Ld. ArsFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma-Ld.CIT-DR

Section 263

…1 Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Assessment Year-2014-15 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ऐ” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी श""जीत दे,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमारअ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3159/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2014-15) Afcons Infrastructure Limited Pr. CIT-9 16, Afcons House Room No.214, Aaykar Bhavan बनाम/ 2nd Floor, M.K. Road Shah Industrial Estate Vs. Veera Desai Road, Andheri West Mumbai. Mumbai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACA-9067-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respo…

Sleek International, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 32(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 3327/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri Vijay Mehta & Govind Jhaveri-For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar - Ld.CIT-DR

Section 263

…er is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been reiterated by Hon’ble Court in its subsequent judgement 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). 3 M/s. Sleek International Assessment Year :2014-15 1.2 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, 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 "erro…

Asian Homes P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 9, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2593/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: S/Shri Paras Nath &For Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma-Ld.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56

…1 M/s. Asian Homes Private Limited Assessment Year-2013-14 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी श""जीत दे,"ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमारअ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2593/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) M/s. Asian Homes Private Limited Pr. CIT-9 बनाम/ 2nd Floor, Room No.214 GF, Kiraboo Building CTS, E/291, 13th Road, Khar (West) Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Mumbai-400 052. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAGCA-6734-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) ("…

Anand Lilaram Raisinghani, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 16, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal stands partly allowed to the extent specified in the order

ITA 3385/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Anadi Varma - Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 43B

…1 Mr. Anand Lilaram Raisinghani Assessment Year-2014-15 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ऐ” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3385/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Mr. Anand Lilaram Raisinghani Pr. CIT-16 A-3205/3206 R.No.442, Aaykar Bhawan बनाम/ Oberoi Springs, Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. M.K.Road Vs. Off Link Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai. Mumbai-400 053. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AACPR-…

Hi-Rock Construction Co., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4327/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Hi Rock Construction Co. Pr. Cit -32 C-11, 2Nd Floor, 903, A, Gurukul Tower, Cst No. 890, J. S. Road, Dahisar (W), Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan: Aaffh6403B Mumbai. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi with Shri Shubham Rathi (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…n of law that no revision, if Assessing Officer follow the course permissible, relied upon the decision of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)], CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], Grasim Industry Ltd. Vs. CIT [(2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom)], CIT vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. [(2014) 367 ITR 458 (Bom)], CIT vs. Kiran Hirji Shah [(2015) 56 taxmann.com 360(Bom)], Micro Inks Limited vs. CIT [(2018) 407 ITR 861 (Guj.)], Sunil Bhandari vs. ACIT [(2013) 141 ITD 10 (Jodhpur Trib.)] & CIT vs. DLF Ltd. [(2013) 350 ITR 555 (Del.)]. 19. On third alternative preposition that no revision…

Spirit Infrapower and Multiventures Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 8, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3081/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: S/shri V. Chandra Sekhar, Harshad Shah, A.RsFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT,DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 32(1)

…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…

Invitrogen Bioservices India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 868/BANG/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai, Judical Member

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT,DR

Section 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…d therefore cannot be treated as erroneous. As both conditions are not satisfied in present case, we are unable to uphold proceedings under section 263. We also refer to decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Grasim Industries Ltd vs CIT reported in 321 ITR 92, wherein Hon’ble Court by considering ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd (supra) observed as under: “section 263 of the income tax act, 1961 empowers the Commissioner to call for and examined the record of any proceedings under the act and, if he considers that any order passed therein, by the assessing o…

Sai Enterprises, Thane vs. Pr. CIT- 2, Thane

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 3075/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3075/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sai Enterprises Pr. Cit-2 2Nd Floor, Rosa Vista Ashar I.T. Pak, “B” Wing बनाम/ 6Th Floor, Wagle Indl. Estate Opp. Suraj Water Park Vs. Ghodbunder Road, Thane(W) Thane(E), Maharashtra. Maharashtra. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaefs-0841-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh - Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 15/11/2019 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 Subodh Ratnaparkhi-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh - Ld.Sr.DR

Section 263

…er is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been reiterated by Hon’ble Court in its subsequent judgement 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). 3 Sai Enterprises Assessment Year :2014-15 1.2 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, 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 jud…

Blue Star Ltd., Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1941/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri N.S. Jangpangi – Ld. DR

Section 263

…er is unsustainable in law. The said principal has been reiterated by Hon’ble Court in its subsequent judgement 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, CIT V/s Vikas Polymers (supra), further observed that as regards the scope and ambit of the expression 3 Blue Star Ltd Assessment Year :2013-14 "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 judgm…

Smt. Malini Subramanian, Mysore vs. Pr. CIT, Mysore

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

ITA 935/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaranassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Shreehari Kutsa, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

…regard to the power of Learned CIT to invoke revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act. 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 in the case of Page 4 of 7 Malabar Industrial Co Ltd (243 ITR 80). The relevant observations made by Hon’ble Bombay High Court 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 th…

Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd., Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2047/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Laxmi Vara Prasad Gude , D.R

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 41Section 41(1)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Ganesh Benzoplast Pr. CIT-1, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 1st Floor, Mumbai - 400020 Dina Bldg., 53, Vs. M.K. Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400 020 PAN: AAACG1259J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Haridas Bhat, C.A. Revenue by : Shri Laxmi Vara Prasad Gude , D.R. Date of Hearing : 15.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 11.09.2019 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the…

Aruna Baid, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 18, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2423/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Verma

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…the interests of Revenue, the order passed under section 263 of the Act is wholly without jurisdiction, hence, should be set aside. In support of such contention, he relied upon the following decisions:– 6 Arun Baid i) Grasim Industries Ltd. v/s CIT, [2010] 321 ITR 92 (Bom.); ii) CIT v/s Nirav Modi, [2017] 390 ITR 292 (Bom.); iii) CIT v/s Fine Jewellery India Ltd., [2015] 372 ITR 303 (Bom.); and iv) Small Wonder Industries v/s CIT, ITA no.2464/Mum./2013, dated 24.02.2017. 4. The learned Departmental Representative strongly defending the order passed under section 263 of the Act submitted, the assessment order d…

Deputy Commssioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Kumar Kondiba Shingare, Pune

In the result, all the five appeals of the Revenue dismissed

ITA 394/PUN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2019AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu

Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

…u/s 9(1)(vii) of ITA, 1961; which qualified twin test i.e. - that the services should be rendered in India - that the services should be utilized in India The said apex court ruling was applied in various decisions such as Grasim Industries Ltd Vs. CIT (2011) 332 ITR 276 (Bombay) (Flag No B- 13 of legal compilation) & Jindal Thermal Power Co.Ltd Vs. DCIT (TDS) 321 ITR 31 (Karnataka-HC) (Flag No B-08 of legal compilation). Copies of all these decisions are placed on record. Though the law was amended in year 2010 with retrospectively w.r.f. 1/6/76, by that time, the transactions for AY 2003- 04 to AY 2007-08 were…