Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd. v. ACIT

108 ITR 407High Court1977#2430 most cited

What is Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

A revision order under section 263 is invalid if it is based solely on an audit objection without independent application of mind by the Commissioner. The Assessing Officer must apply their own mind rather than relying on audit party notes.

47

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd v ACIT · section 263 · revision · audit objection · CIT application of mind · inadequate enquiry · prejudicial to interest of revenue · section 142(1) · assessment order erroneous · doctrine of merger

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 147Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 44afsection 262inadequate enquirylack of enquirydoctrine of mergertrade creditorsprejudicial to interest of revenuesection 10(37)section 263(1)malabar industrialrevision u/s 263assessment order erroneous

Judgments citing Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd. v. ACIT

Baljit Kaur, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Karnal

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4073/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Baljit Kaur, Pcit, 726, Sector-13, U.E., Karnal, Vs. Office Of The Principal Haryana. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aippk7073E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Baljit Kaur, Dcit, H.No.142-B, Model Town Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Sector-12, Extension, Ludhiana, Karnal, Haryana. Punjab. Pan No.Aippk7073E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…sought for allowing the appeal. He relied upon the followings judgments: i-Gulshan Kumar v PCIT Rohtak ITA Noo. i676/Del/2023 ii- Pawan Kumar v. PCIT Rohtak ITANo.i655/Del/2023 iii-Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and ors [1977] 108 ITR 407(Cal) iv- M/s Ashi Plywood Industries Hyderabad v ACIT Circle -3 Hyderabad 1041/H/2014 v- Jai Singh Karwal vs PCIT Rohtak ITA No,i963/Del/24 vi- Jai Prakash vs PCIT Rohtak ITA No. 1675/Del/ 2023 vii- [2022] 145 taxmann. Com 590(Calcutta) 6 ITA i503/Del/2023. 8. Per contra, the Ld Department's Representative submitted that the contention of the ass…

Baljit Kaur, Karnal vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1208/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Baljit Kaur, Pcit, 726, Sector-13, U.E., Karnal, Vs. Office Of The Principal Haryana. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aippk7073E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Baljit Kaur, Dcit, H.No.142-B, Model Town Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Sector-12, Extension, Ludhiana, Karnal, Haryana. Punjab. Pan No.Aippk7073E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…sought for allowing the appeal. He relied upon the followings judgments: i-Gulshan Kumar v PCIT Rohtak ITA Noo. i676/Del/2023 ii- Pawan Kumar v. PCIT Rohtak ITANo.i655/Del/2023 iii-Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and ors [1977] 108 ITR 407(Cal) iv- M/s Ashi Plywood Industries Hyderabad v ACIT Circle -3 Hyderabad 1041/H/2014 v- Jai Singh Karwal vs PCIT Rohtak ITA No,i963/Del/24 vi- Jai Prakash vs PCIT Rohtak ITA No. 1675/Del/ 2023 vii- [2022] 145 taxmann. Com 590(Calcutta) 6 ITA i503/Del/2023. 8. Per contra, the Ld Department's Representative submitted that the contention of the ass…

The South Indian Bank, Thrissur vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 284/COCH/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Dcit, Circle – 1(1) & Tps ……………… Respondent Thrissur, Kerala

For Appellant: Shri Naresh C, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

…der section 154. On this there was some judicial controversy. See Karsandas Bhagwandas Patel's case [1975] 98 ITR 255 (Guj.), (which was dissented from in J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 344 (All.)), Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 407 (Cal.), Premchand Sitanath Roy v. Addl. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 751 (Cal.). But the conflict of judicial opinion is now resolved as the principle of partial merger is now given statutory effect by sub-section (1A) of section 154 introduced by the Direct Taxes (Amendment) Act, 1964. In the instant case, the question of the rate applicable to the factor…

Jalalabad Solvex Private Ltd, Jalalabad vs. Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar-1

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

ITA 117/ASR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C.A
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

…There was no error in the view taken by the AO-CIT not justified in invoking jurisdiction under s.263 on the strength of an audit note." Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Jeevan Lal (1929) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 407 (Cal.) 16. The second legal objection raised by the ld. AR was that in the instant case, the ld. PCIT was wrong in referring to Explanation-2 to section 263, of the Act because it has been inserted by the Finance Act, w.e.f. 01.06.2015, and he submitted that the amended provisions are not applicable to the case of the assessee as the relevant a…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ordered on any independent enquiry carried out by the PCIT. The notice to show cause, issued u/s 263 of the Act itself is based on the averment that the AO has failed to consider the relevant seized material. In this regard, in “Jeewanlal Ltd. V Addl. CIT, 108 ITR 407 (Cal), following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. Vs CWT, 77 ITR 6 (S.C), it has been held that while exercising revisionary powers, the Commissioner must have an unbiased mind and he must decide the dispute in accordance with the procedure which is consistent with the principle of natural justic…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ordered on any independent enquiry carried out by the PCIT. The notice to show cause, issued u/s 263 of the Act itself is based on the averment that the AO has failed to consider the relevant seized material. In this regard, in “Jeewanlal Ltd. V Addl. CIT, 108 ITR 407 (Cal), following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. Vs CWT, 77 ITR 6 (S.C), it has been held that while exercising revisionary powers, the Commissioner must have an unbiased mind and he must decide the dispute in accordance with the procedure which is consistent with the principle of natural justic…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ordered on any independent enquiry carried out by the PCIT. The notice to show cause, issued u/s 263 of the Act itself is based on the averment that the AO has failed to consider the relevant seized material. In this regard, in “Jeewanlal Ltd. V Addl. CIT, 108 ITR 407 (Cal), following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. Vs CWT, 77 ITR 6 (S.C), it has been held that while exercising revisionary powers, the Commissioner must have an unbiased mind and he must decide the dispute in accordance with the procedure which is consistent with the principle of natural justic…

Anand Surana, Raipur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 192/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.192/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Anand Surana, Nanesh Kripa, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aosps5275H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K Meena, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

…Act on the suggestion of the audit department, then, the same could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed had relied on certain judicial pronouncements, as under : (i) Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and Others (1977) 108 ITR 407 (Cal. HC) 6 Anand Surana Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 (C.G.) (ii) Arihant Jewellers Private Limited Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur, ITA No.61/RPR/2021 dated 01.04.2022. (iii) Akhilesh Jain Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur, ITA No.60/RPR/2021 dated 01.04.2022 On the basis of his aforesaid contention, it was submitted by the Ld. A…

Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 68/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

Shri Sukhjit Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 67/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

Smt Harneet Kaur Juneja, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 66/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The DIT (I.T), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3345/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. The Director Of Income-Tax (It) 3Rd Floor, Tax Department 1St Floor, Scindia House 23-25, M.G. Road, Fort N.M. Road Ballard Pier Mumbai - 400001 Mumbai - 400038 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Shri Fenil Bhatt Department Represented By : Shri. Soumendu Kumar Dash

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…er is in consonance with the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. Therefore, it 3 Standard Chartered Bank cannot be said that the decision is erroneous and also submitted that the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Jeevanial v. Addl.CIT [108 ITR 407] has held that notice u/s. 263 at the instance of Audit without exercising own discretion and judgement cannot be sustained. 4. Ld.DIT rejected the submissions made by the assessee and observed that on all the issues involved herein, the Assessing Officer has not even called for the relevant information/facts from the assessee and has not applie…

M/S Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. JCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1041/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16
Section 127(2)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…what remains is not the order of rectification, but only the assessment as rectified.” 6.6. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd., vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors reported in 108 ITR 407 wherein it was held as under:- 3. The section gives the Commissioner the power to call for and examine the record of any proceeding under the Act and if he considers that any order passed by the Income-tax Officer, in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he might after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and…

M/S Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Private Limited (Earlier Know As M/S Edelweiss Commodities Services Limited), Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1040/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13
Section 127(2)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…what remains is not the order of rectification, but only the assessment as rectified.” 6.6. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd., vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors reported in 108 ITR 407 wherein it was held as under:- 3. The section gives the Commissioner the power to call for and examine the record of any proceeding under the Act and if he considers that any order passed by the Income-tax Officer, in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he might after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and…

Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port Trust, Kolkata vs. PCIT-5, Kolkata

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2015-16 is allowed and for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 170/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Manish Borad

Section 139(1)Section 244ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

…principles of natural justice. 6. Impugned order is based on Revenue Audit Party (RAP) observation (as mentioned in Para No.1 of the impugned order), which is not permissible as held by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jeevanlal Ltd v ACIT (1977) 108 ITR 407 (Cal).” 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee namely Kolkata Port Trust is engaged in business of port operation and providing port services. Assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY 2015-16 & 2016-17 were framed on 29.12.2017 & 29.12.2018 after making certain additions. Subsequently, for both these years,…

Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port Trust, Kolkata vs. PCIT-5, Kolkata

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2015-16 is allowed and for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 169/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Manish Borad

Section 139(1)Section 244ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

…principles of natural justice. 6. Impugned order is based on Revenue Audit Party (RAP) observation (as mentioned in Para No.1 of the impugned order), which is not permissible as held by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jeevanlal Ltd v ACIT (1977) 108 ITR 407 (Cal).” 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee namely Kolkata Port Trust is engaged in business of port operation and providing port services. Assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act for AY 2015-16 & 2016-17 were framed on 29.12.2017 & 29.12.2018 after making certain additions. Subsequently, for both these years,…

Sandeep P. Parikh, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -16, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 678/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesandeep P. Parikh Vs. Pr. Cit- 16 B-6, Anand Bhavan, Room No. 437, 4Th Bajaj Road, Vile Parle Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, (W), Mumbai – 400056 Mk Road, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajpp8447R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Pankaj Toprani.Ar Respondent By : Shri Ajay. K. Srivastava.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-16, Mumbai Passed U/Sec 263 Of The Act, 1961. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Tribunal Due To Covid-19 Pandemic. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Sandeep P. Parikh, Mumbai. Delay & We Find The Facts Mentioned In The Affidavit Are Reasonable & Acceptable. The Ld.Dr Has No Specific Objections. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Pankaj Toprani.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay. K. Srivastava.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28

…her issues. The Pr. CIT cannot travel beyond the limited scrutiny issues and the Ld.AR relied on the judicial decisions on the scope of the limited scrutiny as under: 1. M/s. Su-Raj Diamond Dealers Pvt Vs Pr CIT, 203 TTJ 137. 2. Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd Vs. ACIT, 108 ITR 407. 3. Malbar Industrial Co. Ltd, 109 taxan 66. 4. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd, (SC), 2008, 166 taxman 188 5. Cit Vs. Nirav Modi, 2016, 71 taxmann.com 272. 6. CIT Vs. M/s Shreepati Holdings & Finance Pvt Ltd. 1879 of 2013. 7. ACIT Vs. Delite Enterprises (P) Ltd, 2011, 135 TTJ 663 8. G. Chella Krishna Vs. ACIT, 2018 168 ITD 117. 8. The Ld.AR contentions ar…

Sehorse Mercantile Co. P Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-6, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as above

ITA 1286/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 263

…f the I.T. Act. No response has been received. Accordingly from the facts on record it is not clear whether the exercise of the revision powers by learned CIT was his own. In this regard it is noted that Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Jewanlal Ltd. Addl. CIT (108 ITR 407) has laid down that the exercise of discretion and judgment by the commissioner must be of himself. Where on suggestion of the audit department the commissioner exercised his power of revision it was held that the action on the part of commissioner was unwarranted. Similarly Hon'ble Guahati High Court in Baijnath Biswanath and others Vs. State of…

M/S. Prachi Agriculture & Properties Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur

ITA 30/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 30/Rpr/2021 कर धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 M/S Prachi Agriculture & Properties Private Limited 18-19, Anupam Nagar, Raipur (Cg) 492 001 Pan : Aabcp 3701 H . . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Nikhilesh Begani Revenue By : Shri P. K. Mishra सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 10/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 21/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull, Am; Against The Revisionary Order Of Principal Of Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 [For Short “Pcit”] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Vide Order Dt 26/03/2021, For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2016-2017, The Appellant Assessee Filed This Appeal Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [For Short “The Tribunal”] U/S 253(1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh BeganiFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra
Section 143(3)Section 253(1)Section 263Section 68

…erroneous, and the very absence of tangible material before the revisionary authority itself sufficient to hold the action as unsustainable in law and this view has been invigorated by the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in “Jeewanlal limited Vs ACIT” reported in 108 ITR 407 (Cal). Further the Hon’ble High of Court of Bombay in “CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd” reported in 203 ITR 108 has also taken similar view that, unless the revisionary authority forms a conclusion on the basis of concrete, tangible & evidential material, it cannot reach to the conclusion rendering the order of assessment erroneous and prejudicial to th…

Arihant Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Bhilai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Raipur

ITA 61/RPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 61/Rpr/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Arihant Jewellers Private Limited 2/6, Akash Ganga, Supela, Bhilai (C.G.) .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant Pan : Aaica 6953 H

For Appellant: Shri S. R. RaoFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Mishra
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

…assessment erroneous, and the very absence of material before the revisionary authority itself sufficient to hold the action as unsustainable in law and our view has been invigorated by the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in “Jeewanlal limited Vs ACIT” reported in 108 ITR 407 (Cal). Further the Hon’ble High of Court of Bombay in “CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd” reported in 203 ITR 108 has also taken similar view that, unless the revisionary authority forms a conclusion on the basis of concrete evidential material, it cannot reach to the conclusion rendering the order of assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests…