Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375)(Del.), Thalibai F Jain v. ITO

164 ITR 639High Court1987#3250 most cited

What is Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375)(Del.), Thalibai F Jain v. ITO authority for?

The revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 can be invoked when an Assessing Officer's order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest. This power can be exercised even if the issue is debatable.

36

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Section 263 · revisional jurisdiction · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · debatable issue · Gee Vee Enterprises · Thalibai F Jain

Issues it is cited on

assessment order erroneoussection 263(1)revision under section 263malabar industrialsection 119erroneous and prejudicialsection 92casection 92creasoned orderchief commissionersection 92section 263

Judgments citing Mad.), Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375)(Del.), Thalibai F Jain v. ITO

Shri Hari & Co Owners, Kaithal vs. Pr. CIT, Chandigarh -1, Rohtak

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 403/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…not to set aside merely unfavourable orders and bring to tax some more money into the treasury. Nor is the section meant to get at sheer escapement of revenue. The prejudice must be prejudice to the revenue administration. 9. Also in CIT v. Pushpa Devi (1987) 164 ITR 639 (Part), it has been held that enquiry into the source of the initial capital is crucial for the ITO, if that is not done, the assessment is bound to be erroneous and hence prejudicial to the revenue than some other procedure, the order passed by the ITO would obviously be prejudicial to the revenue and would give jurisdiction to the Commissioner…

Shri Hari & Co Owners, Kaithal vs. Pr. CIT, Chandigarh -1, Rohtak

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 402/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…not to set aside merely unfavourable orders and bring to tax some more money into the treasury. Nor is the section meant to get at sheer escapement of revenue. The prejudice must be prejudice to the revenue administration. 9. Also in CIT v. Pushpa Devi (1987) 164 ITR 639 (Part), it has been held that enquiry into the source of the initial capital is crucial for the ITO, if that is not done, the assessment is bound to be erroneous and hence prejudicial to the revenue than some other procedure, the order passed by the ITO would obviously be prejudicial to the revenue and would give jurisdiction to the Commissioner…

Sh. Baljit Singh, Ludhiana vs. Pr. CIT, Ludhiana -1, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 416/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Kaushal &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68Section 92C

…not decide a point and record a finding on'an issue which ought to have been done or decides it wrongly. The word 'erroneous' in the section includes cases, where there has been a failure to make necessary inquiries. The Patna HC in CIT v. Pushpa Devi (1987) 164 ITR 639 (Pat), held that if the procedure adopted by the A.O. brings in lesser revenue than some other procedure, the order would be prejudicial to the revenue. It has been held in the case of LajjaWati Singhal, Smt. V. CIT (1997) 226 ITR 527 (All) that on failure of Assessing Officer to make enquiry as expected, Commissioner was justified in invoking pr…

Span Overseas P Ltd, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax -3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 409/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.409/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18 Span Overseas Private Limited, The Principal Office No.5, Amar Avinash Vs Commissioner Of Income Corporate City 11, Bund Garden Tax-3, Pune. Road, Pune – 411006. Pan: Aabcs 4214 N Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena – Dr Date Of Hearing 28/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3 Dated 30.03.2022 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 13.11.2019 For A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Span Overseas Private Limited ('The Appellant') Objects To The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Dated March 30, 2022 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Pune - 3 ('Pr. Cit) For The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Amongst Other Grounds: Span Overseas P. Ltd.,[A]

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

…such an inquiry had been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. Duggal & Co. v. CIT [1994] 77 Taxman 331/[1996] 220 ITR 456 (Delhi); CIT v. Pushpa Devi [1986] 29 Taxman 377/[1987] 164 ITR 639 (Pat.) and CIT v. Pushpa Devi [1988] 40 Taxman 375/173 ITR 445 (Pat.). 28. In Amitabh Bachchan case (supra), the assessee had initially claimed additional expenses of 30% of the gross professional receipts (Rs. 3.17 Crores). The AO required the assessee to file requisite details. At that stage, the assessee resisted furnishing details by submitti…

Duckwoo Autoind Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvallur vs. PCIT-1, Chennai

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

ITA 232/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.232/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr.S.Maruthu Pandian, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(b)

…, the order passed by the Assessing Officer would obviously be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, it would give jurisdiction to the ld. PICT u/s.263 of the Act, as held by the Patna High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pushpa Devi, (1987) 164 ITR 639. The relevant para is extracted below. “17. If the rigors of an enquiry and investigation had been relaxed by the scheme of the Board, 'the order of the Tribunal would have been perfectly justified. Let us, therefore, pursue the Scheme. I have quoted earlier the salient aspects of the Scheme. In paragraph 4 it has been specifically stated that '…

M/S. Jai Maa Hiral Enterprise, Khambhaliya vs. The Pr. CIT, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 128/RJT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…f opinion. For such preposition of law, reliance is also placed on following judicial decisions wherein the action u/s. 263 were upheld in the circumstances when the assessments were completed without conducting proper inquiries. a. CJT v. Pushpa Devi [1987] 164 ITR 639 [l988] 29 Taxman 377 (Pat). b. CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 490/108 Taxman 464 (Mad.). c. CIT, Patiala v. Hirnachal Pradesh Financial Corpn. [2010] 186 Taxman 186(HP). d. CIT. Dehradun v. Sunil Goyal [2005)] 176 Taxman 184 (Uttarakhand). e. CJT v. Modi Brother [2007] 164 Taxman 331 (MP). f Mammlal Matadeen v. C!T[2006…

Anup Enterprises, Mumbai vs. The Principal CIT-19, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 1641/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalanup Enterprises, 41, 4Th Floor, Neelkamal, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026 Pan: Aaafa5067D ...... Appellant Vs. The Pr.Cit-19, Room No. 228, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai-400007 ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-19, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Ld. Pr.Cit) Dated 22.03.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 263Section 263(1)Section 3

…order becomes erroneous because such an inquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct [Duggal & Co. v. CIT. (1996) 220 ITR 456, 459 (Del)]. CIT v. Pushpa Devi, (1987) 164 ITR 639 (Pat): CIT v. Smt. Rambha Devi, (1987) 164 ITR 858 (Pat). The above stated decisions postulate that when the Officer is expected to make an inquiry of a particular item of income and if he does not make an inquiry as expected, that would be a ground for the Commissioner to interfere with the order passed by the Officer since such an order passed…

Jalinder Tatyasaheb Deshmukh, Beed vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

ITA 2679/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2679/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Jalindertatyasaheb The Commissioner Of Income Deshmukh, Vs Tax, Aurangabad. Anusaya Construction Company, Vidyanagar Parli Vaijnath, Dist. Beed – 431515. Pan: Adwpd 6423 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Shivraj B Moray – Dr Date Of Hearing 04/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aurangabad For The A.Y.2009-10 Dated 24.03.2014.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit-Aurangabad Was Not Justified In Passing The Revisionary Order Under S. 263 Of The Act When The Original Assessment Order Passed By The A. 0. Cannot Be Branded As Erroneous As Well As Prejudicial To The Interests Of Revenue Since The Perusal Of The Said Assessment Reveals That The Full Investigation Was Made Calling For The Entire Information Needed For Framing The Assessment. The Revisionary Order Is Not Sustainable In Law. It Be Quashed.

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ पुणे म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.2679/PUN/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri JalinderTatyasaheb The Commissioner of Income Deshmukh, Vs Tax, Aurangabad. Anusaya Construction Company, Vidyanagar Parli Vaijnath, Dist. Beed – 431515. PAN: ADWPD 6423 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by None. Revenue by Shri Shivraj B Moray – DR Date of hearing 04/05/2022 Date of pronouncement 23/06/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM…

M/S. Swapna Motors Private Ltd., Cuttack vs. CIT, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 251/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 M/S. Swapna Motors Pvt Ltd., M/S. Swapna Motors Pvt Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Friends Colony, Cuttack Friends Colony, Cuttack Tax, Tax, Circle Circle-2(1), Arunodoya Nagar, Cuttack Nagar, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aafcs 1450 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30 /3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 / /4/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/ S/SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 M/s. Swapna Motors Pvt Ltd., M/s. Swapna Motors Pvt Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Asst. Commissioner of Income Friends Colony, Cuttack Friends Colony, Cuttack tax, tax, Circle Circle-2(1), Arunodoya Nagar, Cuttack Nagar, Cuttack PAN/GIR No. No.AAFCS 1450 A (Appellant (A…

M/S. Asaria Lalji Vador, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 559/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blem/S. Asaria Lalji Vador V. Office Of Pcit – 27 C-21, Mahavir Jyot Room No. 401, 4Th Floor Opp. Odeon Shopping Centre Tower No. 6 Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400077 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan: Aabpv0149A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

…case laws of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd., v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), Bismillah Trading Co. v. Intelligence Officer [2001] 248 ITR 292 (Ker.), Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [1987] 163 8 M/s. Asaria Lalji Vador ITR 129 (Mad.) and CIT v. Pushpa Devi [1987] 164 ITR 639 (Pat.) and accordingly, he set aside the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to pass afresh Assessment Order considering the issues raised in the notice issued u/s. 263 of the Act and directed to give proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with law. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, as…

Barclays Bank Plc, Mumbai vs. CIT (International Taxation)-Range-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 827/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 37

…sion u/s 263. In the case of Ramapyari Devi Saraogi 67 ITR 84(SC), it was held that where Assessment completed in undue haste and without making proper enquiry, the CIT can invoke revisional power under sec. 263. 11.6. In the case of CIT v. Pushpa Devi [19871 164 ITR 639 (Pat,): Non- enquiry into source of capital is an error - Enquiry into the source of the initial capital is crucial for the AO. If that is not done, the assessment is bound to be erroneous and hence prejudicial to the revenue. 11.7. In the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT 119751 99 ITR 375 (Delhi).-Omission to make further enquiries is an…

Biz Secure Labs Private Limited, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Pune

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

ITA 1406/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1406/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman JainFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…r becomes erroneous when such an inquiry had been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. Duggal and Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax – 220 ITR 456 (Delhi); CIT vs. Pushpa Devi – 164 ITR 639 (Pat.) and CIT vs. Pushpa Devi – 173 ITR 445 (Pat.).” Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT, Nagpur Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., reported in (2017) 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bom) held as follows : “13. The above issue which comes for our consideration is, did the Assessing Officer consider and examine the claim of the responden…

M/S Venkatesh Technokraft Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-1(5), Ludhiana

ITA 1464/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Him Which Is Arbitrary & Unjustified. 3. That The Assessment Order Having Been Passed By The Assessing Officer After Due Application Of Mind & Taking Into Consideration The Various Replies, Material On Record & Books Of Account, The Action Resorted To By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Unwarranted & Uncalled For.

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandip Dahiya, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 263

…oint CIT(2000) 66 TTJ (Del-Trib) 731 • Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2002) 255 ITR 137 (Mad) • Desai Brothers Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (1998) 66 ITD 203 (Pune-Trib) • Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT & Ors. (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del) • CIT Vs. Pushpa Devi (1987) 164 ITR 639 (Pat) • Lajja Wati Singhal, Smt. Vs CIT (1997) 226 ITR 527(All) • P.K. Fabrics Vs. Asstt. CIT(1998) 67 ITD 326 (Asr-Trib) • V. Narayanan Vs. Dy. CIT (2004) 88 ITD 43 (Chennai Trib) • Ambika Agro Suppliers Vs. ITO(2005) 95 ITD 326(Pune Trib) 4.9 Ld. CIT(A) held that the A.O. completed the assessment without making proper enquiry and that not only…

Essar Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…was rightly invoked. The view is also 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). 8.12. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs M. M.Khambatbala 198 ITR 144 (Guj.) even went to the extent that revisional powers can be exercised even if the issue is debatable. 8.13. The support is also derived from the ratio laid down in Bhargwa Engineering Corporation vs CIT (1996) 134 taxation 493, 494 (AIL), CIT vs Digvijay Trade…

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. .CIT-(A) 13, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3910/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija
Section 263

…2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC); ii) Bismillah Trading Co. v. Intelligence Officer [2001] 248 ITR 292 (Ker.); iii) Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 129 (Mad.); iv) Thalibai F. Jain v. Income Tax Officer [1975] 101 ITR 1 (Kar.); v) CIT v. Pushpa Devi [1987] 164 ITR 639 (Pat.); and, vi) Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT, 386 ITR 162 (Cal.) He further observed that it has been held in CIT (Mum) vs. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 69 Taxmann.com 170 (SC) that “Section 263 does not require any specific show cause notice detailing specific grounds on which revision of assessment order is tentatively being propos…

Sahayamatha Salterns Pvt. Limited, Tuticorin vs. DCIT Circle 1, Tuticorin

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

ITA 1498/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1498/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-2015. M/S. Sahayamatha Salterns Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, 13-A-1, Meenakshipuram Circle I, West, Tuticorin. Tuticorin 628 002. Tamil Nadu

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…he order passed by the Assessing Officer would obviously be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, it would give jurisdiction to the ld. PICT u/s.263 of the Act, as held by the Patna High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pushpa Devi, (1987) 164 ITR 639. The relevant para is extracted below. :- 9 -: ‘’17. If the rigors of an enquiry and investigation had been relaxed by the scheme of the Board, 'the order of the Tribunal would have been perfectly justified. Let us, therefore, pursue the Scheme. I have quoted earlier the salient aspects of the Scheme. In paragraph 4 it has been specifically stat…

Gordon Bruce Serrao, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -28, Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3105/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram a/wFor Respondent: Shri M. Daya Sagar
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…Co. v/s CIT, [1987] 163 ITR 129 (Mad.); xv) Bismillah Trading Co. v/s IO, [2001] 248 ITR 292 (Ker.); xvi) Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v/s CIT, [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC); xvii) Thalibai F. Jain v/s ITO, [1975] 101 ITR 1 (Kar.); and xviii) CIT v/s Pushpa Devi, [1987] 164 ITR 639 (Patna). 4. Shri M. Dayasagar, the learned Departmental Representative strongly relying upon the observations of learned PCIT submitted, the Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry at all with regard to the nature of income derived by the assessee from sale of flats. He submitted, the very fact that the assessee had booked seven flats at a ti…

Mr. Pranjal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1357/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Dec 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.H. Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Murari, CIT-D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…1 (Kar). (v) Non-enquiry into source of capital is an error - Enquiry into the source of the initial capita! is crucial for the ITO. If that is not done, the assessment is bound to be erroneous and hence prejudicial to the revenue - CIT Vs Pushpa Devi [1987] 164 ITR 639 (Pat). (vi) Omission to make further enquiries is an error - The Commissioner can regard the ITO's order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case the ITO should have made further enquiries before accepting the statements made by the assessee in his return - Gee Vee Enterprises Vs Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi). (vii)…

Gumpro Drilling Fluids Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 15, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2868/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids Vs Pr. Cit-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5Th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, Lbs M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcg2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri L.K.S. Dahiya Cit-Dr

Section 120Section 144ASection 263Section 35

…htly invoked. 2.18. 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 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 CIT vs M. M.Khambatbala 198 ITR 144 (Guj.) even went to the extent that…

Grain Merchants Co-Op.Hsg. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-28, Mumbai

In the result , the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2187/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2187/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिाम/ Grain Merchants Co- Pr. Cit-28 Operative Housing Society Mumbai Ltd, Plot No. 26/35, Sec-17, V. Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaaag3973H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri. Abhijit Patankar,CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…illah Trading Co. v. Intelligence Officer (2001) 248 ITR 292(Ker.) b) Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT (1987) 163 ITR 129(Mad.) c) Smt Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323(SC) d) Thalibai F. Jain v. ITO (1975) 101 ITR 1(Kar.) e) CIT v. Pushpa Devi (1987) 164 ITR 639(Pat.) The learned Pr. CIT rejected the contentions of the assessee by holding as under:- “ 6. The submission of the assessee is duly considered and found not tenable. The assessee has earned interest income of Rs. 13,78,340/- form interest from FDR with Co-Op Bank. A Co-Op Bank does not fall under the purview of a "Co-Op Society" referred in sec…