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

Issues it is cited on

malabar industrialinadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263prejudicial to interest of revenuelack of enquiryrevision under section 263section 263(1)non application of mindassessment order erroneouserroneous and prejudicialincome-tax officersection 244a

Judgments citing Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT

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

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

ITA 182/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Aug 2019AY 2007-08
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…

M/S. Pure Software Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 715/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblepure Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito C/O. M/S Rra Tax India, Ward-20(2) D-28, South Extension, Part-1 C. R. Building New Delhi New Delhi Aadcp5432B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 195Section 40Section 5Section 5(2)Section 9

…ights income tax in any cases where the DTAA is beneficial to 5 non residence. The Ld. AR relied upon the following judicial decisions (i) Gama Industries Coimbatur Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 54 SOT 104 (Che. Tri.) (ii) Grasim Industries Ltd. & ors Vs. CIT(A) (2011) 332 ITR 276 (ii) ACIT Vs. Paradigim Geo Physical Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 11 DTR 174 (Del. Tri.). 6. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer was not correct in attracting provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) by treating the payment as royalty and fees for technical services whereas the fact was that in the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 20…

Top Class Capital Markets P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-1(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 4663/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4663/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : (2010-11) बिाम/ M/S. Top Class Capital Dcit-1(3)(2), Markets (P.) Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Bombay Mutual R.No. 540, M.K Road, V. Fund Building, Dr. D.N. Mumbai 400020 Road, Fort, Mumbai 400001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aacct5800G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Jitendra Jain Revenue By: Shri. O.P Meena (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 4663/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 04.05.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-3/Dcit-1(3)(2)/It-14/2016-17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 01.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.4663/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri. O.P Meena (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “E” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4663/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : (2010-11) बिाम/ M/s. Top Class Capital DCIT-1(3)(2), Markets (P.) Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 2nd floor, Bombay Mutual R.No. 540, M.K Road, v. Fund Building, Dr. D.N. Mumbai 400020 Road, Fort, Mumbai 400001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: AACCT5800G (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. Jitendra Jain Revenue by: Shri. O.P Meena (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख…

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

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

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

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

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Ravish Sood(JM) I.T.A. No. 2969/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14) Shree Swami Samartha PCIT-21 Developers Vs. Piramal Chambers 19-B, Suyash, Gokhale Parel Road North), Dadar (West) Mumbai-400 012. Mumbai-400 028. PAN : AABFS7754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Girish Dave & Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar Department by Shri K. Madhusudan Date of Hearing 25.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement 31.10.2018 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the validity of the revision ord…

Acc Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 4581/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acc Ltd. (Formerly Known Commissioner Of As The Associated Cement Income Tax-Ltu Vs. Companies Ltd.) Cement Mumbai. House, 121, M.K. Road, Mumbai. Pan No. Aaact1507C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Yogesh Thar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. R.P. Meena, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/10/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Yogesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. R.P. Meena, CIT DR
Section 263Section 32

…Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282) (SC), CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) (Bom HC), CIT v. Grasim Industries Ltd. (2014) 226 Taxman 165 (Bom HC), CIT v. LIC Housing Finance Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 458/272 CTR 10 (Bom HC) and Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom HC). Further the Ld. counsel submits that both conditions of section 263 i.e. order is ‘erroneous’ and ‘prejudicial to the interest of revenue’ are conjuctive. He relies on the decision in CIT v. Greenworld Corporation (181 Taxman 111) (SC), Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83) (SC), CIT v. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282) (SC). Finall…

Melaila Resorts Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 799/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. Melaila Resorts Pvt. Ltd., V. Prl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-2 Room No.344, 3Rd Floor, Bharat Insurance Building, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 3Rd Floor, 15-A, Mumbai-400 020 Horniman Circle, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan: Aaecm 9152 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel Department By : Shri V. Sreekar

For Appellant: Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri V. Sreekar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(2)(i)

…prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions: - a. CIT v. Max India Ltd., [295 ITR 282 (SC)] b. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., v. CIT [243 ITR 83 (SC)] c. Grasim Industries Ltd., v. CIT [321 ITR 92 (Bom.)] d. CIT. v. Gabriel India Ltd., [203 ITR 108 (Bom.)] e. M/s. Real Trade Technologies v. Prl. CIT in ITA.No. 2929/Mum/2016 dated 22.07.2016. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that no proper inquiries were made by the Assessing Officer and nothing has been dealt with by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order. Ld. DR also submitted…

The J.K. Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. The relevant portion from the order is reproduced hereunder:- “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…

Maharashtra Airport Development, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

…jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. The relevant portion from the order is reproduced hereunder:- “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…

Sharad Bhagwat Tembwalkar, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 27, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 530/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhmr. Sharad Bhagwant Principle Commissioner Of Tembwalkar, Flat No. 1501, Income-Tax -27 Adonis Building, Raheja Mumbai. Acropolis, Near Telecom Vs. Factory, Govanid, Mumbai -400088 Pan:Advpt6884B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Dhiren P. Talati (Ar) Revenue By : Sh. Manjunatha Swamy (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 17.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act (‘The Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax -27, Mumbai

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiren P. Talati (AR)For Respondent: Sh. Manjunatha Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 54F

…rt). 2. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC). 3. Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. CIT 301 ITR 407 (Bom. High Court) 4. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC). 5. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom. High Court). 6. Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT 321 ITR 92 (Bom. High Court). 7. CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 ( Del. High Court). 8. Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO (ITA No. 2690 & 2691) (Mum ITAT). 9. PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 705) (Del. High Court). 10. Amira Pure Foods (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITA No. 3205) (Del. ITAT). 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue supporte…

ACIT Cir 7(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Laxmi Venture (India) Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6379/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Circle-7(1)(2) M/S. Laxmi Venture India Room No.130, First Floor, बनाम/ Ltd., 36/40, Mahalaxmi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bridge Arcade, Vs. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 037 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacl1982G यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Haridas Bhat याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Ms. Aarju Garodia ुनवाई की तायीख / 12/03/2018 Date Of Hearing : आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 12/03/2018

Section 263Section 73

…al India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom.) b) CIT vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 206(Bom.) c) CIT vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi (2008) 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) d) CIT vs Design & Automation Engineers (Bom.) Pvt. Ltd. 323 ITR 632 e) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs CIT 321 ITR 92 & f) Fiduciary Shares & Stocks Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.321/Mum/2013) order dated 13/05/2016. g) 338 ITR 435 (Delhi) h) 379 ITR 222 (Delhi) The ld. counsel took us to the aforesaid order dated 13/05/2016, passed by the Tribunal and the finding recorded in para 5.6.3 of the order, wherein, discussion has been made with respect to amendment in explanation…

Kabir Sudhir Mulji, Mumbai vs. DIT (It) II, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3301/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Kabir Sudhir Mulji, Director Of Income Tax Anand Bhavan, 501, (International Taxation)Ii, 2Nd Babulnath X Lane, Scindia House, Vs. Chowpatty, Gr. Flr., Mumbai-7 R/No.007, N.M. Marg, Pan: Aahpm1375M Ballard Pier, Mumbai - 38 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aasifa Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(vi)

…lied upon the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (243 ITR 83, SC), CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282 SC). She also relied upon the decisions of various High Courts in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (321 ITR 92, Bom) and CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd. (329 ITR 289, Del.). The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the order of Ld. 5 Shri Kabir Sudhir Mulji DIT(IT) is a non-speaking order. The Ld. A.R. submitted that liquidated damages are not taxable either as capital gain or revenue receipt. She also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pa…

Noble Medicals Bcjc Hospitals, Mumbai vs. CIT City-16, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3207/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Noble Medicals Bcjc Cit, City-16, Hospitals, S.V. Road, Santacruz, Mumbai. Mumbai-400054. Versus Pan No.Aagfn4356A Applicant Respondent

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Noble Medicals BCJC CIT, City-16, Hospitals, S.V. Road, Santacruz, Mumbai. Mumbai-400054. Versus PAN No.AAGFN4356A Applicant Respondent Applicant by Shri Vipul Joshi - Advocate Respondent by Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh –(CIT- DR) Date of hearing: 05/02/2018 Date of order: 05/02/2018 ORDER PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee under section 253 of the Income Tax Act (the Act) is directed against the order of ld. CIT-16(3), Mumbai passed under section 26…

Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (HUF), Mumbai vs. Jt CIT RG 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1435/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhbibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Cit-19, Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Piramal Chambers, Parel, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Jt.Cit-Range-19(1), Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi (Ar Revenue By : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 .02.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi (ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263

…on is not in agreement with the view taken by AO would not render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The reliance is made in case of 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. Gera Developments (P) Ltd. [(2016) 387 ITR 691(Bom)] and CIT vs. Kiran Hirji Shah [(2015) 56 taxmann.com 360(Bom)]. 6. In further alternative submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that no revisional power should be exercised for directing full enquiry, where the…

Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (HUF), Mumbai vs. CIT 19, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5129/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhbibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Cit-19, Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Piramal Chambers, Parel, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Jt.Cit-Range-19(1), Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi (Ar Revenue By : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 .02.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi (ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263

…on is not in agreement with the view taken by AO would not render the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The reliance is made in case of 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. Gera Developments (P) Ltd. [(2016) 387 ITR 691(Bom)] and CIT vs. Kiran Hirji Shah [(2015) 56 taxmann.com 360(Bom)]. 6. In further alternative submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that no revisional power should be exercised for directing full enquiry, where the…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4086/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (2010) 320 ITR 674 (Delhi) (iv) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (vi) Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) (vii) CIT vs. Malabar Industries (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (viii) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2010) 194 taxman 57 (Delhi) (ix) CiT vs. Goetz (I) Ltd. 2014 361 ITR 505 (Delhi) 10. It is submitted that, assessee was specifically asked by the Ld. AO to submit details inter-alia, regarding deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and in response to these queri…

Jsw Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4064/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (2010) 320 ITR 674 (Delhi) (iv) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (vi) Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) (vii) CIT vs. Malabar Industries (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (viii) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2010) 194 taxman 57 (Delhi) (ix) CiT vs. Goetz (I) Ltd. 2014 361 ITR 505 (Delhi) 10. It is submitted that, assessee was specifically asked by the Ld. AO to submit details inter-alia, regarding deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and in response to these queri…

Jsw Steels Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4063/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (2010) 320 ITR 674 (Delhi) (iv) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (vi) Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) (vii) CIT vs. Malabar Industries (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (viii) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2010) 194 taxman 57 (Delhi) (ix) CiT vs. Goetz (I) Ltd. 2014 361 ITR 505 (Delhi) 10. It is submitted that, assessee was specifically asked by the Ld. AO to submit details inter-alia, regarding deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and in response to these queri…

Jsw Stel Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4062/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja
Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (2010) 320 ITR 674 (Delhi) (iv) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (v) CIT vs. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (vi) Grasim Ind. Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 321 ITR 92 (Bom) (vii) CIT vs. Malabar Industries (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (viii) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2010) 194 taxman 57 (Delhi) (ix) CiT vs. Goetz (I) Ltd. 2014 361 ITR 505 (Delhi) 10. It is submitted that, assessee was specifically asked by the Ld. AO to submit details inter-alia, regarding deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and in response to these queri…

American Spring & Pressing Works Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT - 12, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 2830/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35(1)(ii)Section 45(2)

…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. 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 s…

Dun & Bradstreet Information Services India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 8, Mumbai

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

ITA 3989/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dun & Bradstreet Information Vs. The Commissioner Of Services India Pvt. Ltd., Icc Income Tax, Chambers, 98, Saki Vihar Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Powai, Mumbai 400 072 M. K. Road, Mumbai Pan: Aaacd P Appellant .. Respondent

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 263Section 436Section 50B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM Dun & Bradstreet Information Vs. The Commissioner of Services India Pvt. Ltd., ICC Income Tax, Chambers, 98, Saki Vihar Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Powai, Mumbai 400 072 M. K. Road, Mumbai PAN: AAACD P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by Shri F. B. Irani, AR Respondent by Shri Abhinay Kumbhar, DR Date of hearing: 06-05-2016 Date of pronouncement: 28-09-2016 O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN,JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order No.CIT.8/263(14)/2011-12 of the…