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 (

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

…ntest the observation made by the ld. Commissioner. Our view is 14 M/s Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care 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 in C…

Small Wonder Industries, Mumbai vs. CIT 24, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2464/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Small Wonder Industries, Cit-24, 78, Virwani Indl. Estate, Mumbai बनाम/ Western Express Highway, Vs. Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400063 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aalfs6318Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Prakash Jotwani Shri Debasis Chandra Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2017 24/02/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…to 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 (…

People Ineractive (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3717/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 10ASection 147Section 263

…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 "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member ITA Nos.3558 & 3717/Mum/2016 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 People Interactive (I) Private DCIT-4(3), Ltd. Mumbai बनाम/ C/o- Samaria & Co. Vs. Chartered Accountants, 2E, Court Chambers, 35, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AAECS7931B "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri R.S. Samaria Shri Sanjay Singh-D…

People Ineractive (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3558/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 10ASection 147Section 263

…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 "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member ITA Nos.3558 & 3717/Mum/2016 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 People Interactive (I) Private DCIT-4(3), Ltd. Mumbai बनाम/ C/o- Samaria & Co. Vs. Chartered Accountants, 2E, Court Chambers, 35, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AAECS7931B "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri R.S. Samaria Shri Sanjay Singh-D…

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)

…essee, 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 erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs M. M. Kham…

Sri. R. Lokesh, Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1520/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raomr. R. Lokesh Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, No. 107, Ii Main Road, Bangalore – Iii, Chikkadugodi, Tavrekere Post, C. R. Buildings, Bangalore-560029. Queen’S Road, Pan : Aazpl 5461 F Bangalore – 560001. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G. R. Reddy, CIT-DR-I
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…9,860/- as income and AO had failed to cause necessary enquiry on this aspect while passing impugned order and placing reliance on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. 341 ITR 293 and Thalibai Jain Vs. ITO 101 ITR 1 held that such order is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of revenue and therefore set aside to the file of the AO for denovo examination of the issue after affording an opportunity to be heard to the assessee. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us in the present appeal. The learned authorized representative reiterat…

Trans Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3568/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Mr. Manjunath Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…248 ITR 292 (Ker.) (b) (b) Venkatakrishna rice Company vs. CIT (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad.) ITA Nos.3567 & 3568/Mum/12 A.Ys. 07-08 & 09-10 [M/s. Trans Impex Pvt, Ltd. vs. CIT] Page 4 (c) Thalibai F. Jain and others vs. ITO Assessment 4, Hubli and Another (1975) 101 ITR 1 (Karn.) 3.1 Ld. Authorized Representative submitted other submissions which are reproduced as under: “Meanwhile, after making these submissions, but and before any order u/s.263 could be passed by your honour, the assessee company’s Assessing Officer Income Tax Officer 2(3)(3), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai has added the amount of Rs.96,02,367/- as remi…

Trans Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 3567/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Mr. Manjunath Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…248 ITR 292 (Ker.) (b) (b) Venkatakrishna rice Company vs. CIT (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad.) ITA Nos.3567 & 3568/Mum/12 A.Ys. 07-08 & 09-10 [M/s. Trans Impex Pvt, Ltd. vs. CIT] Page 4 (c) Thalibai F. Jain and others vs. ITO Assessment 4, Hubli and Another (1975) 101 ITR 1 (Karn.) 3.1 Ld. Authorized Representative submitted other submissions which are reproduced as under: “Meanwhile, after making these submissions, but and before any order u/s.263 could be passed by your honour, the assessee company’s Assessing Officer Income Tax Officer 2(3)(3), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai has added the amount of Rs.96,02,367/- as remi…

Ayyazuddin J, Khan, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT- 22

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2881/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2881/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ayyazuddin J. Khan Ito-22(3)-1, Block No. 103, Aggarwal Upavan, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway बनाम/ Plot No. 11, Sector – 19, Nerul, Station, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 706 Navi Mumbai-400 073 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Atxpk 4365 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kishore K. Poddar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri H. N. Singh

For Appellant: Shri Kishore K. PoddarFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 263

…mind, makes the same as 4 Ayyazuddin J. Khan vs. ITO erroneous in-so-far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, liable for revision u/s. 263, is legion, and for which we make reference to the following decisions: Thalibai F. Jain v. ITO [1975] 101 ITR 1 (Kar); CIT (Addl.) vs. Mukur Corporation [1978] 111 ITR 312 (Guj.); Swarup Vegetable Products vs. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 412 (All); Tarajan Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [1994] 205 ITR 45 (Gau); CIT vs. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal); CIT vs. Mahavar Traders[1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar vs. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 657 (Mad)…

People Infocom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. C.I.T. Cir.7, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 210/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2007-08 People Infocom Private Ltd. Cit-7, C/O- Samria & Co. Room No.611, बनाम/ Chartered Accountants, 6Th Floor, Vs. 2E, Court Chambers, Aayakar Bhavan, 35, New Marine Lines, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 Pan No.Aadcp5658H (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

Section 263Section 51

…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…

Krunal Pravinchandra Gala, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1 Thane, Pune

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1312/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 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…

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

…ause 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 erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs M. M.Kha…

Sarah Faisal Hawa, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4752/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…he same by Invoking provisions of section 263: 1. CIT Vs. Pushpa Dew' (Patna) 173177? 495 2. Addl. CIT Vs. Mukur Corporation (Guj) 111 ITR 312 3. Swamp Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (All) 187 ITR 412 4. Thallbal Jain & Others Vs. ITO & Anr (Kar) 101 ITR 1 5. Tejinder Singh Makker Vs. ACTT (174 T, Mum-TM) 61 ITD 57 6. Rampyari Devi Saroogi Vs. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 CIT Vs. McMillan& Co. (SC) 33 ITR 182. 8. LaSa Vat/ SInghal Vs. C1T (All) 226 ITR 527 9. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. C1T & Ors(Del) 99 ITR 375 10. D&H Secheron Electonles Ltd. Vs. DOT (ITAT, Indore) 70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CI…

Sarah Faisal Hawa, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4751/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…he same by Invoking provisions of section 263: 1. CIT Vs. Pushpa Dew' (Patna) 173177? 495 2. Addl. CIT Vs. Mukur Corporation (Guj) 111 ITR 312 3. Swamp Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (All) 187 ITR 412 4. Thallbal Jain & Others Vs. ITO & Anr (Kar) 101 ITR 1 5. Tejinder Singh Makker Vs. ACTT (174 T, Mum-TM) 61 ITD 57 6. Rampyari Devi Saroogi Vs. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 CIT Vs. McMillan& Co. (SC) 33 ITR 182. 8. LaSa Vat/ SInghal Vs. C1T (All) 226 ITR 527 9. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. C1T & Ors(Del) 99 ITR 375 10. D&H Secheron Electonles Ltd. Vs. DOT (ITAT, Indore) 70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CI…

Sarah Faisal Hawa, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4749/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…he same by Invoking provisions of section 263: 1. CIT Vs. Pushpa Dew' (Patna) 173177? 495 2. Addl. CIT Vs. Mukur Corporation (Guj) 111 ITR 312 3. Swamp Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (All) 187 ITR 412 4. Thallbal Jain & Others Vs. ITO & Anr (Kar) 101 ITR 1 5. Tejinder Singh Makker Vs. ACTT (174 T, Mum-TM) 61 ITD 57 6. Rampyari Devi Saroogi Vs. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 CIT Vs. McMillan& Co. (SC) 33 ITR 182. 8. LaSa Vat/ SInghal Vs. C1T (All) 226 ITR 527 9. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. C1T & Ors(Del) 99 ITR 375 10. D&H Secheron Electonles Ltd. Vs. DOT (ITAT, Indore) 70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CI…