Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT

263 ITR 437High Court2003#637 most cited

What is Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT authority for?

For exercising revisional powers under Section 263, the Commissioner must examine the entire record of proceedings, not merely the assessment order, to ascertain whether the Assessing Officer applied their mind or conducted an enquiry on the issues. The 'record' includes all materials available at the time of examination by the Commissioner.

155

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Hari Iron Trading Co v CIT · 263 ITR 437 · Section 263 · revisional powers · Commissioner · PCIT · entire record · assessment order · lack of enquiry · inadequate enquiry · application of mind

Also reported as

131 Taxmann 535267 CTR 442

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 147Section 148Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 145A(b)Section 151

Issues it is cited on

section 145a(b)section 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 114section 10(37)malabar industrialrevision u/s 263lack of enquiryenhanced compensationinadequate enquirysection 131(1)

Judgments citing Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT

Chandrani Compliments & Export (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2365/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.2365/Kol/2019 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Chandrani Compliments & Export (P) Ltd..........…...……………....Appellant 1, Tarpan Ghat Road, Kolkata – 700053. [Pan: Aabcc3652J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata……..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri C. Roy, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 06, 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 14.03.2019 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pcit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Contested The Very Validity Of The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Stated The Chronological Events By Stating That The Return For The Assessment Year Under Consideration I.E. A.Y 2012-13 Was Filed By The Assessee On 01.10.2012 Showing An Income Of Rs.67,5,030/-. Thereafter, The Scrutiny Assessment Was Completed On 19.12.2014 By The Ld. Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Wherein, The Income Of The

Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…in this case, the impugned order was passed by the Assessing Officer after getting approval from the ld. PCIT-4, Kolkata and under such circumstances, the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of “Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT” reported in (2003) 263 ITR 437 has, in para 11 of the said order, held as under: “2.These letters fully support the contention of the petitioner that the case was being monitored by the CIT, Rohtak, from time to time and the assessment order had been passed after a draft order along with the survey file had been forwarded to the CIT for his approval. Once the assessment order…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Delhi vs. M/S Clix Finance India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1428/2018HC Delhi01 Mar 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

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

…the Act, the said authority must record conclusive findings of error and prejudice and cannot remit back the issues for a fresh consideration. 14. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT [(2003) 263 ITR 43 7 (P&H)], CIT v. Eicher Ltd. [(2007) 294 ITR 310 (Del.)], CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108], CIT v. Nirma Chemicals Ltd. [(2009) 309 ITR 67], CIT v. Ashish Rajpal [(2010) 320 ITR 674 (Delhi)]. 15. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record. 16. Vide order dated 06.11.2019, this…

Harmony Yarns Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 348/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.348/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Harmony Yarns Private Vs. The Pcit-1, Limited, Surat Plot-65, 1St Floor Subhash Nagar Society, Ghod Dod Road, Nr. Ram Chowk, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach5895F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Airiju Jaikaran, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/10/2023 23/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…missioner has such results of enquiries, the resultant order cannot be subjected to revision proceedings," 16. Further reliance is placed on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Hart Iron Trading Co. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [263 ITR 437] wherein it was held that even though the assessment order was silent with respect to the issues raised in the 263 order, that by itself did not vest the Commissioner with valid jurisdiction, considering that such issues were considered by the assessing officer and formed part of the assessment record, On page 444 of the judgment, the High Court…

Shri Akshay Kumar, Pathankot vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 6 (1), Pathankot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 204/ASR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.204/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 144Section 148Section 250oSection 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.204/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Akshay Kumar S/o Sh. Chajju Vs. ITO-Ward- 6(1), Ram, H. No. 2/267 Mohalla Pathankot. Mission Road, Distt. Pathankot. [PAN:-AHLPK8458N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh.P. N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement 22.11.2023 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of…

Shri Amritpal Singh (Prop), Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 425/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 110Section 263Section 54D

…consideration of assessee’s response, deduction under section 54D was allowed. The assessee places reliance upon the pronouncement of the jurisdictional High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Hari Iron Trading Co vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 263 ITR 437 wherein it was observed as under:- `The assessee has no control over the way an assessment order is drafted. The assessee on its part had produced enough material on record to show that the matter had been discussed in detail by the AO. The least that the Tribunal could have done was to refer to the assessment record to verify the contentions of…

Girnar Software Private Limited, 6Th Floor, Jaipur Textile Market, B-2, Near Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur vs. PCIT – 2, Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

…ce sought to be raised by the assessee, the same is accepted. The order under appeal is, accordingly, reversed and that passed by the AO is ordered to be revived. Ordered accordingly.” • CIT vs. Girdharilal: 258 ITR 331 (Raj.) • Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H) • CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co: 171 ITR 141 (MP) • CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishonoi: 152 Taxman 242 (Raj.) /198 CTR 546 (Raj.) • CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers: 270 ITR 157 (MP) • CIT vs. Associated Food Profits (P) Ltd: 280 ITR 377 (MP) 12 Girnar Software Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. • Salora International Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT: 2 SOT 705 (Delhi) • Triveni Engg.…

Cambridge Construction (Delhi) Ltd, New Delhi vs. Itoi, Ward-5(3), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6655/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 391

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6655/DEL/2019 [A.Y. 2013-14] M/s Cambridge Construction [Delhi] Ltd Vs. The I.T.O 11, Monnet House, Masjid Moth Ward -5(3) Greater Kailash, Part – II, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AAACC 0295 N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.K. Jain, CA Department By : Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 14.07.2023 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred…

Bani Medical Enterprises, Amritsar vs. Principal Commisioner of Income Tax -1, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 78/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ing the notice u/s 142(1) repetitively related to this cash sale. The assessee fully relied on the order of the Hon’ble High I.T.A. No. 78/Asr/2022 5 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Hari Iron Trading Company Vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 437. The relevant paragraph is extracted as below:- “The Commissioner can exercise powers under subsection (1) of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only after examining the record of any proceedings under the Act. The expression "record” has been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation so as to include all records relating to any proceedings…

Dimlpe Khanna D/O Krishan Kumar Behl, Amritsar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 63/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263oSection 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.63/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dimple Khanna D/o Krishan Vs. PCIT-1, Kumar Behl 61 Kenndey Amritsar. Avenue, Amritsar. [PAN:-ABMPK9535B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. R. K. Magow, CA. Respondent by Smt. Rajinder Kaur, CIT.DR Date of Hearing 07.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement 20.06.2023 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1,Amritsar,[in b…

V.L Jewellers, Delhi vs. Circle-49(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.836/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम V.L. Jewellers, Pr. Commissioner Of 2775, 1St Floor, Gali No. 20-21, Vs. Income Tax, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Circle 49(1), New Delhi. Room No. 1202, 12, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadfv7989A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

…her before holding that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Company vs. CIT, 263 ITR 437 and the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eicher Ltd., 294 ITR 310 submits that the assessee has no control over the way in which the Assessing Officer frame its assessment order. The Ld. Counsel submits that if there is an omission in the assessment order to declare the correctness of facts or the authenticity of the detail…

Shrimati. Lata Narang, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rajinder Kaur, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…ecord. The aforesaid judgment has been followed with approval by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v,y. Eicher Limited: 294 ITR 310. The relevant observations are reproduced hereunder: "15. In Hari Iron Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Income 7nx.(2003) 263 ITR 437, a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that an assessee has no control over the way an assessment order is drafted. It was observed that generally, the issues which are accepted by the Assessing Officer do not find mention in the assessment order and only such points are taken note of on which the assessee's explanations are…

Subhash Chand Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1063/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…t specifically mentioned that he has examined/ verified a particular issue in the assessment order, that would not ipso facto mean that there was non-application of mind on the part of the assessing officer on this issue. [Refer; Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H); CIT v. Eicher Ltd.: 294 ITR 3 lO(Deh); CIT v. Anil Kumar: 335 ITR 83 (Del.); CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.: 203 ITR 108 (Bom.)] 11. That the PCIT erred in not following the binding principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam: 315 ITR 1 and in various other judgements squarely applicable to the facts of the…

Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1061/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…t specifically mentioned that he has examined/ verified a particular issue in the assessment order, that would not ipso facto mean that there was non-application of mind on the part of the assessing officer on this issue. [Refer; Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H); CIT v. Eicher Ltd.: 294 ITR 3 lO(Deh); CIT v. Anil Kumar: 335 ITR 83 (Del.); CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.: 203 ITR 108 (Bom.)] 11. That the PCIT erred in not following the binding principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam: 315 ITR 1 and in various other judgements squarely applicable to the facts of the…

Satish Kumar Dhingra, Haryana vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1060/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…t specifically mentioned that he has examined/ verified a particular issue in the assessment order, that would not ipso facto mean that there was non-application of mind on the part of the assessing officer on this issue. [Refer; Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H); CIT v. Eicher Ltd.: 294 ITR 3 lO(Deh); CIT v. Anil Kumar: 335 ITR 83 (Del.); CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd.: 203 ITR 108 (Bom.)] 11. That the PCIT erred in not following the binding principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghanshyam: 315 ITR 1 and in various other judgements squarely applicable to the facts of the…

Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd., Na

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 106/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

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

…ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act. To support his submission, ld. AR for the assessee relied upon following decisions:  CIT vs. Nirma Chemicals Works (P.) Ltd. 309 ITR 67 (Guj)  Rayon Silk Mills vs. CIT 221 ITR 155 (Guj)  Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT 263 ITR 437 (P&H)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom)  CIT vs. Vikas Polymears 341 ITR 537 (Del)  CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products 333 ITR 547 (Del) 9. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that if two views are possible, revision under section 263 is not justified as the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible view thus, the Assessing Of…

K. N. Diamond, Na

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

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

…ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act. To support his submission, ld. AR for the assessee relied upon following decisions:  CIT vs. Nirma Chemicals Works (P.) Ltd. 309 ITR 67 (Guj)  Rayon Silk Mills vs. CIT 221 ITR 155 (Guj)  Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT 263 ITR 437 (P&H)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom)  CIT vs. Vikas Polymears 341 ITR 537 (Del)  CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products 333 ITR 547 (Del) 9. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that if two views are possible, revision under section 263 is not justified as the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible view thus, the Assessing Of…

Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh, Na

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 102/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh. The Pr.Cit, Alka Society, Chhapara Road, Valsad. Vs. Dist.-Navsari-396445, Gujarat. Pan No. Abgpp 6727 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

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

…Counsel relied upon the following case laws: (i) CIT Vs Nirma Chemicals Works (P) Ltd. 309 ITR 67 (Guj) (ii) Gujarat Power Corporation Vs ACIT 350 ITR 266 (Guj) (iii) Rayon Silk Mills Vs CIT 221 ITR 155 @ 158-159 (Guj) (iv) Hari Iron Trading Co. Vs CIT (2003) 263 ITR 437 (P&H) (v) CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (vi) CIT Vs Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del) (vii)CIT Vs Honda Siel Power Products 333 ITR 547 @ 557-558 (Del) 7. The ld. Senior Counsel submits that the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice dated 30/01/2019 for seeking details of profession, tax audit report and annual account. T…

Veer Plastics Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT -4, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/AHD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: ShriA. P. Singh, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 263Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…The Ld. AR relied upon the followings decisions: " CIT vs. Nirma Chemicals Works (P.) Ltd. - 309 ITR 67 (Guj) " Gujarat Power Corporation vs. ACIT - 350 ITR 266 (Guj) " Rayon Silk Mills vs CIT - 221 ITR 155 @ 158-159 (Guj) " Had Iron Trading Co. v. CIT 12003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) " CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom) " CIT vs. Vikas Polymers - 341 ITR 537 (Del) " CIT vs Honda Siel Power Products - 333 ITR 547 @ 557-558 (Del) " Jai Rashmikant Patel vs. PCIT - IT A 427/A/2020 The Ld. AR submitted that it is settled law that if two views are possible as regards a particular issue and Assessing Officer ad…

Cygnus Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-11(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 26Section 263

…g decisions:- (i) CIT Vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (S.C.); (ii) CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.); (iii) CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Del); (iv) CIT Vs. Vikas Polymers, 236 CTR 476/194 Taxman 57; (v) Hari Iron Trading Co. Vs. CIT, 263 ITR 437 (P&H); (vi) Malabar Industrial Co, Ltd. Vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (S.C.); (vii) CIT Vs, Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. 331 ITR 192(Del.); (viii) CIT Vs. International Travel House Ltd., 194 Taxman 324; (ix) CIT Vs. DLF Power Ltd., 329 ITR 289(Del.); (x) CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd., 294 ITR 310 (De!.); (xi) CIT Vs. Ashish Rajpal, 320 ITR 674 (Del.…

Sh. Mahesh Chugh, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT-2, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT-DR
Section 263

…nd has been allowed after due enquiry. No infirmity in the same is pointed out except for suspicions, those also not based on any facts. 6. In the said background, reliance was placed on various decisions including the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT 263 ITR 437(P&H), ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 239 (Delhi), Director of Income Tax vs. Jyoti Foundation357 ITR 388 (Delhi), PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Merto Express (P.)Ltd. 398 ITR 8 (Delhi) Abhimanyu Gupta vs. Pr. CIT ITA No. 771/Chandi/2017 to support the prayer that the order may be quashed. 6.1. Specific attention was invited to the decis…