Jewel of India v. ACIT

325 ITR 92High Court2010#11494 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2019.

Judgments citing Jewel of India v. ACIT

Abdullabhai Hasanali Through L/H Zohrabai, Nagpur vs. A.C.I.T. Cir-3, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 318/NAG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Bhusari, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)

…poses. There is no error by the AO. (5) The learned CIT did not record whether the twin condition that the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue has been satisfied. (i) Jewel of India Vs. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 92 (Bom.) (6) (a) The assessment order was earlier made u/s.143(3) after due scrutiny of records maintained by the assessee. The AO has adopted the possible view. (i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) (b) Section 10(38) is identical to section 10(33). Similar claim of allowi…

Abdullabhai Hasanali Through L/H Zohrabai, Nagpur vs. A.C.I.T. Cir-3, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 317/NAG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Bhusari, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)

…poses. There is no error by the AO. (5) The learned CIT did not record whether the twin condition that the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue has been satisfied. (i) Jewel of India Vs. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 92 (Bom.) (6) (a) The assessment order was earlier made u/s.143(3) after due scrutiny of records maintained by the assessee. The AO has adopted the possible view. (i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) (b) Section 10(38) is identical to section 10(33). Similar claim of allowi…

Shri. Abdullabhai Hasanali, Nagpur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, -II, Nagpur

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 621/NAG/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Dr. Milind Bhusari, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271(1)

…poses. There is no error by the AO. (5) The learned CIT did not record whether the twin condition that the order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue has been satisfied. (i) Jewel of India Vs. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 92 (Bom.) (6) (a) The assessment order was earlier made u/s.143(3) after due scrutiny of records maintained by the assessee. The AO has adopted the possible view. (i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) (b) Section 10(38) is identical to section 10(33). Similar claim of allowi…

ITO 2(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Canara Bank Securities Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 821/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer-2(1)(4), M/S Canara Bank Securities Room No.553, 5Th Floor, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 7Th Floor, Maker Chamber-Iii, Vs. M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaacg2218H

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 56

…of the Act by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The assessee company relied upon the following decisions to advance and support its contentions: (i) CIT v. Gabriel India Limited 203 ITR 108(Bom.) (ii) Jewels of India v. ACIT 325 ITR 92(Bom.) (iii) Globus Infocom Limited v. CIT 369 ITR 1 (Del.) (iv) Star India Limited v. Addl. CIT 143 TTJ 307(Mum. Trib.) 9. The Ld DR relied upon the orders dated 19th March 2013 u/s 263 of the Act passed by the CIT. The Ld. DR stated that there is no discussion in the assessment order dated 08th October 2010 u/s 143(3) of the Act passed by the AO…

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order dated 31

ITA 2193/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chander, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 263

…se of proceedings u/s 263 of I.T. Act. (C.3) Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the following case laws : 1. Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 2. CIT vs. DLF Ltd. 350 ITR 555 3. CIT vs. Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 4. Jewel of India vs. ACIT 325 ITR 92 5. Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT 263 ITR 437 6. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 7. ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 8. CIT vs. Nirav Modi 71 taxmann.com 272 9. Oil India Ltd. vs. CIT 138 ITR 836 10. CIT vs. Sashi Theatre Pvt. Ltd. 248 ITR 126 11. CIT vs. Nirma Chemicals Works (P.) Ltd. 182 Taxman 183 12. CIT vs. K. Sera Sera Prod…

M/S. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5677/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 105Section 106Section 10BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…on that it is incumbent for the Ld. CIT to point out and record a finding that the order is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jewel of India vs. ACIT, reported in [2010] 325 ITR 92 and Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs Leisure Wear Exports Ltd., reported in [2012] 341 ITR 166. He further reiterated the contention raised by the assessee before the Ld. CIT that, revision under section 263 cannot be done at the instance of the Audit Party, especially when on the basis of the said Audit objection itself the AO has…

M/S. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4875/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 105Section 106Section 10BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…on that it is incumbent for the Ld. CIT to point out and record a finding that the order is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jewel of India vs. ACIT, reported in [2010] 325 ITR 92 and Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs Leisure Wear Exports Ltd., reported in [2012] 341 ITR 166. He further reiterated the contention raised by the assessee before the Ld. CIT that, revision under section 263 cannot be done at the instance of the Audit Party, especially when on the basis of the said Audit objection itself the AO has…

Udaysingh P Bobade (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result , the appeal in ITA No

ITA 7491/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7490/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Sujaysingh P. Bobade (Huf) बनाम/ I.T.O. 19(1)(2), A-101, Amrit Chs Ltd. Piramal Chambers, V. 15 Carter Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaphs9015L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7490/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Sujaysingh P. Bobade (HUF) बनाम/ I.T.O. 19(1)(2), A-101, Amrit CHS Ltd. Piramal Chambers, v. 15 Carter Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAPHS9015L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7491/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Udaysingh P. Bobade (HUF) बनाम/ I.T.O. 19(1…

Sujaysingh P Bobade (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result , the appeal in ITA No

ITA 7490/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7490/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Sujaysingh P. Bobade (Huf) बनाम/ I.T.O. 19(1)(2), A-101, Amrit Chs Ltd. Piramal Chambers, V. 15 Carter Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaphs9015L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “E” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7490/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Sujaysingh P. Bobade (HUF) बनाम/ I.T.O. 19(1)(2), A-101, Amrit CHS Ltd. Piramal Chambers, v. 15 Carter Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AAPHS9015L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7491/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Udaysingh P. Bobade (HUF) बनाम/ I.T.O. 19(1…

Jewel of India v. ACIT (325 ITR 92) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax