Jhulelal Land Development Corpn v. DCIT

56 ITD 345Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1996#21189 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2022.

Judgments citing Jhulelal Land Development Corpn v. DCIT

MAHALAXMI KUNDAN MEENA DIAMOND JEWELLERS P LTD,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JAIPUR

ITA 119/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Avdesh Kumar (CIT)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…onsibility. "The revisionary jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be exercised by the Commissioner either for substituting his own option for that of the Assessing Officer or for making a fishing or roving enquiry" Jhulelal Land Development Corpn Vs. DCIT (1996) 56 ITD 345 (Bom.) The Commissioner did not come to a positive finding that the claim of the assessee was erroneous. He simply asked the Assessing Officer to re-examine the matter. This was not possible. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) 8. Ratio of case laws quoted by the Learned CIT are not applicable in the case of the assessee – 15 Ma…

KISAN STEEL CORPORATION,GHAZIABAD vs. PR. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5362/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri JayMishra, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…subordinate officer. He also relied on the following decisions : 1. Ganpat Rai Bishnoi 152 Taxman 242 (Raj.) 2. Salora International Ltd. (2005) 2 SOT 705 (Del.) 3. Super Casseete Industries Pvt. Ltd. 41 ITD 530 (Del) 4. Jhulelal Land Development Corporation 56 ITD 345 (BOM) 5. CIT vs. Krishna Capbox (P) Ltd. 372 ITR 310 (All.) 6. DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del) 7. Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy 100 ITD 173 (MUM) 14. Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. PCIT. He submitted that the AO has never examined the issue under provisions of section 40(b)(v) or 40(b)(iv) and he has 13 K…

SMT. ILLABEN JAYANTKUMAR DOSHI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 124/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.124/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri R.D. Lal Chandani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36

…ther inquiry unless it is established that by not conducting an inquiry, an error has crept in the order of the AO. For buttressing this contention, he replied on the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Jhulelal Land Development Corpn. Vs. DCIT, 56 ITD 345 Mum. He also contended that it is not open to the Commissioner to remit the matter to the AO for the purpose of further investigation. In other words, it is not necessary that investigation conducted by the AO should match to the standard or the thought process of the Commissioner. He made reference to the decision in the following cases: i) M/s.…

ANAND JAIN,MUMBAI vs. CIT CEN-III, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3895/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3895/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06) Anand Jain, The Commissioner Of बनाम/ A-13, Sterling Apartments, Income Tax , Central – Iii, V. 38, Peddar Road, Room No. 109, Mumbai – 400 026. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpj1890J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, CIT-DR

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

…venue. But that by itself would not be enough to vest the Commissioner with the power of suo motu revision because the first requirement, namely, that the order is erroneous is absent." The ITAT, Bombay in the case of Jhuleal Land Development Corpn. v. DCIT (56 ITD 345) following Gabriel India's judgment, also held that when Assessing Officer's view was also a possible view, it could be incorrect to hold assessment order to be erroneous merely because Commissioner held a different view. The Assessing Officer has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee company after considering the facts of the case. The order…