Income-Tax v. Gokuldas Exports

333 ITR 214High Court2011#2786 most cited

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'.

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Gokuldas Exports · Section 263 · revision u/s 263 · erroneous and prejudicial · two views possible · Assessing Officer view · Commissioner powers · malabar industrial · kelvinator · inadequate enquiry

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 142(1)Section 144ASection 144BSection 56Section 80P(2)(d)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiryprejudicial to interest of revenuelack of enquirysection 120section 144arevision u/s 263section 263(1)malabar industrialrevision under section 263kelvinatorsection 119erroneous and prejudicial

Judgments citing Income-Tax v. Gokuldas Exports

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2751/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…nder section 263 is not called for. The asessee also relies on the ITA Nos.2750 to 2756/Mum/16 A.Ys. 06-07 to 12-13 [Sterling Biotech Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT] Page 11 decisions in the case of CIT v. Greenworld Corporation (314 ITR 81)(SC) and CIT v. Gokuldas Exports (333 ITR 214)(Kar). The assessee would also like to relies on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Arvind Jewellers (2003)259 ITR 502 (Guj) which has followed the Supreme Court decision in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. It has been held by the High Court as under: “Coming to the facts of the present case, it is the finding o…

Sterling Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result, all appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 2750/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manjunathaswamy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 69

…nder section 263 is not called for. The asessee also relies on the ITA Nos.2750 to 2756/Mum/16 A.Ys. 06-07 to 12-13 [Sterling Biotech Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT] Page 11 decisions in the case of CIT v. Greenworld Corporation (314 ITR 81)(SC) and CIT v. Gokuldas Exports (333 ITR 214)(Kar). The assessee would also like to relies on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Arvind Jewellers (2003)259 ITR 502 (Guj) which has followed the Supreme Court decision in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. It has been held by the High Court as under: “Coming to the facts of the present case, it is the finding o…