INCOME TAX OFFICER v. PERICLES FOODS (P) LTD. IN THE ITAT MUMBAI

17 SOT 602Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2007#15118 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 194C Section 194J Section 250 Section 37

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenue inadequate enquiry assessment order erroneous lack of enquiry mere change of opinion malabar industrial child limited scrutiny change of opinion erroneous and prejudicial income-tax officer section 115bb

Judgments citing INCOME TAX OFFICER v. PERICLES FOODS (P) LTD. IN THE ITAT MUMBAI

SUCHITA BHATIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 902/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bhargav, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT a

Section 143(2)Section 250

…utiny. Law prior to 1st June 2003:It is submitted that Limited Scrutiny was initially a) started forverification of Claim of Loss/exemption/deduction/allowance or relief made in the return. Income-tax Officer, 1(2)(4), Mumbai VS Pericles Foods (P.)Ltd.[2007] 17 SOT 602 (MUM.) In this case the issue was in limited scrutiny can the head of income be changed? The ITAT held that the AO could either allow or disallow the deduction. He could not change the head of income. Bholanath R. Shukla VS ITO WD 2(1) THANE 118 ITD 552 (Mumbai) In this case the contention raised by the Department was that once notice was issu…

SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH KAPUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 68/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…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. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

SHRI SUKHJIT SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 67/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

SMT HARNEET KAUR JUNEJA,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 66/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

SAHAYAMATHA SALTERNS PVT. LIMITED,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, TUTICORIN

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

ITA 1498/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1498/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. M/S. Sahayamatha Salterns Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, 13-A-1, Meenakshipuram Circle I, West, Tuticorin. Tuticorin 628 002. Tamil Nadu

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…ected for scrutiny assessment. In this connection, he relied on the CBDT Instruction Nos.20/2015, dated 29th December, 2015 and 6/2017, dated 21st July, 2017. He also placed reliance on the series of following judicial decisions. ‘’01 ITO vs. Pericles Foods, 17 SOT 602 (Mumbai Tribunal) 02 Gift land handicraft vs. CIT, 108 TTJ 0312 (Delhi Tribunal) 03 Nayek Paper Converters s. ACIT, 93 ITD 144 (Kol Tribunal) 04 Ajit Gupta vs. ITO, (2007) 108 TTJ 301 05 CIT vs. Narayana P. Dedhia, 270 ITR 572 (AP) 06 DCIT vs. Sunita Finlease Ltd, 330 ITR 491 (Chat) 07 Kwalpro Exports vs. ACIT, 109 TTJ 0869 08 CIT vs. Amal Genera…

SMT. PADMAVATHI,TIRUNELVELI vs. ITO, WARD 3,, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 1306/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 56(2)(vii)

…ficer is barred to look into the matter other than the issue for which the case was taken up. In support of this, he placed reliance on CBDT :- 5 -: Instruction No.20/2015, dated 29th December, 2015 and the following case laws. 01 ‘’ITO vs. Pericles Foods, 17 SOT 602. 02 Gift land Handicraft vs. CIT, 108 TTJ 0312. 03 Nayek Paper Converters vs. ACIT, 93 ITR 144. 04 Ajit Gupta vs. ITO, 108 TTJ 301. 05 CIT vs. Narayana P. Dedhia, 270 ITR 572 06 DCIT vs. Sunita Finlease Ltd, 330 ITR 491 07 Kwalpro Exports vs. ACIT, 110 ITD 59 08 CIT vs. Amal Generators Ltd 84 DTR 0045. 09 CIT vs. Howrah Flour Mills Ltd, 236 ITR 15…