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

Saigal Sea Trade, Mumbai vs. CIT -18, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2511/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

Section 142(1)Section 263

…the assessee. 5.4. 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…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3609/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…n safeguarded. 2.8. 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…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3608/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…n safeguarded. 2.8. 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…

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1(1), Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3198/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

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

…assessment order afresh. 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 25 The Mumbai District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs M. M.Khambatbala 198…

Shri Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4979/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblesanjay Kumar Vs Cit Prop. Tyagi Associates Meerut H-45, Gandhi Nagar, Garh Road, (Respondent) Meerut Aczpk2030M (Applicant) Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Acit H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Circle-2, Gali No. 3, Garh Road Bhansali Ground Meerut Meerut Acapk2030M (Respondent) (Applicant) Acit Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Circle-2, H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Bhansali Ground Gali No. 3, Garh Road Meerut Meerut (Applicant) Acapk2030M (Respondent)

For Appellant: “1. That the impugned
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order, if all the facts stated there in are assumed to be correct. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Duggal & Co. vs. CIT (1996) 220 ITR 456 (Del.) " CIT vs. Pushpa Devi (1987) 164 ITR 639 (Pat) " CIT vs. Smt. Rambha Devi (1987) 164 ITR 658 (Pat) " CIT Vs. Belal Nisa (1998) 171 ITR 643 (Pat) " CIT vs. Smt. Kattshalya Devi (1988) 171 ITR 686 (Pat) " CIT vs.Bibi Khodaija Khatoon, (1988) 171 ITR 11 (Pat) " CIT vs. Smt. Chandrawati Devi, (1988) 171 ITR 111 (Pat) " CIT vs. Smt. Devi (1987) 59 CTR (Pat) 3 " CIT vs. Bhagwant Kaur (1987) 6…

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2725/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblesanjay Kumar Vs Cit Prop. Tyagi Associates Meerut H-45, Gandhi Nagar, Garh Road, (Respondent) Meerut Aczpk2030M (Applicant) Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Acit H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Circle-2, Gali No. 3, Garh Road Bhansali Ground Meerut Meerut Acapk2030M (Respondent) (Applicant) Acit Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Circle-2, H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Bhansali Ground Gali No. 3, Garh Road Meerut Meerut (Applicant) Acapk2030M (Respondent)

For Appellant: “1. That the impugned
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order, if all the facts stated there in are assumed to be correct. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Duggal & Co. vs. CIT (1996) 220 ITR 456 (Del.) " CIT vs. Pushpa Devi (1987) 164 ITR 639 (Pat) " CIT vs. Smt. Rambha Devi (1987) 164 ITR 658 (Pat) " CIT Vs. Belal Nisa (1998) 171 ITR 643 (Pat) " CIT vs. Smt. Kattshalya Devi (1988) 171 ITR 686 (Pat) " CIT vs.Bibi Khodaija Khatoon, (1988) 171 ITR 11 (Pat) " CIT vs. Smt. Chandrawati Devi, (1988) 171 ITR 111 (Pat) " CIT vs. Smt. Devi (1987) 59 CTR (Pat) 3 " CIT vs. Bhagwant Kaur (1987) 6…

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

…. Pr. Commissioner. 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…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3752/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…he ld. Commissioner. 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…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3748/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…he ld. Commissioner. 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…

Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3747/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…he ld. Commissioner. 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…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-Cir-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3494/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Procter & Gamble Cit-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp6332M

Section 263Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, सी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/s Procter & Gamble CIT-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AAACP6332M "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Yogesh Thar and Ms. Moksha Mehta Shri Subachan Ram CIT-DR राज…

Kukreja Development Corporation, Mumbai vs. CIT Cen -2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1090/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am M/S Kukreja Development Corporation. Commissioner Of Income Tax 4Th & 5Th Floor, Sai Central-2, Mumbai Commercial Building, B.K.S. Vs. Devshi Marg, Govandi (E), Mumbai-400007 Pan No.Aabfk0411A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By .. Shri.Naresh Kumar, Ar Revenue By .. Shri. R.P Meena, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing .. 22-12-2016 .. Date Of Pronouncement 22-12-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 43Section 43(1)

…by the ld. Commissioner. 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 Commissioner invokes the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263, he should be 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 revisional powers…

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

…evenue. In this connection reliance is placed upon the following decisions. i) Rampyari Dev Saraogi v. CIT, [1968] 67 ITR 84(SC); ii) Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT, [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC); iii) Duggal & Co. v. CIT, 220 ITR 456, 459 (Del.); iv) CIT v. Pushpandevi, 164 ITR 639 (Pat.); and v) K A Ramaswamy Chettiar v. CIT, 220 ITR 657, 665 (Mad). I, therefore, set-aside the assessment order passed by the AO. He is directed to make fresh assessment after examining the applicability of provisions of section 10B(6)(i) of the I.T. Act read with provisions of Sec.14A of the I.T. Act with reference to the directions pertaini…

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

…evenue. In this connection reliance is placed upon the following decisions. i) Rampyari Dev Saraogi v. CIT, [1968] 67 ITR 84(SC); ii) Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT, [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC); iii) Duggal & Co. v. CIT, 220 ITR 456, 459 (Del.); iv) CIT v. Pushpandevi, 164 ITR 639 (Pat.); and v) K A Ramaswamy Chettiar v. CIT, 220 ITR 657, 665 (Mad). I, therefore, set-aside the assessment order passed by the AO. He is directed to make fresh assessment after examining the applicability of provisions of section 10B(6)(i) of the I.T. Act read with provisions of Sec.14A of the I.T. Act with reference to the directions pertaini…

Estrela Batteries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 2, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2122/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2010-11
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…Principal Commissioner. 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 Commissioner invokes the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 , 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 revisional powers…

M/S Fazal Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2837/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36

…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. vs. CIT, (1996) 220 ITR 456,459 (Del.) CIT vs. Pushpa Devi, (1987) 164 ITR 639 (Pat); CIT vs. Smt. Rambha Devi, (1987) 164 ITR 658 (Pat); CIT vs. Belal Nisa, (1988) 171 ITR 643 (Pat); CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya Devi, (1988) 171 ITR 686 (Pat); CIT vs. Bibi Khodaija Khatoon, (1988) 171 ITR (Sh.N.) ii (Pat); CIT vs. Smt. Chandrawati Devi, (1988) 171 ITR (Sh.N.) III (Pat); CIT vs. Smt. Devi, (1987) 59 CTR (Pat) 3; CIT vs. Bhagwant…