What is Income-Tax v. Gokuldas Exports authority for?

An assessment order is not considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for invoking Section 263 if the Assessing Officer has adopted one of two possible views, even if the Commissioner of Income-tax disagrees with that view. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' must be read in conjunction with the expression 'erroneous'.

How many judgments cite Income-Tax v. Gokuldas Exports?

42 judgments on BharatTax cite Income-Tax v. Gokuldas Exports (333 ITR 214), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Income-Tax v. Gokuldas Exports come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(2), Section 143(3), Section 263, Section 142(1), Section 144A, Section 144B.

Income-Tax v. Gokuldas Exports (333 ITR 214)

BHAVANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY NIYAMITA ,SIRSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SIRSI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1074/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

…havana Co op Credit Society Niyamitha, Sirsi Page 29 of 31 the Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax. In holding so we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gokuldas Exports reported in [2011] 333 ITR 214 has held as under- “15. By a long catena of judgments of various High Courts and the Supreme Court, it is too well settled that if in the given facts and circumstances of the case, two views are possible and one view has been adopted by the Assessing Officer, then that alone would not be sufficient to exercise the powers under section 263 of the…

GONIKOPPAL PRIMARY RURAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,KODAGU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-3, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1072/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

…havana Co op Credit Society Niyamitha, Sirsi Page 29 of 31 the Act by the Commissioner of Income-tax. In holding so we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gokuldas Exports reported in [2011] 333 ITR 214 has held as under- “15. By a long catena of judgments of various High Courts and the Supreme Court, it is too well settled that if in the given facts and circumstances of the case, two views are possible and one view has been adopted by the Assessing Officer, then that alone would not be sufficient to exercise the powers under section 263 of the…

ZARI SILK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 600/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 148BSection 263Section 69A

…with which commissioner not agreeing the assessment order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Karnataka High Court after considering various judicial pronouncement in the case of CIT Vs. Gokul Das Exports (2011) 333 ITR 214 (Kar) has held that assessing officer taking one out of two views the assessment order is not prejudicial to interest of revenue. In view of the above judicial pronouncements and various other judgements on the issue the assessment order passed by A.O. cannot be treated as an erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In the case of CI…

ARUN PALAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL),, JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 599/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 148BSection 263Section 69A

…with which commissioner not agreeing the assessment order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Karnataka High Court after considering various judicial pronouncement in the case of CIT Vs. Gokul Das Exports (2011) 333 ITR 214 (Kar) has held that assessing officer taking one out of two views the assessment order is not prejudicial to interest of revenue. In view of the above judicial pronouncements and various other judgements on the issue the assessment order passed by A.O. cannot be treated as an erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In the case of CI…

THE DHANASHREE MULTIPURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BELGAUM vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

The appeal of the assessee stands ALLOWED

ITA 119/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2020-21 The Dhanashree Multipurpose Co-Operative Society, Ltd. 722/1, Angol Road, Vidya Nagar, Belgaum-590006 Pan:Aaaad0350R . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

…r revision of original order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B on a debatable issue or when two legal views are possible is not justified in law as held by Supreme Court in the case of Max India reported in 295 ITR 283.Reference can also be made to CIT v Gokuldas Exports 333 ITR 214 (Kar) and CIT v Munjal Castings 303 ITR 23 (P&H). ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 16 The Dhanashree Multipurpose Co-operative Society, Ltd. Vs. PCIT ITA No.119/PAN/2025, AY: 2020-21 4. In the course of hearing, the Ld. AR reiterated assessee’s solitary contention & corresponding submissions as were made before the Ld. PCIT. It is the case of the appellan…

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 203/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT

Section 115JSection 263Section 35ASection 36(1)(viia)

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JPR/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYears : 2017-18 M/s. AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. cuke The Pr. CIT CP-3-235,Industrial Area, Apparel Park, Vs. Jaipur -1 Jaipur. Mahal Road, Jagatpura, Jaipurm- 302022 LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACL 2777 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Sanja…

THE KHANAPUR vs. S SANGH LTD,BELGAUMVS.PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALI

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 62/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Y VaidyaFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…case and in law the Pr.CIT erred in revising the original order u/s 143(3) on a debatable issue or when two legal views are possible as held by Supreme Court in the case of Max India reported in 295 ITR 283.Reference can also be made to CIT v Gokuldas Exports 333 ITR 214 (Kar) and CIT v Munjal Castings 303 ITR 23 (P&H). 4. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rena Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd v Pr.CIT reported in 138 taxmann.com 532since Assessing Officer white framing assessment had taken a possible view and allowed assessee's claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) on interest income earned on its…

ARUN KUMAR PALAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PR CIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Bhatra (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT D/R

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…with which commissioner not agreeing the assessment order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Karnataka High Court after considering various judicial pronouncement in the case of CIT Vs. Gokul Das Exports (2011) 333 ITR 214 (Kar) has held that assessing officer taking one out of two views the assessment order is not prejudicial to interest of revenue. In view of the above judicial pronouncements and various other judgements on the issue the assessment order passed by A.O. cannot be treated as an erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In the case of CI…

BHAJAN LAL SURESH CHANDRA SARRAF,AJMER vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 135/JPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Dec 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Porwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT)

Section 115Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69A

…(SC) If in given facts and circumstances of a case, two views are possible and one view has been adopted by assessing officer, then that view alone would not be sufficient to exercise powers under section 263 by Commissioner — CIT v. Gokuldas Exports (2011) 333 ITR 214 (Kar). 7 M/s. Bhajan Lal Suresh Chandra Sarraf, Beawar. Thus when A.O. has considered looking to shortages / excess of stock applicability of provisions of section 145(3) of Act; has considered the additions as "BUSINESS INCOME" & thus section 69A not invoked. Thus was based on past history of the case & nature of additions & thus the A.O. had…

HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 94/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR

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

…not agreeing, the assessment order cannot be termed as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Further the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court after considering various judicial pronouncements in the case of CIT vs. Gokul Das Exports (2011) 333 ITR 214 (Kar ) held that AO taking one out of two 27 HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, JAIPUR VS PR. CIT-1, JAIPUR (2013) 2012 Taxman, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that AO before passing the order made enquiry and directed his mind on all aspects and the views adopted by the AO is one of the two plausible views and the ld Pr.CIT did not agree…

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

ITA 187/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)

…the order of Ld. AO cannot be held erroneous and prejudicial to interest to invoke provision of Section 263 of the Act. The said contentions of the Appellant are supported by following judicial precedents: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gokuldas Exports [2011] 333 ITR 214 (Karnataka) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Srinivasa Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. [2015] 60 taxmann.com 207 (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana) 42. Furthermore, the second limb to invoke Section 263 of the Act is that the order passed by the Assessing Officer should be "prejudicial to the interests of the revenue". Therefore, the said limb ought to be understo…

SHRI MADHAVRAV H. FICHADIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parshuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO, 106 ITR 1, CIT vs. Greenworld Corporation, 314 ITR 81 and the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gokuldas Exports, 333 ITR 214. The Ld. AR also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 97 taxmann.com 671 (Ahmedabad Tribunal). The Ld. AR further submitted that clause (a) of Explanation-2 to Section 263 of the Act does not deter the assessment process in the facts and the context of the case. Thus, the foundation for ex…

NARAYAN INDUSTIRES ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 60(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6153/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Aakash Deep Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 253

…cience Ltd. 203 Taxman 318 (Del.)  CIT vs. Taj International Jewellers 335 ITR 144 (Del.)  CIT vs. UK Bose 212 Taxman 399 (Del.)  CIT vs. Paliwal Industries 222 Taxman 61 (P&H)  CIT vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd 352 ITR 74 (Kam)  CIT vs. Gokkuldas Exports 333 ITR 214 (Kar.) 35. After going through the entire issue, we hold that interest earned out of the fixed deposit made from the surplus funds being not connected to the manufacturing activity and do not form an integral part of the profits derived from industrial unit is not eligible for deduction. Interest is an unearned passive income derived out of non…

SHRI RADHA GOVIND LASHKARI,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Savita Bundas, (CIT D/R)

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ommissioner not agreeing the assessment order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court after considering various judicial pronouncements, in the case of CIT Vs. Gokul Das Exports (2011) 333 ITR 214 (Kar) has held that assessing officer taking one out of two views the assessment order is not prejudicial to interest of revenue. In view of the above judicial pronouncements and various other judgements on the issue, the assessment order passed by A.O. cannot be treated as an erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In the case o…

KAMAL VYAS ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 17, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal stand allowed

ITA 303/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…note appearing below the order of the Assessing Officer clearly shows that it is not passed on application of mind but on the interference by the Commissioner of Income-tax". d. In case of CIT Vs. Gokuldas Exports [2012] 20 taxmann.cim 491 (Karnataka)/[2011] 333 ITR 214 (Karnataka). 6 Kamal Vyas "Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue -Assessment Year 1995-96 - Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to interests of revenue [In favour of assessee]. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests…

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

For Appellant: Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…8 ITR 0435 (Del) CIT Vs. Deepak Mittal 324 ITR 411 (P & H) CIT Vs. Nirmal Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. 309 ITR 0067(Guj) Gupta International Vs. ITO 002 ITR (Trib) 0428 (Del) Green World Co. 314 ITR 81 (SC) CIT Vs. Paul Bros. 216 ITR 548 CIT Vs. Gokul Das Exports 333 ITR 214 Smt. Anita Malpotra V/s. ITO (2007) 109 TTJ (ASR) 76 India Heritage Foundation’s Vs. Dy. Director of Income Tax 149 TTJ 908 (Bangalore) relevant para 11 page 915 of the order. EON Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 343 ITR 366 (Del) 5. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR has relied on the order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT. 6. We have heard the ld. Counsels of bot…

M/S. GURU KRIPA CAREER INSTITUTE PVT. LTD.,SIKAR vs. PR.CIT-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 283/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 68

…with which commissioner not agreeing the assessment order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Karnataka High Court after considering various judicial pronouncement in the case of CIT Vs. Gokul Das Exports (2011) 333 ITR 214 (Kar) has held that assessing officer taking one out of two views the assessment order is not prejudicial to interest of revenue. In view of the above judicial pronouncements and various other judgements on the issue the 11 ITA 283/JP/2020_ M/s Guru Kripa Career Institute P Ltd. Vs PCIT assessment order passed by A.O. cannot be treated as an erro…

ACIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…ITR 475 (Del.) iii. CIT vs Nectar Life Science Ltd.: 203 Taxman 318 (Del.) iv. CIT v. Taj International Jewellers: 335 ITR 144 (Del.) v. CIT v UK Bose: 212 Taxman 399 (Del.) vi. CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd: 352 ITR 74 (Karn) vii. CIT v. Gokkuldas Exports: 333 ITR 214 (Kar.) viii. Paramount Trading Corporation: 98 ITD 77 (Del.) (TM) He therefore submitted that CIT(A) erred in affirming the action of assessing officer in not reducing interest received against interest paid for computing `profits of the business‘ under Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC of the Act. 37. The learned departmental representative s…

M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6073/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…ITR 475 (Del.) iii. CIT vs Nectar Life Science Ltd.: 203 Taxman 318 (Del.) iv. CIT v. Taj International Jewellers: 335 ITR 144 (Del.) v. CIT v UK Bose: 212 Taxman 399 (Del.) vi. CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd: 352 ITR 74 (Karn) vii. CIT v. Gokkuldas Exports: 333 ITR 214 (Kar.) viii. Paramount Trading Corporation: 98 ITD 77 (Del.) (TM) He therefore submitted that CIT(A) erred in affirming the action of assessing officer in not reducing interest received against interest paid for computing `profits of the business‘ under Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC of the Act. 37. The learned departmental representative s…

M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6072/DEL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…ITR 475 (Del.) iii. CIT vs Nectar Life Science Ltd.: 203 Taxman 318 (Del.) iv. CIT v. Taj International Jewellers: 335 ITR 144 (Del.) v. CIT v UK Bose: 212 Taxman 399 (Del.) vi. CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd: 352 ITR 74 (Karn) vii. CIT v. Gokkuldas Exports: 333 ITR 214 (Kar.) viii. Paramount Trading Corporation: 98 ITD 77 (Del.) (TM) He therefore submitted that CIT(A) erred in affirming the action of assessing officer in not reducing interest received against interest paid for computing `profits of the business‘ under Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC of the Act. 37. The learned departmental representative s…

Income-Tax v. Gokuldas Exports

What is Income-Tax v. Gokuldas Exports authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Income-Tax v. Gokuldas Exports

BHAVANA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY NIYAMITA ,SIRSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SIRSI

GONIKOPPAL PRIMARY RURAL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED ,KODAGU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-3, BENGALURU

ZARI SILK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

ARUN PALAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL),, JAIPUR

THE DHANASHREE MULTIPURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BELGAUM vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

THE KHANAPUR vs. S SANGH LTD,BELGAUMVS.PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALI

ARUN KUMAR PALAWAT,JAIPUR vs. PR CIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

BHAJAN LAL SURESH CHANDRA SARRAF,AJMER vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

SHRI MADHAVRAV H. FICHADIA,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

NARAYAN INDUSTIRES ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 60(1), NEW DELHI

SHRI RADHA GOVIND LASHKARI,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

KAMAL VYAS ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 17, MUMBAI

VIRENDRA SINGH BHADAURIA,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-3, , JAIPUR

M/S. GURU KRIPA CAREER INSTITUTE PVT. LTD.,SIKAR vs. PR.CIT-3, JAIPUR

ACIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

M/S HAVELLS INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI