Which sections of the Income Tax Act does High Courts in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 263, Section 115BBE, Section 133A, Section 142(1), Section 143(2).

High Courts in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Q: How many judgments cite High Courts in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT?

21 judgments on BharatTax cite High Courts in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (155 ITD 171), spanning 2017 to 2025.

155 ITD 171Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2015#5514 most cited

What is High Courts in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

The Commissioner is entitled to revise an assessment order under Section 263 when the Assessing Officer fails to make proper inquiries, particularly concerning the receipt of share application money, leading to an erroneous assessment prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · 155 ITD 171 · Section 263 · inadequate enquiry · prejudicial to interest of revenue · lack of enquiry · on money receipt · non application of mind · CIT revision powers · share application money

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263 Section 115BBE Section 133A Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144B Section 35D

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiry prejudicial to interest of revenue legal expenses lack of enquiry on money receipt non application of mind section 263(1)percentage completion method malabar industrial penny stock erroneous and prejudicial principal commissioner of income-tax

Judgments citing High Courts in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

QADER ABDUL RAZZAQUE ABDUL,AURANGABAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 937/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.937/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Qader Abdul Razzaque Abdul, Principal Commissioner M/S. Captain Color Home Opp. Of Income Tax, Nashik-1 Bhartiya Hospital Raja Bazar Chh. Vs. Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad), Pin Code-431001 Pan : Acqpk8963L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Department By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 24-06-2025 Date Of 04-09-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 69

…upheld the revision done by the CIT. 8 ITA No.937/PUN/2024, AY 2019-10 15. In the case of Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO dated 29.11.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the law as laid down by the High Courts in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT [155 ITD 171 (Kol)], Rajmandir ITA Nos.1007 & 1008/PUN/2024 Estates [386 ITR 162 (Cal)] etc. and held that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 on the ground that the AO did not make any proper inquiry while accepting the explanation of the assessee insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned. 16. We also find that the Ho…

JAYPEE FERTILIZERS & INDUSTRIES LTD.,NOIDA vs. PR.CIT, NOIDA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1047/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35D

…ssment order, without making any inquiries, upheld the revision done by the CIT.  In the case of Deniel Merchants Pvt Ltd vs ITO dated 29.11.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the law as laid down by the High Courts in SubhlakshmiVanijya Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT 155 ITD 171 (Kol), Rajmandir Estates 386 ITR 162 (Cal)etc and held that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 on the ground that the AO did not make any proper inquiry while accepting the explanation of the assessee insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned.  In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 109…

SHREE BALAJI ASSOCIATES PUNE LLP,PUNE vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1008/PUN/2024[AY 2019 - 20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Krishna GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 43C

…sment order, without making any inquiries, upheld the revision done by the CIT. In the case of Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO dated 29.11.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the law as laid down by the High Courts in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT 155 ITD 171 (Kol), Rajmandir 5 ITA Nos.1007 & 1008/PUN/2024 Estates 386 ITR 162 (Cal) etc. and held that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 on the ground that the AO did not make any proper inquiry while accepting the explanation of the assessee insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned. • In the case of Malabar In…

SHREE BALAJI ASSOCIATES PUNE LLP,PUNE vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1007/PUN/2024[AY 2018 - 19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 43C

GOEL EISHA CAPITALS,PUNE vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1006/PUN/2024[AY 2019 - 20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Krishna GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ent order, without making any inquiries, upheld the revision done by the CIT. • In the case of Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO dated 29.11.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the law as laid down by the High Courts in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT 155 ITD 171 (Kol), Rajmandir Estates 386 ITR 162 (Cal) etc. and held that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 on the ground that the AO did not make any proper inquiry while accepting the explanation of the assessee insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned. • In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 10…

RAJENDRA RAMESHLAL GUGALE,PUNE vs. PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1676/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT

Section 1Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 269SSection 69C

…order, without making any inquiries, upheld the revision done by the CIT. • In the case of Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO dated 29.11.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the law as laid down by the High Courts in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT 155 ITD 171 (Kol), Rajmandir 9 ITA.No.1676/PUN./2024 Estates 386 ITR 162 (Cal) etc. and held that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 on the ground that the AO did not make any proper inquiry while accepting the explanation of the assessee insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned. • In the case of Malabar Industr…

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA ,UTTARPRADESH vs. CIRCLE-1(1)(1) , MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 664/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 263

…nt order, without making any inquiries, upheld the revision done by the CIT. • In the case of Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO dated 29.11.2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the law as laid down by the High Courts in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 155 ITD 171 (Kol.), Rajmandir Estates 386 ITR 162 (Cal) etc. and held that the CIT is entitiled to rrevise the assessment order u/s 263 on the ground that the AO did not make any proper inquiry while accepting the explanation of the assessee insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned. • In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2000]…

M/S MAJJU IMAGE & BRAND CONSULTANTS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , BANGALORE

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

ITA 2015/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt. Ltd., The Pr. No. G1, Accolade Commissioner Of Apartments, Income Tax, Millers Road, 2Nd Cross, Bangalore – 4, Benson Town, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 046. Pan: Aaicm6586E Appellant Respondent : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order U/S. 263 Dated 25/01/2018 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit, Bangalore – 4 For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Revisionary Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Pcit) U/S.263 Dated; 25-01-2018 Is Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & The Law & Therefore, It Is Liable To Be Set-Aside.

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s. Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt. Ltd., The Pr. No. G1, Accolade Commissioner of Apartments, Income tax, Millers Road, 2nd Cross, Bangalore – 4, Benson Town, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 046. PAN: AAICM6586E APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Assessee by Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue by CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal…

M/S GOLDEN VINCOM PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 143/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 151Section 263

…ned. It was also submitted by him that there is no charge of money laundering by CIT in the impugned order and therefore the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd (ITA No. 1104/Kol/2014) dated 30.7.2015 (2015) 155 ITD 171 (Kolkata) will not be applicable. The Id counsel also submitted that there was improper application of mind by CIT as he has acted on the basis of the recommendation of the AO and has not applied his mind. The ld. DR relied on the order of CIT and further submitted that the CIT has applied his mind and has duly accepted the recommendations of the…

SH. SURINDER PAL SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT

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

…2005] 95 ITD 326 (Pune) • Rameshchandra Maleram Varma Vs. DCIT [2002] 121 Taxman 29 (Ahd.)(Mag.) • Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) • Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (2017-TIOL-455-SC-IT) • Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 155 ITD 171(Kol) • Lakshmi Vilas Bank Vs. JCIT (2018-TIOL-2284-HC-MAD-IT) • PCIT Vs. Shri Braham Dev Gupta (2018-TIOL-1547-HC-DEL-IT) 5. Now the assessee is in appeal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is regularly filing his return of income and showing the agricultural income, in the subsequent years also which had been acce…

ARM INFRA & UTILITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-6, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2212/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala a/wFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…24 (Calcutta) affirmed in [2017] 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC) rejecting the plea "that any further investigation is futile because the money was received on capital account" [Para 29] Subhlakshmi Vanijya (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-  tax-t, Kolkata 12015] 155 ITD 171 (Kolkata - Trib.) S. Manickavasagam v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Salem  |2010] 123 ITD 235 (Chennai) - Agro Portfolio (P.) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (4),  New Delhi ; [2018] 171 ITD 74 (Delhi-Trib.)” 10. In rebuttal, the Ld AR submitted as below:– “4. Rebuttal to Contentions of the Id. Departmental Representative 4.1. The impugned…

EXPRESS INDUSTRIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3454/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ndment to section 263 by insertion of Explanation 2 with effect from 1.6.2015. He further referred to the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd. and ITAT Kolkata in the case of Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (155 ITD 171). Thereafter learned CIT referred to the assessee’s submission and finally observed as under :- 4.1 The Assessee has contended that during the proceedings, the assessee has submitted aft the required details with respect to gold trading and evidence to prove that the purchase and were actually undertaken. The assessee has submitted evidence in t…

ITO, WARD-10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S GATEWAY ENCLAVE PVT.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2269/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 68

…y M/s. Hindustan Tea Trading Company Ltd. and M/s.Ruby Traders and Exporters Ltd. 8. When the issue arose regarding taxability of share premium which is a capital receipt, the ITAT Kolkata clarified in the case of M/s. Subhalakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 155 ITD 171, that the question being addressed is not whether share premium is chargeable to tax but about the taxability or otherwise of such share capital & premium in terms of sec.68. 9. Further Reliance was also placed by the Ld. CIT, DR on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. N. R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 222 Taxmann 157 (Del) para 24 & 25. (ii) CIT…

ITO, WARD-10(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S POSITIVE PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2274/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 68

…y M/s. Hindustan Tea Trading Company Ltd. and M/s.Ruby Traders and Exporters Ltd. 8. When the issue arose regarding taxability of share premium which is a capital receipt, the ITAT Kolkata clarified in the case of M/s. Subhalakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 155 ITD 171, that the question being addressed is not whether share premium is chargeable to tax but about the taxability or otherwise of such share capital I premium in terms of sec.68. 9. Further Reliance was also placed by the Ld. CIT, DR on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. N. R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 222 Taxmann 157 (Del) para 24 & 25. (ii) CIT…

M/S. GOVINDAM PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

ITA 679/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri M.Balaganesh"व"वध आवेदन (Misc. Application) M.Ano.128/Kol/2018 (Arising Out Ita No.679/Kol/2017) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 254(2)Section 263Section 68

…producing all details of its share investors before the Assessing Officer who did not take recourse to sufficient independent enquiries for verification thereof during the course of assessment. This tribunal’s decision in Shubh Laxmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 155 ITD 171 (Kol) as upheld upto the hon'ble apex court has affirmed the CIT’s sec. 263 directions to assessing authority for conducting such independent verification of the investors entities. We draw strong support therefrom to resolve the instant lis back to the MA No128/Kol/201& & ITA No.679/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s Govidam Project Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, C…

PUJA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR

ITA 440/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)

Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 263

…Para 9.2 of the ld Pr CIT order. The ld DR further relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Daniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO dated 29th Nov, 2017 wherein it was held that the law laid down in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt ltd vs CIT reported in 155 ITD 171 (Kol) and Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT, Kolkata-III reported in 386 ITR 162 (Kol.) that CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 on the ground that AO did not make any proper enquiry while accepting the explanation assessee in so far as receipt of share application money is concerned cannot be interfered with. 14. We have…

SURENDRA L. HIRANANDANI,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 1, MUMBAI

In the result all the appeals for A

ITA 3226/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri N. K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: ShriManjunatha Swamy

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 24Section 263

…ssing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue: i. CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [2017 TaxPub (DT) 4015 (Bom- HC) / 85 taxmann.com 10] ii. Bassera Realtors (P.) Ltd. v CIT [163 TTJ 736 (Chandigarh)] iii. SubhlakshmiVanijya P. Ltd. v CIT (155 ITD 171) iv. CIT v Ashok Logani [347 ITR 22 (Del)] v. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. v Pr.CIT [77 Taxmann.com 285 (SC)] vi. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v DCIT [148 ITD 26 (Ahd). 33. In reply to DR’s argument, learned AR submitted that in case of CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. the order passed by the CIT u/s. 263 of the Act was upheld for the reason that t…

DEVKANT SYNTHETICS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3153/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri B Pruseth

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 260ASection 263

…re is a specific mechanism provided under 5 I . T . A . N o . 3 1 5 3 / M u m / 2 0 1 7 the Act to deal with such type of disallowances. The ld. DR relied on the following decisions : a) Rajrnandir Estates Pvt Ltd -386 ITR 162 b) Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd -155 ITD 171 c) Kalwa Devadattam & Ors-49 ITR 165 d) K.S.N. Bhatt -37 CTR 273 e) Sir Kikabhai Premchand -24 ITR 506 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions, perused the material placed before us during the course of hearing including the decisions of authorities below and also the decisions relied upon by the parties. We find in the instant cas…

MADHURIMA INTERNATIONAL P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 3, MUMBAI

ITA 421/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.421/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) M/S Madhurima Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ International Private Income Tax -3, V. Limited, 612, Aayakar Bhawan, 122, Maker Chamber-Iii, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 021. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aafcm2533E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…ase. The ld. Pr. CIT relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT (2016) 386 ITR 162( Cal. HC) and also decision of the Kol.-tribunal in the case of Subhalakshmi Vanijya (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, (2015) 155 ITD 171(Kol-trib.) . The ld. Pr. CIT observed that the A.O. conducted exceedingly inadequate enquiry which falls into category of ‘no enquiry’ which resulted in drawing incorrect assumption of facts , makes the orders erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The ld Pr. CIT observed that there was complete non application of mi…

A.C.I.T. CIRCLE 6(1), MUMBAI vs. INX MEDIA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 7216/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sandeep Gosainacit, Circle 6(1), फनाभ/ M/S. Inx Media Pvt Ltd., R.No.506, 5 Th Floor, 3Rd Floor, Inx House, Apsara Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Complex, Dr. Dadasaheb C Mumbai – 20. Bhadmarkar Marg, Grand Road (E), Mumbai – 400 007. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aabc15594D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. M/S. Inx Media Pvt Ltd., फनाभ/ Acit, Circle 6(1), 3Rd Floor, Inx House, Apsara R.No.506, 5 Th Floor, Vs. Complex, Dr. Dadasaheb C Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bhadmarkar Marg, Grand Road Mumbai – 20. (E), Mumbai – 400 007. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aabc15594D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija, CIT-DR

Section 32Section 68

…(A) failed to cause enquiries suo moto, Foreign Institutional Investor‟s capacity not proved, assesee failed to file tax returns of non-resident investors (relevant for non-residents‟ investments), relied on various decisions such as Subhalaxmi Vanija (P) Ltd 155 ITD 171 (Kol), Focal Exports P Ltd (218 ITR 2012) (Del) etc. Eventually, Ld DR requested for remanding the grounds to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The contents of written submissions of the assessee dated 14.1.2016 on pages 78 to 103 are relevant. Further, in another written submission dated 15.2.2017, Ld DR submitted that the AO complied w…

Showing 1–20 of 21 · Page 1 of 2