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

Shree Balkrishna Commercial Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. PCIT-I, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1168/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O. P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sujeet Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

…ITA No. 1168/KOL/2017 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI O. P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year 2012-13 M/s. Shree Balkrishna Vs. Principal Commissioner Commercial Co. Ltd., of Income Tax-1 First Floor, 273, P-7, South Extn. Center, Chowringhee Square, Masjid Moth, Kolkata-700 069 NDSE Part-II, New Delhi – 110 049 PAN AAECS2879J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Subhash Singhal, CA Department by : Shri Sujeet Kumar, CIT, DR Date of Hearing 09/11/2021 Date of 25/11/2021 pronouncement O R D E…

M/S Dhara Dealers Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-13(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 523/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…evenue. 3.1. He submitted that the Pr. CIT cannot proceed on the basis of the audit objection without application of own mind,and that such action was bad in law.For this proposition he relied on the following case laws: a) Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. vs. Addl.CIT, 108 ITR 407 Cal. b) CIT vs. Sohana Woollen Mills, 296 ITR 238 P&H. c) CIT vs. D.N. Dosani, 280 ITR 275 Guj. 3.2. He argued that the assessee explained the difference in share valuation of ₹7,92,054/- in his reply but the Pr. CIT without application of mind and without rejecting the explanation and without pointing out as to how prejudice is caused to the Rev…

Ayub Ali, Churu vs. PCIT-3, Jaipur

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

ITA 262/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: The Pcit On Which No Adverse Finding Was Given.”

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Verma (CIT) a
Section 263Section 40A(3)

…e notice u/s 263 has been issued on account of the audit observations raised by the audit team. This fact has not been disputed. Suggestion by audit party cannot form the basis of revision as held by Hon’ble Calcutta High case of Jeewan Lal Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT 108 ITR 407. Hence, on this ground itself the order passed u/s 263 is illegal and bad in law. 8 Sh. Ayub Ali vs. Pr.CIT 11. It was accordingly submitted that the Ld. PCIT has referred to clause (a) & (b) to Explanation 2 to section 263(1) to justify the order passed by him. These clauses are applicable where order is passed without enquiries or verification…

Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3285/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 17(2)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…CIT vs. Vinita Chaurasia, 394 ITR 758 (Del); viii) Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd., 398 ITR 8 (Del) ix) Shri Abhimanyu Gupta vs. PCIT, ITA No. 771/CHD/2017; x) Narayan Tatu Rane vs. ITO 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mumbai Trib.); xi) Jeewanlal Ltd. vs. Addl. ICT, 108 ITR 407 (Cal); xii) B&A Plantation & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT, 290 ITR 395 (Gau); xiii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Del); xiv) CIT vs. Wear Exports Ltd., 341 ITR 166 (Del); xv) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers, 341 ITR 537 (Del); xvi) M/s Klaxon Trading (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT, ITA No.7265/Del/2017. 21 12. The ld. Counsel submitted that even otherwise in a ca…

M/S.Srl Diagnostics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner Income Tax-7, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 1528/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri R. L. Negi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1528/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan & Shri SFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, DR
Section 14ASection 263Section 37

…a different view could be taken, are not enough to say that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 16.3. Further, He relied on the Calcutta High Court decision, in Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd v. ACIT [1977} 108 ITR 407 (Cal) and Hon’ble High Court quashed a notice initiating 263 proceedings, when the notice was based on audit objection and not on independent examination of assessment record by the CIT. 16.4. Ld AR submitted, the notice dated 7.12.2017 for initiation of revision proceedings, evidently being solely based on audit objection is therefore clearly i…

DCIT, Circle-10(1) vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corp. Ltd., New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4432/DEL/2005[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2000-2001

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

…the case of CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Limited [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC) 4) The Ld. CIT, Delhi -IV issued notice u/s 263 on the basis of suggestion made by the audit party which cannot be the basis as was held in the case of jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 407 (Cal.). 5) The assessee prays for deletion of the Order of Ld. CIT, Delhi - IV under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2003-04 and restoring the Order of Assessing Officer (DCIT, Circle 10(1)) dated 27-03-2006 assessing the total loss of Rs. 14,64,85,780/-. 6) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or modify any groun…

Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1153/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

…the case of CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Limited [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC) 4) The Ld. CIT, Delhi -IV issued notice u/s 263 on the basis of suggestion made by the audit party which cannot be the basis as was held in the case of jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 407 (Cal.). 5) The assessee prays for deletion of the Order of Ld. CIT, Delhi - IV under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2003-04 and restoring the Order of Assessing Officer (DCIT, Circle 10(1)) dated 27-03-2006 assessing the total loss of Rs. 14,64,85,780/-. 6) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or modify any groun…

DCIT, Circle-10(1) vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4433/DEL/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4432/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2000-01) I.T.A. No. 4433/Del/2005 (A.Y. 2001-02)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 56

…the case of CIT Vs. Bokaro Steel Limited [1999] 236 ITR 315 (SC) 4) The Ld. CIT, Delhi -IV issued notice u/s 263 on the basis of suggestion made by the audit party which cannot be the basis as was held in the case of jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT [1977] 108 ITR 407 (Cal.). 5) The assessee prays for deletion of the Order of Ld. CIT, Delhi - IV under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2003-04 and restoring the Order of Assessing Officer (DCIT, Circle 10(1)) dated 27-03-2006 assessing the total loss of Rs. 14,64,85,780/-. 6) The appellant craves leave to add, alter or modify any groun…

Smt. Nirmala Goyal, Ajmer vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 920/JPR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Nikhalesh Kataria (CA)For Respondent: Shri A. K. Mahala (JCIT)
Section 154Section 154(2)Section 154(7)Section 155Section 54F

…appellate order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the only operative decision in law, which is effective and can be enforced, is the decision of the appellate authority. In Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 108 ITR 407 , the Calcutta High Court held that the application of the doctrine of merger depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order in each case. 15 Smt. Nirmala Goyal, Ajmer Vs. The ACIT, Ajmer 15. Mr. L.R. Mehta, appearing for the Revenue, argued that it was only the Income-tax Officer, who is authorised under sub-section (9) of section…

Olive Hospitals Private Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 770/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Olive Hospitals Pvt Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax-4, Pan: Aabco 0749 G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri D.V.Anjaneyulu Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.01.2019 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

For Appellant: Sri D.V.AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35A

…14] 152 ITD 132 5. CIT and Another Vs. Gokuldas Esports, Paprika, Weal Monumertal Memorials [2011] 333 ITR 214 6. CIT vs. G.K. Kabra [1995] 251 ITR 707 (Cal.) 7. Unipro Techno Infrastructure (P) Ltd vs. PCIT (2017) 185 TTJ 205 8. Jeewanlal Ltd vs. ACIT [1977] 108 ITR 407 (Cal) 5. Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below. 6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that the assessee has started the hospital on 14th May, 2010 and in proof thereof, the news paper cuttings are filed in the paper book. The assessee has rec…

M/S Rajesh Exports Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1059/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Bhavna C. Yashoy, CIT DR
Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1034, 1058, 1059 & 1056/Bang/2017 Assessment years : 2008-09 to 2011-12 M/s. Rajesh Exports Ltd., The Principal Commissioner No.4, Batavia Chambers, of Income Tax, Kumara Part (East), Vs. (Central), Central Revenue Bengaluru-560001. Building, Queens Road, PAN : AAACR 8642 N Bengaluru-560001. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. A. Shankar, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Bhavna C. Yashoy, CIT DR Date of hearing : 26.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2018…

M/S Rajesh Exports Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1058/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Bhavna C. Yashoy, CIT DR
Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1034, 1058, 1059 & 1056/Bang/2017 Assessment years : 2008-09 to 2011-12 M/s. Rajesh Exports Ltd., The Principal Commissioner No.4, Batavia Chambers, of Income Tax, Kumara Part (East), Vs. (Central), Central Revenue Bengaluru-560001. Building, Queens Road, PAN : AAACR 8642 N Bengaluru-560001. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. A. Shankar, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Bhavna C. Yashoy, CIT DR Date of hearing : 26.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2018…

M/S Rajesh Exports, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1056/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Bhavna C. Yashoy, CIT DR
Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1034, 1058, 1059 & 1056/Bang/2017 Assessment years : 2008-09 to 2011-12 M/s. Rajesh Exports Ltd., The Principal Commissioner No.4, Batavia Chambers, of Income Tax, Kumara Part (East), Vs. (Central), Central Revenue Bengaluru-560001. Building, Queens Road, PAN : AAACR 8642 N Bengaluru-560001. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. A. Shankar, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Bhavna C. Yashoy, CIT DR Date of hearing : 26.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2018…

M/S Rajesh Exports Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1034/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Bhavna C. Yashoy, CIT DR
Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1034, 1058, 1059 & 1056/Bang/2017 Assessment years : 2008-09 to 2011-12 M/s. Rajesh Exports Ltd., The Principal Commissioner No.4, Batavia Chambers, of Income Tax, Kumara Part (East), Vs. (Central), Central Revenue Bengaluru-560001. Building, Queens Road, PAN : AAACR 8642 N Bengaluru-560001. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. A. Shankar, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Bhavna C. Yashoy, CIT DR Date of hearing : 26.09.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2018…

Shekhar S. Dadarkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5255/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Cit-24, Bandra Kurla Prop. M/S S.D. Construction Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Geetanjali Chs Ltd., Plot Mumbai-400050. No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. Pan No. Adapd8694G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Dcit-24 Bandra Kurla Prop. M/S S.D. Construction Vs. (E), Mumbai-400050. Geetanjali Chs Ltd., Plot No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. Pan No. Adapd8694G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil A. Desai, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 31 /05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil A. Desai, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263Section 271B

…lular Limited v. DCIT (2008) 301 ITR 407 (Bom); CIT v. Gabriel India Limited (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom); CIT v. Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom); Refex Industries Limited v. DCIT (ITA No. 972/Mds/2014) by ITAT ‘C’ Bench Chennai; Jeewanlal v. Addl. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 407 (Cal); M/s Superfine Agro Industries v. ITO [ITA No. 203 (Asr)/ 2014] by ITAT Amritsar; J. Thomas & Co. Private Limited v. JCIT [ITA No. 570/Kol/2012] by ITAT ‘A’ Bench Kolkata; Vinay Pratap Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Thacker v. CIT [ITA No. 2939/Mum/2012] by ITAT ‘F’ Bench Mumbai and CIT v. M/s Sunbean Auto Limited (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del). Thus is s…

M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2521/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…stice: he cannot permit his judgment to be influenced by matters not disclosed to the assessee, nor by dictation of another authority." 35. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court too in the case of Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT reported in (1977) 108 ITR 407 (Cal), following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 6 (SC) observed " this order was passed at the suggestion of the audit department of the revenue and not by the Additional Commissioner in exercise of his quasi-judicial discretion. I have noticed the terms of section 263 of the Act which empowers the…

M/S. Cliff Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2520/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…stice: he cannot permit his judgment to be influenced by matters not disclosed to the assessee, nor by dictation of another authority." 35. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court too in the case of Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT reported in (1977) 108 ITR 407 (Cal), following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 6 (SC) observed " this order was passed at the suggestion of the audit department of the revenue and not by the Additional Commissioner in exercise of his quasi-judicial discretion. I have noticed the terms of section 263 of the Act which empowers the…

M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2519/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…stice: he cannot permit his judgment to be influenced by matters not disclosed to the assessee, nor by dictation of another authority." 35. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court too in the case of Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT reported in (1977) 108 ITR 407 (Cal), following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. (1970) 77 ITR 6 (SC) observed " this order was passed at the suggestion of the audit department of the revenue and not by the Additional Commissioner in exercise of his quasi-judicial discretion. I have noticed the terms of section 263 of the Act which empowers the…

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

…s 142(1) was issued to the assessee. Reliance was placed upon the decision in the case of Shri Narayan Tatu Rane vs Income Tax Officer (ITA NO.2690/Mum/2016), Small Wonder Industries vs CIT (ITA No.2464/Mum/2013), Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd. vs Addl. CIT (1997) 108 ITR 407 (Cal.). On the other hand, the Ld. DR, Shri Manjunatha Swamy, Ld. CIT-DR, defended the impugned order by contending that the 3 Startech Engineers assessment order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, therefore, the revisional jurisdiction was justifiably invoked. Our attention was invited to the finding in the impugne…

Raghunath Exporters, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 32(2) Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee stands allowed

ITA 92/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

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

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year:2012-13 Raghunath Exporters V/s. Principal CIT 5F, Park Plaz, 71 ark 10B, Middleton Row 3rd Floor, Street Kolakta-700071 [PAN No.AADFR 8371 E] Kolkata-71 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri K.M. Roy, FCA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 07-09-2017 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 10-11-2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER…