Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Indian Textile vs CIT (157 ITR 112) (Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT ( come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 1961, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 68, Section 142(1).

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

Q: How many judgments cite Indian Textile vs CIT (157 ITR 112) (Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT (?

75 judgments on BharatTax cite Indian Textile vs CIT (157 ITR 112) (Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT ( (101 ITR 1), spanning 2015 to 2026.

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.

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

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenue malabar industrial section 263(1)erroneous and prejudicial section 119 section 263 addition under section 68 section 26 section 92ca limited scrutiny section 92c section 92

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

Gordon Bruce Serrao, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -28, Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3105/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram a/wFor Respondent: Shri M. Daya Sagar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…v/s CIT, [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC); xiv) Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v/s CIT, [1987] 163 ITR 129 (Mad.); xv) Bismillah Trading Co. v/s IO, [2001] 248 ITR 292 (Ker.); xvi) Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v/s CIT, [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC); xvii) Thalibai F. Jain v/s ITO, [1975] 101 ITR 1 (Kar.); and xviii) CIT v/s Pushpa Devi, [1987] 164 ITR 639 (Patna). 4. Shri M. Dayasagar, the learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of learned PCIT submitted, the Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry at all with regard to the nature of income derived by the assessee from sale of flats. He submitted, the v…

M/S. General Polytex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. ITO, Ward - 1(1), Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2211/KOL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2008-09 M/S General Polytex Pvt. V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ward-1(1), Aayakar International Commerce Bhawan, P-7, Centre (Icc), Near Chowringhee Kadiwala School, Ring Square,Kolkata-69 Road, Surat-395002 [Pan No.Ssvvb 5335 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Radehy Shyam, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 09-09-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 22-11-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 28.03.2018 Passed In Case M.No.Pr.Cit-1/Kol/Revision U/S263/2017- 18/14797-14800, Involving Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. The Registry Has Already Issued Rpad Notice Dated 20.08.2019 For Today’S (09.09.2019) Hearing. We Therefore Proceed Ex Parte Against The Assessee To Decide The Instant Appeal On Merits. 2. Case File Suggests That The Assessing Officer Had Framed Assessment / Re-Assessment In Assessee’S Case In Issue Dated 28.01.2016 Invoking Sec.

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 263

…make 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 enquirires made by the Assessing Officer on the relevant issue, assessment must be held to be prejudicial to the interests of the ITA No.2211/Kol/2018 A.Y.2008-09 M/s General Polytex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-1(1), Kol. Page 5 revenue and what is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue must be held to be erroneous tho…

Sheth Commercial Co., Kolkata vs. CIT-14 Kolkata, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1406/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Sheth Commercial Co. V/S. Pr. Cit-14, C/O D.J. Shah & Co. 3, Government Place, Kalyan Bhavan, 2 Elgin Kolkata-700001 Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan No.Aakfs 409 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Shrhari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-04-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-14, Kolkata’S Order Dated 20.03.2017 Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame Afresh Assessment After Setting Aside The Regular One Framed Dated 23.03.2015 In Exercising Revision Jurisdiction Vested U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). We Have Heard Shri Miraj D Shah Learned Authorized Representative For Assessee & Shri P.K.Srihari, Cit/Dr Appearing At Revenue’S Behest. Case File Perused. 2. It Transpires During The Course Of Hearing That The Assessee’S Pleading Challenge Correctness Of The Pcit’S Order Revising The Regular Assessment In Issue Framed By The Assessing Officer On 06.07.2016 With Directions To Frame

Section 1Section 263Section 35(1)(c)

…make further enquiries before cancelling the assessment order. The Commissioner can regard the order erroneous son 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 interest 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 Indus…

Smt. Sefali Sarkar, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 17, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2464/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 263Section 273ASection 37(1)

…ned order. Consequently, the limitation will have to be reckoned from the date of passing of the impugned assessment order dated 30.6.2015 and hence the present proceedings are not barred. 7. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Thalibai F Jain Vs. ITO 101 ITR 1.6 (Kam) has held that where no enquiries made by the Assessing Officer on the relevant issue, assessment must be held to be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and what is prejudicial to the interest of 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 Industrial…

Mr. Pranjal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1357/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.H. Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Murari, CIT-D.R

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

…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 - Thalibai F. Jain Vs ITO [1975] 101 ITR 1 (Kar). (v) Non-enquiry into source of capital is an error - Enquiry into the source of the initial capita! is crucial for the ITO. If that is not done, the assessment is bound to be erroneous and hence prejudicial to the revenue - CIT Vs Pushpa Devi [1987] 164 ITR 639 (Pat). (vi) Omission to make further enquiries is an error - The Commissioner can…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,जी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member Assessment 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 b…

Sh. Nittan Aneja, Sbs Nagar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, both the assessee’s appeal and the Revenue’s C

ITA 288/ASR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 288/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Joshi (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 288/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Nittan Aneja, Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Gahoon Road, Tax, Jalandhar-1, Jalandhar Ward No. 6, Balachaur Distt. SBS Nagar [Pb.] [PAN: AJIPA 4449G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No. 12/Asr/2016 (arising out of I.T.A. No. 288/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Principal Commissioner of Vs. Nittan Aneja, Income Tax, Jalandhar-1, Gahoon Road, Jalandhar Ward No. 6, Balachaur Distt. SBS Nag…

Grain Merchants Co-Op.Hsg. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-28, Mumbai

In the result , the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2187/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2187/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिाम/ Grain Merchants Co- Pr. Cit-28 Operative Housing Society Mumbai Ltd, Plot No. 26/35, Sec-17, V. Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaaag3973H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri. Abhijit Patankar,CIT-DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…cisions to support its contentions : a) Bismillah Trading Co. v. Intelligence Officer (2001) 248 ITR 292(Ker.) b) Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT (1987) 163 ITR 129(Mad.) c) Smt Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323(SC) d) Thalibai F. Jain v. ITO (1975) 101 ITR 1(Kar.) e) CIT v. Pushpa Devi (1987) 164 ITR 639(Pat.) The learned Pr. CIT rejected the contentions of the assessee by holding as under:- “ 6. The submission of the assessee is duly considered and found not tenable. The assessee has earned interest income of Rs. 13,78,340/- form interest from FDR with Co-Op Bank. A Co-Op Bank does not fall under the…

Maharashtra Airport Development, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

…the interest of Revenue, meaning thereby, “prejudice” must be prejudice to the Revenue administration. At the same time, if another view is possible revision is not permissible. Our view is fortified by the decision from Himachal Pradesh Financial Corpn. (186 Taxmann 105)(HP), Bismillah Trading Co. (248 ITR 292)(Ker.) and CIT vs. Green World Corpn. (314 ITR 81)(SC). For invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 the assessment order must contain grievous error which is subversive of the administration of Revenue. Further, exact error must be disclosed by the Commissioner as was held in CIT vs. G.K. Kabra…

Manoir Petro India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

ITA 2626/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manoir Petro India Limited, Pr. Cit-1 602, B-Wing, Universal Room No.387, बनाम/ Business Park, Chandivali 3Rd Floor, Vs. Farm Road, Off Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aafcm5210J

Section 263

…to the Revenue administration. At the same time, if another view is possible, revision is not permissible. Our view 22 Manoir Petro India Limited ITA No.2626/Mum/2015 & C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 is fortified by the decision from Himachal Pradesh Financial Corp. (186 Taxmann 105)(HP), Bismillah Trading Co. (248 ITR 292)(Ker.) and CIT vs. Green World Corpn. (314 ITR 81)(SC). For invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, the assessment order must contain grievous error which is subversive of the administration of Revenue. Further, exact error must be disclosed by the Commissioner as was held in CIT vs. G.…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,‘ई’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘E’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member Assessment 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 "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Jitendra Jain Shri Manjunatha Swamy-CIT राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by 07/05/2018 सुनवाई…

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘जी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member ITA NOs.3608 & 3609/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10 Gautam Tube Corporation, Pr. CIT-19, 1st Floor, 7, Doshi Bhavan, Room No.228, 02nd Floor, बनाम/ 02nd Carpenter Street, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Raod, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AADFG0524A "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Mr. Rajesh Chamaria…

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

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

…s 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 Officer is 25 The Mumbai District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. erroneous and prejudicial to the interest…

Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-9, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 401/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Damadar Valley V/S. Dcit, Circle-9, Corporation, Dvc Towers Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, (4Th Floor), Vip Chowringhee Square Road,Kolkata-54 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aabcd 0541 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Md. Usman Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 17-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 21-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Dispute The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.01.2017 Set Aside The Assessment Order Date30.03.2015 For Assessment Year 2012-13 With A Direction To Re-Do The Assessment In Respect Of Issue Therein. Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Ld. Authorized Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Md. Usman, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit Was Unjustified In Law In Holding The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Passed For The A.Y. 2012-13 To Be Erroneous In So Far As It Was Prejudicial To The Interest Of

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

…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. the 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 interest 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 Indus…

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

…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 Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court…

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

…e, 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 Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court i…

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

Section 153ASection 263

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

Section 153ASection 263

Ramnath Jhunjhunwala, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 40(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1019/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 263Section 40Section 44A

…make 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 (Kam) 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 Indus…