Indian Textile vs CIT (157 ITR 112) (Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT (

101 ITR 1High Court1975#1521 most cited

What is Indian Textile vs CIT (157 ITR 112) (Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT ( authority for?

An order passed by the Assessing Officer is considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, justifying the invocation of revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, even if the issue is debatable. If a revisional order directs a fresh assessment, no prejudice is caused to the assessee as they can contest the observations made.

75

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Indian Textile vs CIT · section 263 · erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue · revisional jurisdiction · debatable issue · Gee Vee Enterprises · Thalibai F Jain · CIT vs HPFC · CIT vs Pushpa Devi

Also reported as

186 Taxmann 105

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 142(1)Section 148Section 10(38)

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenuemalabar industrialsection 263(1)erroneous and prejudicialsection 119section 263addition under section 68section 26section 92calimited scrutinysection 92csection 92

Judgments citing Indian Textile vs CIT (157 ITR 112) (Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT (

Anup Enterprises, Mumbai vs. The Principal CIT-19, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 1641/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalanup Enterprises, 41, 4Th Floor, Neelkamal, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026 Pan: Aaafa5067D ...... Appellant Vs. The Pr.Cit-19, Room No. 228, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai-400007 ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-19, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Ld. Pr.Cit) Dated 22.03.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 263Section 263(1)Section 3

…ion under section 263 to cancel the assessment and may initiate proceedings for assessment under the provisions of the Act against some other assessee who according to the income-tax authorities is liable for the income thereof. In Thalibai F. Jain ITO (1975) 101 ITR 1 (Kar), it was held that assessments made in undue haste and without an enquiry whether the income offered was that of the assessee or someone else, are prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, and what is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue must be held to be erroneous though the converse may not always be true. Also, in CIT v. Pushpa D…

Namrata Kapale, Chindwara vs. Pr.CIT-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 41/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148(1)Section 159(2)(b)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR (through web-based video conferencing platform) BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, HON‟BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 41/JAB/2022 (Asst. Year: 2017-18) Namrata Kapale, vs. Principal CIT-1, L/R of Ram Rao Kapale, Jabalpur. Ward No.12, Purani Basti Loniya, Karbal, Chhindwara. [PAN : FFUPK 7400 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Rahul Bardia, FCA Respondent by : Shri U.B. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 08/08/2022 Date of pronouncement : 23/09/2022 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal…

C.B. Mubarka Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT (Exemption), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 638/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhc.B. Murarka Charitable Vs. Cit(Exemption) Trust, B-310, Virwani 617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Industrial Estate, Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel Western Express Mumbai - 400012 Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai – 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaatc0036C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sanjay C. ShahFor Respondent: Sandeep Rai
Section 143(3)Section 263

…(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), Bismillah Trading Company Vs. Intelligence Officer (2001) 248 ITR 292 (Karnataka) Venkateshkrishna Rice Company Vs. CIT (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Madras), Smt. Taradevi Aggarwal Vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC), Thalibai F. Jain Vs. ITO (1975) 101 ITR 1 (Karnataka), CIT Vs. Amitabh Bachhan, 384 ITR 200 & Others decision the ld. Pr. CIT held that the A.O has passed assessment order without basic verification of issue as mentioned above in this order. Therefore, the assessment order dated 01.12.2018 was set aside to the A.O with direction to undertake assessment proceedings a denovo. 4. During the…

Shakuntala Singhvi, Jabalpur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 31/JAB/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Anil Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 45Section 54E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR (Through web-based video conferencing platform) BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, HON‟BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 31/JAB/2022 (Asst. Year: 2013-14) Shakuntala Singhvi, vs. Pr. CIT-1, 402, Bhumika Estate, Jabalpur. Katanga Tiraha, Jabalpur. [PAN : ATUPS 2028 P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Anil Gupta, FCA Respondent by : Shri Shravan Kumar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 28/06/2022 Date of pronouncement : 30/06/2022 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed agai…

M/S. Swapna Motors Private Ltd., Cuttack vs. CIT, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 251/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 M/S. Swapna Motors Pvt Ltd., M/S. Swapna Motors Pvt Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Friends Colony, Cuttack Friends Colony, Cuttack Tax, Tax, Circle Circle-2(1), Arunodoya Nagar, Cuttack Nagar, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aafcs 1450 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30 /3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 / /4/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…T vs Puspa Devi reported in 164 ITR 639(Pat), it was held that where there was failure on the part of the AO to make proper enquiry, the commissioner was justified in cancelling the order of the AO. Similarly in the case of Tahlibai F Jain Vs. ITO reported in 101 ITR 1 (Kar) and Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Limited reported in 187 ITR 412 (All), the Hon'ble Courts held that the Commissioner was justified in cancelling assessment order where the claim made by the assessee in the statement fled before the AO was accepted without making proper enquiry. Further, in the case Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd Vs. CIT…

Shri Krishna Mohan Chuorsiya, Rajgarh vs. The Pr. CIT Ujjain, Ujjain

ITA 626/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Krishna Mohan Pr. Cit Choursiya(Prop. Of M/S Laxmi Ujjain Mp बनाम/ Auto Parts) Vs. Ward No.14, Bus Stand, Kurawar Rajgarh(M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aempc3634G

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MIS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Krishna Mohan Pr. CIT Choursiya(Prop. of M/s Laxmi Ujjain MP बनाम/ Auto Parts) Vs. Ward No.14, Bus Stand, Kurawar Rajgarh(M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AEMPC3634G Appellant by Shri S.N. Agrawal, CA Revenue by Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT Date of Hearing: 07.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 25.05.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the assumptio…

Shri Shaligram Barod, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 625/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 54Section 54BSection 54FSection 54F(1)

…अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE MANISH BORAD,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON'BLE’ MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. CIT-I, AH/29, HIG, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. AHFPP4068H Appellant by Shri S.N. Agrawal, CA Revenue by Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 12.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 30.04.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax…

S. Narendrakumar & Co., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT. Circle- 27, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1605/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43(5)Section 43(5)(e)

…Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), • Bismillah Trading Co. v. Intelligence Officer [2001] 248 ITR 292 (Ker.) • Venkatakrishna Rice Co. Vs. CIT (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad) • Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323(SC) • Thalibai F. Jain Vs. ITO (1975) 101 ITR 1 (Kar.) 6. He referred to Explanation 1 below subsection (1) of section 263 and held as under :- “In view of the above and also in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the Assessing officer had allowed loss of Rs.1,28,39,534/-incurred in commodity derivatives transactions as 'business loss' without carrying out proper…

The Peerless Gen. Fin. & Inv. Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 892/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 50

…ITA No. 892/KOL/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 The Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President & Shri A.T. Varkey, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 892/KOL/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 The Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Limited,.... Appellant Peerless Bhavan, 3, Esplanade East, Kolkata-700069 [PAN:AABCT3043L] -Vs.- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,............................................ Respondent Circle-3(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appear…

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

…al 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 debatable. 8.13. The support is also derived from the ratio laid down in Bhargwa Engineering Co…

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. .CIT-(A) 13, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3910/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija
Section 263

…Limited i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC); ii) Bismillah Trading Co. v. Intelligence Officer [2001] 248 ITR 292 (Ker.); iii) Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 129 (Mad.); iv) Thalibai F. Jain v. Income Tax Officer [1975] 101 ITR 1 (Kar.); v) CIT v. Pushpa Devi [1987] 164 ITR 639 (Pat.); and, vi) Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT, 386 ITR 162 (Cal.) He further observed that it has been held in CIT (Mum) vs. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 69 Taxmann.com 170 (SC) that “Section 263 does not require any specific show cause notice detailing specific grounds on which revision…

Amar Singh Chaudhary, Jabalpur vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 28/JAB/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur27 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan&Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 263Section 48

…ITA No. 28/JAB/2017 (AY 2009-10) Amar Singh Choudhary v. Pr. CIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI NRS GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Amar Singh Choudhary, vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income 415,South Civil Lines, Jabalpur Tax-2, Central Revenue (PAN –AJEPC5714A) Building, Napier Town, Jabalpur (Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri G.N.Purohit, Sr. Adv. Respondent by Shri Abhay Kumar Singh, CIT-DR Date of hearing 15/09/2020 Date of pronouncement 27/10/2020 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the A…

M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. The Pr CIT, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 742/IND/2018[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jun 2020

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pr.Cit-2, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Bhopal D-1, Machna Colony, 6 No Bus Stop, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aagcs8307M Appellant By Shri Arun Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit Date Of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01.06.2020 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. Sanee Infrastructure Pr.CIT-2, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Bhopal D-1, Machna Colony, 6 No Bus Stop, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) PAN No.AAGCS8307M Appellant by Shri Arun Jain, CA Revenue by Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT Date of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement 01.06.2020 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-16 is directed a…

M/S. Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 355/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 35A

…[ITA No.355/Ind/2017] [Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre] आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Bhandari Hospital and Pr. CIT-(I) Research Centre, GF-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AADFB8151A Appellant by Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Advocate Respondent by Shri S.S. Mantri, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 07.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 20.03.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: T…

Tata Motors Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ltu 2, Mumbai

ITA 3424/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3424/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Raja Vora & Shri NikhilFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 1Section 11Section 115BSection 115JSection 119Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 244ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3424/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) DCIT LTU-2, Tata Motors Ltd. 29th floor, Centre 1, World बिधम/ Bombay House, 24, Homi Trade Centre, Cuffe Mody Street, Hutatma Vs. Parade, Mumbai-400 005 Chowk, Mumbai-400 001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN No. AAECS8479E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Raja Vora & Shri Nikhil Tiwari, ARs. by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 08.01.2020 Dat…

Nipha Exports Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 1, Kolkata

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

ITA 873/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri A.T. Varkey

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ake further enquiries before cancelling the assessment order. The Commissioner can regard the order erroneous on the ground that the Assessing Officer should have made further enquiries, 7. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Thalibai F. Jain vs. ITO 101 ITR 1, 6 (Karn.) has held that where no enquiries made by the Assessing Officer on the relevant issue, assessment must be held to be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and what is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue must be held to be erroneous though the converse may not always be true, 8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar In…

M/S. Topgrain Management Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 1, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1278/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2013-14 M/S Top Grain V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, 7Th Management Pvt Ltd., Beriwala Building, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Floor, 1/1 Meridith Street, Bhawan,P-7, Kolkata-700 072 Chowringhee Square, [Pan No.Aaact 9889 K] Kolkat-700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 32

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “"व” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2013-14 M/s Top Grain V/s. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, 7th Management Pvt Ltd., Beriwala Building, 2nd Floor, Aayakar Floor, 1/1 Meridith Street, Bhawan,P-7, Kolkata-700 072 Chowringhee Square, [PAN No.AAACT 9889 K] Kolkat-700 069 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri B.K. Nema, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 17 -12-2019 सुनवाई क" ता…

M/S. Aic Iron Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-1, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1332/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1332/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Aic Iron Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pcit-1, Kolkata 25, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 4Th Floor, Kolkata – 700013. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn0217F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca Respondent By : Shri Radhey Shyam, Cit सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Kolkata Dated 12.03.2019 Involving Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Relevant Facts Involved In The Instant Lis Are In A Very Narrow Compass. The Assessing Officer Has Framed His Regular Assessment In Issue Dated 19.12.16 Disallowing Administrative Expenditure Of Rs.46,420/- Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) R.W. Section 14A Of The Act. The Pcit Assumed His Revision Jurisdiction Terming The Above Regular Assessment As Erroneous Causing Prejudice To Interest Of The Revenue Since There Were ‘Large Specific Domestic Transactions” & The Assessing Officer Had Completed His Assessment Without Making Any Reference To The Tpo To Determine Arm’S Length Price Thereof. He Quotes Cbdt Instruction No.3/2016 Dated 10.03.16 Regarding Guidelines For Implementation Of Transfer Pricing

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 14ASection 263Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JM & Dr. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.1332/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) AIC Iron Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata 25, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 4th Floor, Kolkata – 700013. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCN0217F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Sunil Surana, FCA Respondent by : Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date of Hearing : 16/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2…

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

…s filed on 14-12-1972, and the Inspector's enquiry was completed on the same day and the assessment was made on the very same day for all the assessment years except 1973-74 at the spot. Mr. P.D. Mathur distinguished the case of Thalibai F. Jain v. ITO [1975] 101 ITR 1 (Kar.) on the footing that the ITO had made the assessment without enquiry and evidence and in undue haste. The situation in the instant case, is exactly similar. The filing of return, the equiry and assessments were all done on the same day. I am, therefore, firmly of the view that the enquiry, if at all there was any, was conducted in undue haste…

DCIT, Kannur vs. M/S Manjoo & Co., Kannur

ITA 625/COCH/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin10 Dec 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm Assessment Year: 2006-07

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…thout making proper verification with regard to the above issues. The CIT placed reliance on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court In the case of . Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Thalibai S Jain [(1975) 101 ITR 1 (Kar)] wherein it was held that the Commissioner was right in revising the assessment under section 263 of the Act. In that case, the Court observed that “since no such enquiry was made by the ITO ............. the assessment must be held to be prejudicial to the interests of revenue and what is prejudicial to the interests of revenue must be held…