Indian Textile v. CIT

157 ITR 112High Court#4619 most cited

What is Indian Textile v. CIT authority for?

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest if it is passed without proper verification or application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Revisionary powers under section 263 can be invoked even if only one item in the assessment order is prejudicial.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,402 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Indian Textiles vs CIT 157 ITR 112 · revision u/s 263 · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · assessment order without verification · application of mind · assessing officer failure · principal commissioner

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 10(38)Section 147Section 143(3)Section 270A(8)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 45Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 270a(9)(a)section 270a(8)faceless assessment schemesection 263(1)bogus ltcgbogus long term capital gainmalabar industrialprincipal commissioner of income-taxpenny stocksection 45section 10(38)section 119

Judgments citing Indian Textile v. CIT

Hollis Vitrified Private Limited, Morbi, Gujarat, India vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot, Gujarat, India

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

ITA 363/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट "ायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 363/RJT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCH5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीकीओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. AR राज"कीओरसे/Revenue by : Shri S…

Jayesh Khimji Khimasiya HUF, Jamnagar vs. Office of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 6/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

…I.T. Act, 1961 is valid even if one of the several items dealt with therein is found prejudicial to the interest of revenue and for this proposition of law, we place reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Indian Textiles Vs. CIT, 157 ITR 112 (Madras)". Further, it is also important to mention here that the provisions of section 263 can be invoked even where full facts are disclosed but the assessing officer has not examined these details as per correct provisions of law. In support of this proposition, we place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court delivered in…

Bhanuben Mansukhlal Khimasiya, Jamnagar vs. Office of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 5/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

…I.T. Act, 1961 is valid even if one of the several items dealt with therein is found prejudicial to the interest of revenue and for this proposition of law, we place reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Indian Textiles Vs. CIT, 157 ITR 112 (Madras)". Further, it is also important to mention here that the provisions of section 263 can be invoked even where full facts are disclosed but the assessing officer has not examined these details as per correct provisions of law. In support of this proposition, we place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court delivered in…

Mansukhlal Khimji Khimasiya, Jamnagar vs. Office of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 4/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

…I.T. Act, 1961 is valid even if one of the several items dealt with therein is found prejudicial to the interest of revenue and for this proposition of law, we place reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Indian Textiles Vs. CIT, 157 ITR 112 (Madras)". Further, it is also important to mention here that the provisions of section 263 can be invoked even where full facts are disclosed but the assessing officer has not examined these details as per correct provisions of law. In support of this proposition, we place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court delivered in…

Mansukhlal Khimji Khimasiya HUF, Jamnagar vs. Office of Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jamnagar

ITA 3/RJT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot09 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263

…I.T. Act, 1961 is valid even if one of the several items dealt with therein is found prejudicial to the interest of revenue and for this proposition of law, we place reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Indian Textiles Vs. CIT, 157 ITR 112 (Madras)". Further, it is also important to mention here that the provisions of section 263 can be invoked even where full facts are disclosed but the assessing officer has not examined these details as per correct provisions of law. In support of this proposition, we place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court delivered in…

Hansa Jitendra Haria, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hansa Jitendra Haria Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 2, Oswal Colony, Near Rajendra Income Tax Balkrindagan, Jamnagar, Gujarat Jamnagar 361005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph4309L (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263Section 69A

…I.T. Act, 1961 is valid even if one of the several items dealt with therein is found prejudicial to the interest of revenue and for this proposition of law, we place reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Indian Textiles Vs. CIT, 157 ITR 112 (Madras). Further, it is also important to mention here that the provisions of section 263 can be invoked even where full facts are disclosed but the AO has not examined these details as per correct provisions of law. In support of this ITA No. 104/RJT/2024/AY.2013-14 Hansa Jitendra Haria vs. PCIT proposition, we place reliance on the decision o…

Enviro Control Private Limited, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income- 1, Surat

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

ITA 113/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.113/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax-I, Surat Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Nr. Titan Showroom Ghod Dod Road, Vs. Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat- Surat-395001 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 8700 C (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ankur A Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli– CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…before the assessing officer. Therefore, assessment order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The reliance can be placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Indian Textiles Vs. CIT, 157 ITR 112 (Madras) wherein it was held that provisions of section 263 can be invoked even where full facts are disclosed but the AO has not examined these details as per correct provisions of law. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, as narrated above, we uphold the order passed by ld PCIT under section 263 of the Act and dismiss the appeal…

M/S Kinnor Kinnoree, Kolkata vs. CIT-X, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/KOL/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

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

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

…eous when necessary enquiry had not been made. (2) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [243 ITR 83(SC] An incorrect assumption of facts or on incorrect application of law will statisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. (3) Indian Textiles vs. CIT [157 ITR 112 (Mad)]. AO granted relief without proper verification and such order is an order prejudicial to the interest of revenue. From the records, it is abundantly clear that no worthwhile enquiry was made nor any meaningful investigation was carried out -egarding.the claim of the assessee as stated above. The Assessing Officer was expected to inquire th…

Smt Nituben Pradeep Dhingra, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 180/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Jan 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Prateek Toshiwal & Ms Richa Toshiwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 57

…I.T. Act, 1961 is valid even if one of the several items dealt with therein is found prejudicial to the interest of revenue and for this proposition of law, we place reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Indian Textiles Vs. CIT, 157 ITR 112 (Madras). Further, it is also important to mention here that the provisions of section 263 can be invoked even where full facts are disclosed but the Assessing Officer has not examined these details as per correct provisions of law. In support of this proposition, we place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court delivered in…

Essar Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ed without verification, application of mind, consequently, it is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, the revisional jurisdiction was rightly invoked. The view is also fortified by the decision in Indian Textile vs CIT (157 ITR 112) (Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375)(DeL), Thalibai F Jain vs ITO 101 ITR 1 (Karn.) and CIT vs HPFC 186 Taxman 105 (HP), CIT vs Pushpa Devi 164 ITR 639 (Patna). 8.12. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs M. M.Khambatbala 198 ITR 144 (Guj.) even went to the extent that revisional powers can be exercised even if the issue is…

Electronics Corporation of India Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 957/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri C.Subramanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 263Section 36(1)(v)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Dy. Commissioner 674/Hyd/2016 2011-12 Electronics of Income Tax, Corporation of India Circle-2(2), Ltd., HYDERABAD HYDERABAD Asst. Commissioner 957/Hyd/2018 2011-12 [PAN: AAACE4809L] of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), HYDERABAD For Assessee : Shri C.Subramanyam, AR For Revenue : Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 02-03-2020 Date of Pronouncement : 22-07-2020 O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M. : The assessee h…

Electronics Corporation of India Ltd., Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 674/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri C.Subramanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 263Section 36(1)(v)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Dy. Commissioner 674/Hyd/2016 2011-12 Electronics of Income Tax, Corporation of India Circle-2(2), Ltd., HYDERABAD HYDERABAD Asst. Commissioner 957/Hyd/2018 2011-12 [PAN: AAACE4809L] of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), HYDERABAD For Assessee : Shri C.Subramanyam, AR For Revenue : Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 02-03-2020 Date of Pronouncement : 22-07-2020 O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M. : The assessee h…

Mahesh Mehta, Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2804/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2804/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Mahesh Mehta, Vs Cit, 2042, Katra Tobacco, Khari Central-Ii, Baoli, Delhi-110006 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agbpm7320C Assessee By : Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. J. K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.03.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 132(4)Section 263

…ioner, in setting aside the assessment and directing the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessmen - Jagdish Kumar Gulati Vs CIT (2004) 139 Taxman 369. ……………………………………………….. ………………………………………………… Further, it has been held in the case of Indian Textiles Vs CIT 157 ITR 112 (Madras) that if at least in respect of one item ITO’s order was found to be prejudicial to revenue, initiation of proceedings by Commissioner u/s 263 could not be questioned by observing as under: “it is significant to note that the assessee’s claim for weighted deduction in respect of freight charges falling under sub-clause (iii) has been set…

Gumpro Drilling Fluids Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 15, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2868/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids Vs Pr. Cit-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5Th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, Lbs M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcg2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri L.K.S. Dahiya Cit-Dr

Section 120Section 144ASection 263Section 35

…t verification, application of mind, consequently, it is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, consequently, the revisional jurisdiction was rightly invoked. 2.18. Our view is fortified by the decision in Indian Textile vs CIT (157 ITR 112) (Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375)(Del.), Thalibai F Jain vs ITO 101 ITR 1 (Karn.) and CIT vs HPFC 186 Taxman 105 (HP), CIT vs Pushpa Devi 164 ITR 639 (Patna). We are aware that before the Ld. Commissioner invokes the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, he should get satisfied that the order passed by the Assessing…

Saigal Sea Trade, Mumbai vs. CIT -18, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2511/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

Section 142(1)Section 263

…sessee as the Ld. Pr. Commissioner has directed the Assessing Officer, in the 23 M/s Trancfex Studios Pvt Ltd. interest of justice, to provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5.4. Our view is fortified by the decision in Indian Textile vs CIT (157 ITR 112) (Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375)(Del.), Thalibai F Jain vs ITO 101 ITR 1 (Karn.) and CIT vs HPFC 186 Taxman 105 (HP), CIT vs Pushpa Devi 164 ITR 639 (Patna). We are aware that before the Ld. Commissioner invokes the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, he should get satisfied that the order passed by the Assessing…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3609/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…he assessee, thus, no grievance is caused to the assessee and ITA No.3608 & 3609Mum/2017 15 Gautam Tube Corporation at the same time, the interest of the Revenue has also been safeguarded. 2.8. Our view is fortified by the decision in Indian Textile vs CIT (157 ITR 112) (Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375)(Del.), Thalibai F Jain vs ITO 101 ITR 1 (Karn.) and CIT vs HPFC 186 Taxman 105 (HP), CIT vs Pushpa Devi 164 ITR 639 (Patna). We are aware that before the Ld. Commissioner invokes the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, he should get satisfied that the order passed by the Assessing…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3608/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…he assessee, thus, no grievance is caused to the assessee and ITA No.3608 & 3609Mum/2017 15 Gautam Tube Corporation at the same time, the interest of the Revenue has also been safeguarded. 2.8. Our view is fortified by the decision in Indian Textile vs CIT (157 ITR 112) (Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375)(Del.), Thalibai F Jain vs ITO 101 ITR 1 (Karn.) and CIT vs HPFC 186 Taxman 105 (HP), CIT vs Pushpa Devi 164 ITR 639 (Patna). We are aware that before the Ld. Commissioner invokes the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, he should get satisfied that the order passed by the Assessing…

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1(1), Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3198/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

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

…noted that if the assessee is so clean in its claim then no prejudice is caused to the assessee as the Ld. Commissioner merely directed the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment order afresh. Our view is fortified by the decision in Indian Textile vs CIT (157 ITR 112) (Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375)(Del.), Thalibai F Jain vs ITO 101 ITR 1 (Karn.) and CIT vs HPFC 186 Taxman 105 (HP), CIT vs Pushpa Devi 164 ITR 639 (Patna). We are aware that before the Ld. Commissioner invokes the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, he should get satisfied that the order passed by the Assessing Off…

Startech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 22, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3898/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Startech Engineers, Pr. Commissioner Of G-12, Sinhgarjane Soc. Income Tax-22, बनाम/ Maratha Colony, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Vs. Santracruz (E), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaxfs3063J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri D.C.Saboo & Shri Shyam Saboo राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Manjunatha Swamy-Dr

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

…ty of being heard before finalizing the assessment, thus, no grievance is caused to the assessee, because the assessee is at liberty to contest the observation made by the ld. Pr. Commissioner. Our view is fortified by the decision in Indian Textile vs CIT (157 ITR 112) (Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375)(Del.), Thalibai F Jain vs ITO 101 ITR 1 (Karn.) and CIT vs HPFC 186 Taxman 105 (HP), CIT vs Pushpa Devi 164 ITR 639 (Patna). We are aware that before the Ld. Commissioner invokes the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, he should get satisfied that the order passed by the Assessin…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3752/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…me the after providing due opportunity to the assessee. Thus, no grievance is caused to the assessee, because the assessee is at liberty to contest the observation made by the ld. Commissioner. Our view is fortified by the decision in Indian Textile vs CIT (157 ITR 112) (Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375)(Del.), Thalibai F Jain vs ITO 101 ITR 1 (Karn.) and CIT vs HPFC 186 Taxman 105 (HP), CIT vs Pushpa Devi 164 ITR 639 (Patna). We are aware that before the Ld. Commissioner invokes the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, he should get satisfied that the order passed by the Assessing…