Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT

268 ITR 128High Court2004#1747 most cited

What is Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Revision under Section 263 requires an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. It is not permissible if the Assessing Officer adopted a legally permissible view, one of two possible views, or applied mind to the issues, despite the Commissioner's differing opinion or perceived inadequate enquiry.

65

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT · Section 263 · revisionary power · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · inadequate enquiry · non-application of mind · two views possible · permissible course · Commissioner's different opinion · scope of Section 263 · 268 ITR 128 · 8 ITR (Trib) 403

Also reported as

8 ITR (Trib) 403

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 11(1)(d)Section 147Section 250

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquirymalabar industriallack of enquiryrevision under section 263section 263(1)revision u/s 263erroneous and prejudicialnon-application of mindsection 56(2)(vii)kelvinatorsection 263section 26

Judgments citing Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT

M/S.Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Kochi vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 654/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin28 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dascochin Shipyard Ltd. Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle 1(1) Administrative Building C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Shipyard Premises Kochi 682018 Vs. Perumanoor P.O. Kochi 682015 [Pan:Aaacc6905B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Radhesh L. Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

…oceedings, the ld. Pr.CIT, invoking s. 263 of the Act, set aside the assessment for examining the same, adverting to the provisions of law (s. 263), as indeed to the decisions in Malabar Industries Ltd. v. CIT[2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Raja & Co. v. CIT[2011] 335 ITR 381 (Ker), i.e., toward the legal basis of his revision. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 Admittedly, no enquiry in the matter was made by the AO during the assessment proceedings, much less responded to, on which the AO is therefore required to apply his mind, either accepting or rejecting the assessee’s claim u…

Sterling Farm Research and Services Private Limited, Ernakulam vs. The PCIT, Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 661/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Feb 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dassterling Farm Research & Services Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Pvt. Ltd. Kochi 29/2469 C2, Sterling House Vs. Pettah, Poonithura S.O. Ernakulam 682038 [Pan:Aadcs3199J] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raja Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50Section 50B

…no consequence as capital gain is chargeable in the year of ‘transfer’. The AO had, not inquiring in the matter, merely accepted the version of the assessee. Adverting to Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Raja & Co. vs. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 381 (Ker), wherein it had been held that an incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law would render an order as erroneous, as indeed orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or application of mind. There had been clearly an incorrect assumption of facts as indeed non-application of mind in the instant case,…

M/S. Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Ernakulam vs. The PCIT, Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 847/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin17 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasvysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The Principal Commissioner Ix/639, Edathala P.O. Of Income Tax -1 Vs. Ernakulam 683561 C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road [Pan:Aaacv 5491P] Kochi - 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Narayanan P. Potty, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.01.2024 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Agitates The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 30/10/2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (Pr. Cit) Vide Order Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 30.03.2022. 2. The 68-Day Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Explained By An Affidavit Dated 14.7.2023 By Shri A.D. Krishnan, Managing Director Of The Assessee-Company. We Find The Reasons Stated Therein As Genuine & Debilitative Of The Assessee’S Capacity In Filing The Appeal In Time. The Appeal Was Accordingly Admitted & The Hearing Proceeded With.

For Appellant: Shri Narayanan P. Potty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 269SSection 36(1)(va)Section 44A

…result in the ensuing assessment as being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, liable for revision, is trite law, toward which the ld. Pr. CIT cites Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Raja & Co. vs. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 381 (Ker), being in fact since co-opted in the statute w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The assessee before us sought to exhibit adequate enquiry in assessment. We are, however, thoroughly unimpressed. The only reply in assessment brought to our notice is dated 13.07.2019 (PB-3, pg. 1) whereby some primary details were furnished. We find no whisper of any enquiry…

Aster Dm Healthcare Ltd, Kochi vs. The DCIT, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 98/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasaster Dm Healthcare Ltd. Dy. Cit, Ix/475L, Kuttisahib Road Corporate Circle-1(1) (Aster Medicity Hospital) Central Revenue Building Vs. Cheranallore, Kochi 682027 I.S. Press Road [Pan:Aaccd7912K] Kochi 682018 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35A

…to the interests of the Revenue. The law is well-settled, case law of which is legion, including by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, as in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Raja & Co. v. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 381 (Ker). The same in fact stands co-opted on the statute per Explanation 2(a) to s. 263(1) w.e.f. 01.06.2015. At the same time, there must be, as explained in CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom), circumstances which would make the enquiry prudent, and not de hors the same; that being an objective fact which must be satisfied on the b…

Cabot Technology Solution Private Limited, Kochi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is disposed of on the afore-stated terms

ITA 609/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dascabot Technology Solutions Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax – 1 204, 2Nd Floor, Lulu Cyber Tower Vs. Cr Building , Is Press Infopark, Kochi 682042 Road, Kochi 682018 [Pan:Aadcc 9320K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Allen Joseph, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Agitating The Revision Of It’S Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 20.12.2019 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Act (Pr. Cit), Vide His Order Dated 18.01.2022. 2.1 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Company In Software Development Business, Returned, For The Relevant Year, An Income Of Rs.3,67,574 Under The Regular Provisions Of The Act & A Book-Profit Of Rs.14,33,474 U/S.115Jb Of The Act, Paying The Higher Tax On The Latter. The Same Was Subject To Regular Assessment, Determining The Income Under The Regular Provisions At Rs. 8,10,750 & At The Returned Book-Profit Under Mat Provisions. The Assessment Record Was Subsequently Examined By The Learned Pr. Cit In Exercise Of His Revisionary

For Appellant: Shri Allen Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT- D.R
Section 10ASection 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…der that would render it erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, liable for revision, is trite law, toward which the ld. Pr. CIT refers to decisions in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Raja & Co. vs. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 381 (Ker). The same stands since (w.e.f. 01.6.2015) co-opted on the statute (as Explanation 2(a) to section 263), so that an order passed without making enquiry or verification which should have been made, is deemed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, liable for revision under section 263 of the Act. Page 2 ITANo. 609/Coch/…

M/S Prestige Marketing Division, Aluva vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal and stay petition are dismissed

ITA 578/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT- D.R
Section 10Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 68Section 69A

…ne of the infirmities that renders an order as erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue, is well settled and towards which the ld. Pr. CIT has referred to the decisions in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Raja & Co. vs CIT [2011] 335 ITR 381 (Ker), even as the same stands since (w.e.f. 01.6.2015) statutorily co-opted in section 263 itself. 4. We, for the reasons afore-stated, find no reason for interference with the impugned order and, accordingly, decline to. The assessee has also filed a stay application in respect of it’s instant assessment, which was also posted for hearing alon…

Omm Shree Realcon Pvt. Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 97/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

…en by the Assessing Officer was plausible one, it was not proper for the CIT in exercise of his revisionary jurisdiction to interfere with that order and referred to the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2004] 268 ITR 128 which is approved by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 /[2008] 166 Taxman 188 . However, this argument based on the aforesaid judgment is of no avail in the facts of the present case when it is found that the Assessing Officer had not examined the issue at all and therefore, question of there being a plausi…

Shri.Viswanatha Manoj Kumar, Kochi vs. The Pr.CIT, Kochi

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

ITA 151/COCH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Aby T.Varkeyviswanatha Manoj Kumar Pr. Commissioner Of 39/421, Temple Road Income Tax - 1 Kadavanthara Vs. C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Ernakulam 682020 Kochi 682018 [Pan:Adwpm1619G] [Appellant] [Respondent] Appellant By: Shri K.M.V. Pandalai, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prasanth V.K., Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.M.V. Pandalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prasanth V.K., CIT-DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(vii)

…eous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, liable for revision u/s. 263 of the Act. Case law in the matter is legion, and toward which the ld. Pr. CIT cites two, i.e.,Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Raja & Co. v. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 381 (Ker). 5. It is then said that ‘purchases’ do not amount to ‘receipt’, and that the matter ought to have been referred by the ld. Pr. CIT to the Valuation Offier (DVO). We are unable to appreciate the import of the said objection. The revisionary autnority has not adjudicated on merits of the matter, but only set aside the assessment, directing…

Subhash Chand Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1063/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…lly submitted that the twin condition for invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act must cumulatively be satisfied and reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment:-  Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT : 243 ITR 83 (SC)  CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)]  CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1(SC)  Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H)  Vimgi Investment (P) Limited: 290 ITR 505 (Del)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 17. Ld Counsel submitted that merely because the ld AO has not specifically mentioned that he had exa…

Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1061/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…lly submitted that the twin condition for invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act must cumulatively be satisfied and reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment:-  Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT : 243 ITR 83 (SC)  CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)]  CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1(SC)  Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H)  Vimgi Investment (P) Limited: 290 ITR 505 (Del)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 17. Ld Counsel submitted that merely because the ld AO has not specifically mentioned that he had exa…

Satish Kumar Dhingra, Haryana vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1060/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…lly submitted that the twin condition for invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act must cumulatively be satisfied and reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment:-  Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT : 243 ITR 83 (SC)  CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)]  CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1(SC)  Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H)  Vimgi Investment (P) Limited: 290 ITR 505 (Del)  CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 17. Ld Counsel submitted that merely because the ld AO has not specifically mentioned that he had exa…

Hitesh Jitendra Parikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-5(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2370/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Biren Gabhawala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)Section 271(1)

…r, when there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all facts necessary for assessment, is in contravention of provisions contained under the Act. 15. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. K.J. Rao, Dy. CIT (268 ITR 128) (Bom) held that “notice for reopening of the assessment cannot be issued after a period of 4 years unless the escapement of income is on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. It has been further held that the Explanation to section 147 of the IT Act has to be r/w section 147 of the IT Act…

Diamines and Chemicals Limited, Baroda vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Baroda

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

ITA 219/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Dec 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT/D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…ssessee requested to drop the Revision proceedings initiated by the Ld. PCIT. 2.4. In support of its claims the assessee also relied upon various case laws namely Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2002) 290 ITR 689 (Guj.), CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). I.T.A No. 1472/Ahd/2015 & 219/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 5 Diamines & Chemicals Ltd. vs. DCIT 2.5. The Ld. PCIT considered the above submissions of the assessee and held that the explanations submitted by the assessee is not accep…

Diamines & Chemicals Ltd., Baroda vs. The Pr. CIT- 1, Baroda

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

ITA 1472/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: PendingITAT Ahmedabad14 Dec 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT/D.R. &
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…ssessee requested to drop the Revision proceedings initiated by the Ld. PCIT. 2.4. In support of its claims the assessee also relied upon various case laws namely Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers (2002) 290 ITR 689 (Guj.), CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC). I.T.A No. 1472/Ahd/2015 & 219/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 5 Diamines & Chemicals Ltd. vs. DCIT 2.5. The Ld. PCIT considered the above submissions of the assessee and held that the explanations submitted by the assessee is not accep…

M/S. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd., Shillong vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Shillong, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 45/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA No. 45/GAU/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & Assessment Year:2014-2015 M/s. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-GUWAHATI ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Virtual Court Hearing] Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 45/GAU/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited,………………………………………………… Appellant Brookland Compound, Lower New Colony, Shillong-793003 [PAN:AAACN9991J] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,....Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, M.G. Road, Shillong,…

M/S. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd., Shillong vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Shillong, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 418/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA No. 45/GAU/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & Assessment Year:2014-2015 M/s. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-GUWAHATI ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Virtual Court Hearing] Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 45/GAU/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited,………………………………………………… Appellant Brookland Compound, Lower New Colony, Shillong-793003 [PAN:AAACN9991J] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,....Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, M.G. Road, Shillong,…

Sh. Anup Kumar Jaitly, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -3(1), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 112/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ghansham Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 3Section 40A(3)

…g facility has been brought on record. The onus clearly lies upon the appellant which has not been ''discharged. 4.7. Further, reliance is placed on the following decisions, where it has been held that burden lies on assessee for payments made in cash:- (i) 335 ITR 381 (Kerla) Raja and Co., Vs. CIT (ii) 021 ITR (Trib.) 0109 (Bangalore) !TO Vs. Nam Estate Pvt. Ltd. (iii) 295 FFR 349 (Allahabad) Evershine Platers Vs. CIT 7 Anoop Kumar Jaitly v. ITO (iv) 295 ITR 0123(Kerla) Silk Fab Exports Vs. CIT (v) 006 ITR (Trib.) 229 (Ahmadabad) Leader Transport Co. Vs. ITO (vi) 301 11R 276 (H.P.) CJT Vs. Dalip Chand and…

M/S.Kerala State Warehousing Corpn, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 389/COCH/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahum/S. Kerala State Warehousing Vs Acit, Corporate Circle 1(2) Corporation Is Press Road Kochi 682018 Pb No. 1727, Warehousing Corporation Road Ernakulam 682016 Pan – Aabck1583G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. Gopi, Ca Revenue By: Shri Shantam Bose, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shantam Bose, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 42

…of income is otherwise inferable or not. Reference may also be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s The Malabar Industrial Co. in 243 ITR 83 (SC) and the decision rendered by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Raja & Co. in 335 ITR 381 (Kerala HC) in this regard. In a catena of such cases the Hon'ble Courts have observed that 'an incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. Similarly orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind or without making any…

M/S. Vpa Civilcon (P) Ltd., Indore vs. Pr. CIT-2, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 864/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri C.P. Rawka and Shri Venus Rawka, CAsFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263(1)

…ed. After going through 263-order, it can be seen that 263-proceedings has been initiated merely because of difference of opinion between ld.Pr.CIT and the AO. This issue is covered by the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Arvind jewelers, 290 ITR 689 (Guj) holding as follows: “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Lack of proper enquiry—CIT has not stated that no investigation has been carried out by the AO before granting registration to the assessee-firm—In fact, there is no whisper in the entire order of the CIT that the order granting registration was erroneous in any manner—Even othe…

B.Sujatha, Coimbatore vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 2(5), Coimbatore

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

ITA 1557/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Manoj Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(3)

…ited by ld.AR for the assessee of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., [2007] 295 ITR 282, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., [2004] 268 ITR 128, wherein the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has categorically held that once the AO has taken a possible view, CIT has no jurisdiction to interfere with the jurisdiction of AO. The ld.AR drew our attention to para 5 of the judgment which reads as under:- 5. We find no merit in this contention. For expressing a View, it is not necessary that…