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 366,418 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

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

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3748/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

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…

Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3747/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

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…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-Cir-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3494/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Procter & Gamble Cit-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp6332M

Section 263Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, सी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/s Procter & Gamble CIT-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AAACP6332M "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Yogesh Thar and Ms. Moksha Mehta Shri Subachan Ram CIT-DR राज…

Kukreja Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. CIT Cen -2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1090/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am M/S Kukreja Development Corporation. Commissioner Of Income Tax 4Th & 5Th Floor, Sai Central-2, Mumbai Commercial Building, B.K.S. Vs. Devshi Marg, Govandi (E), Mumbai-400007 Pan No.Aabfk0411A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By .. Shri.Naresh Kumar, Ar Revenue By .. Shri. R.P Meena, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing .. 22-12-2016 .. Date Of Pronouncement 22-12-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43Section 43(1)

…ortunity 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. 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 Commissioner invokes the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263, he should be satisfied that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneou…

Estrela Batteries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 2, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2122/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2010-11
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…f 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. Principal 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 Commissioner invokes the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 , he should get satisfied that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is errone…