MOIL Ltd. v. CIT

396 ITR 244High Court2017#1546 most cited

What is MOIL Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Section 263 cannot be invoked to revise an assessment where the Assessing Officer has made an enquiry, examined the details submitted by the assessee, and applied their mind to be satisfied about the admissibility of a claim.

74

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

MOIL Ltd. v. CIT · Section 263 · revision under section 263 · inadequate enquiry · application of mind by AO · erroneous and prejudicial · Section 143(3) · 80G deduction · CSR expenditure · Section 37(1) · prejudicial to interest of revenue · Kelvinator

Also reported as

81 Taxmann.com 420

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 80GSection 37(1)Section 135Section 142(1)Section 115JBSection 135(5)

Issues it is cited on

section 44aeinadequate enquiryprejudicial to interest of revenuelack of enquirycsr expendituremalabar industrialsection 135section 263(1)revision u/s 263erroneous and prejudicialrevision under section 263kelvinator

Judgments citing MOIL Ltd. v. CIT

MICROSOFT CORPORATION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2933/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2019-20
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Microsoft Corporation (India) PCIT, Private Limited, Delhi. T-10 and T-11, 3rd Floor Malik Vs. Buildcon Plaza, Plot No.2, Pocket-6, Sector-12, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078. PAN-AAACM5586C (Appellant) (Respondent) S.A. No.332/Del/2025 (Arising out of ITA No. 2933/Del/2025) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2019-20) Microsoft Corporation (India) PCIT, Private Limited, Delhi. T-10 and T-11, 3rd Floor Malik Vs. Buildcon Plaza, Plot No.2, Pocket-6, Sector-12, Dwarka, New Delhi-110078. P…

DEUTSCHE INVESTMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMABI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3764/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Deutsche Investments India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle 4(2)(1) Block B1, Nirlon Knowledge Park, Off 6Th Floor, Room No. Western Express Highway, Goregaon Vs. 642, Aayakar East, Mumbai-400 063. Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaccd1765E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Umashankar PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…272/241 Taxman 255/[2017] 390 ITR 292 (Bombay), • CIT v. Nirav Modi [2017] 77 taxmann.com 15/244 Taxman 194 (SC), • CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. ([2015] 55 taxmann.com 514/230 Taxman 641/372 ITR 303 (Bombay), • Mo/7 Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 420/396 ITR 244 (Bombay), • Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO [2016] 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mumbai), • JMS Mining Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 118/190 ITD 702 (Kolkata - Trib.), • SBI DFHI Ltd. v. ACIT [IT Appeal No. 1431 (Mum) of 2023, dated 27-6- 2023], • ACIT v. Sikka Ports and Terminals Ltd. [2025] 173 taxmann.com 366 (Mumbai - Trib.), • American Express…

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3762/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt. Renu Jauhriwns Global Services Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax-6 Plant 11, Gate No. 4, Godrej Room No. 501, 5Th Floor & Boyce Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Piroshanagar, Lbs Marg, Karve Road, Mumbai Vikhroli West, Mumbai 400020. 400079 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacw2598L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Ajit Shah & Ms. Hetal SanganiFor Respondent: Shri. Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…ann.com 63 (Bom) SLP dismissed 146 taxmann.com 281 (SC) b) CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd (1993) (203 ITR 108) (Bom) c) CIT Vs. Kiran Hirji Shah (2015) (231 Taxman 670) (Bom) d) Aditi Developers Vs. ACIT (2012) (49 SOT 664) (Mumbai ITAT) e) MOIL Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 396 ITR 244 (Bom) (Para 5) f) PCIT v. Ramchandra Naidu [2017] 85 taxmann.com 127 (Bom) (Para 8)” 4.4 Reliance has also been placed on various decisions in support of its claim that deduction u/s. 80G is allowable in case of CSR expenditure which is disallowed u/s. 37(1), if other conditions are fulfilled. Some of the decisions of the Mumbai Benches of the…

LUPIN LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3257/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2019-20 Lupin Limited, Principal Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Kalpataru Inspire, Income Tax-3, Off Western Express Highway, Vs. Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Santacruz (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400055. Maharshi Karve Road, Pan : Aaacl1069K Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 43(6)

…wherein the AO has issued the notices and the assessee has placed the requisite information on record which has been duly examined by the AO. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Moil Ltd. vs. CIT 396 ITR 244 wherein it was held that „the provisions under section 263 cannot be invoked where the Assessee has submitted the relevant details and the AO is satisfied about the admissibility of the claim based on the details submitted.‟ Further, reliance was placed on the decision of CIT vs Nirav Modi [2017] 77taxmann.com 15 (SC), V-Con Integrated Solutions…

BAJAJ HOLDINGS AMD INVESTMENT LIMITED,PUNE. vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI - 3, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3678/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Vasantiben Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R.Singh, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

…IT ITA 490/Mum/2021 4. Baiai Electrical Ltd. V. PCIT ITA 1302/Mum/2021 5. Dalai & Broacha Stock Broking (P) Ltd 175 Taxmann.com 984 vs. PCIT 6. DCIT v. Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd 1 75 Taxmann.com 411 7. DCIT v. Gabriel Ltd 173 Taxmann.com 21 9 8. MOIL V CIT 396 ITR 244 (Bombay) 9. CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) 10. CIT v. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bombay) 11. CIT v. Nirav Modi 77 Taxmann.com 15 (SC) 12. Axis Securities Ltd v. PCIT 175 Taxmann.com 982 13. Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Ltd v ACIT ITA 494/Mum/2025 14. Blue Dart Express Ltd. 1101/Mum/2024 4.1 We refer to the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of…

DALAL AND BROACHA STOCK BROKING PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2718/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Dalal & Broacha Stock Broking Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pvt. Ltd. Vs Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, 506, Maker Chambers V, 221, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. [Pan No. Aaacd5662J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 80G

…he present case. To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision:  CIT vs. Nirav Modi (390 ITR 292),  CIT vs. Nirav Modi (77 taxmann.com 78),  CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (372 ITR 303),  Moil Ltd. vs. CIT (396 ITR 244), 5 DalalAndBroacha Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd.  Narayan TatuRane vs. ITO (70 taxmann.com 227),  JMS Mining Pvt. Ltd. PCIT (91 ITR (T) 80),  SBI DFHI Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. No. 1431/Mum/2023) dated 27.06.2023,  ACIT vs. Sikka Ports and Terminals Ltd. (173 taxmann.com 366),  American Express (India) P. Ltd. vs. PCIT (166 taxmann.com 91),  DCIT…

A.K. CAPITAL SERVICES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI

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

ITA 2959/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 2959/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-21 A. K. Capital Services Vs. Principal Limited Commissioner of 603, 6th Floor, Windsor, Income Tax, Off CST Road, Kalina, Mumbai – 400003. Santacruz, Mumbai – 400098. PAN: AAACA1069L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri. Govind Javeri Respondent by Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT DR) Date of Hearing 12.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 16.06.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: The present appeal has been filed…

HIMMATLAL KANHAIYALAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-41, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 102/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhujhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri. Biswanath Das-CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…enue and since both limbs expressly provided in Sec. 263 are missing, accordingly the proceeding u/s 263 may kindly be dropped; 7.0 In this context, the assessee relies in understated decisions: Lack of enquiry vis-a vis in adequate enquir a. MOIL Ltd vs. CIT 81 Taxmann.com 420 (HC-Bom) "The Tribunal was not justified in holding that the query under section 142(1) was very general in nature and the reply of the assessee was also general in nature, The query pertaining to Corporate Social Responsibility was exhaustively answered and the assessee had provided the data pertaining to the expenditure under each head o…

MILLENNIUM DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1847/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanmillennium Developers Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-3, Ground Floor, Ceejay House, Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Bhavan, M. K. Road, Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aabcm6404C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri B. V. Jhaveri, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Anurag Tripathi, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 18.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2025

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 253Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

…ssment order could not lead that the AO did not apply his mind. In this regard the Ld. Counsel referred decisions of Hon‟ble High Courts in case of CIT v/s Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) (Bom. HC), CIT v/s Mr. Jayeek Nag (ITA No. 408 of 2014), Moil v/s CIT (396 ITR 244) (Bom HC), CIT v/s Krishna Capbox Pvt. Ltd. (372 ITR 310) (All. HC) Millennium Developers Pvt. Ltd. 10. The Ld. Counsel has also referred decision of ITAT Mumbai In the case of (B) Naik Sea Food Pvt. Ltd. v/s PCIT [ITA No. 490/Mum/2020] on the proposition that expenditure incurred on CSR is claimed as deduction for the purpose of section 80G and…

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,NEEMUCH vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 69C

…o show that tax which was lawfully exigible has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation a lesser tax than what was just has been imposed.” Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Moil Ltd. Vs. CIT [81 Taxmann.com 420] observed that if a query is raised during the assessment proceedings which was responded to by the assessee, the mere fact that the query was not dealt with in the assessment order then it would not lead to a conclusion that no mind has been 14 Shivam Readymix Pvt. Ltd. applied to it and the Assessing Officer is not expected to raise mo…

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: ShriK.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Salunke
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 54BSection 54E

…ith any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.‖ 18. We further find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in MOIL Limited v/s CIT, [2017] 396 ITR 244 (Bom.) has held as follows:– ―5. On a perusal of the orders passed by the Authorities, it appears that before the assessment order was passed, a notice was served on the assessee under Section 142 (1) of the Act and 20 queries pertaining to different heads were made therein. The ninth query in the notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act pertains…

COMSTAR MAURITIUS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT (IT) MUMBAI-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1529/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Comstar Mauritius Limited Cit (It), Agarwal Vijay & Associates, 503, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, Jolly Bhavan, No.1, New Marine Vs. Nariman Point, Lines, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagcc1225Q

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…to made. He therefore submitted that the revisionary order passed by the learned CIT (A) is not sustainable. Comstar Mauritius Ltd; A.Y. 2018-19 015. He further referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay HC in MOIL India Ltd. v. CIT (2017) vs. CIT (2017) 396 ITR 244 (Bom.) and specifically referred to Para no.5 to support his case. He submitted that in the present case, the explanation of the assessee was so elaborate and detailed that the learned Assessing Officer is not expected to raise further queries as he satisfied about the exemption based on the material and information supplied. Thus, the order of t…

BHAGWATI ABHILASHA CONVENTURE ,MUMBAI vs. CIRCLE 26(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1698/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalbhagwati Abhilsha Conventure A/30, Patil Bhuvan, N.S.B. Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400080 Pan: Aahfb9198D ...... Appellant Vs. Pcit, Mumbai-41, Circle 41(2)(1) R. No. 541, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(5)Section 263

…s. 23 of the Act. On this matter assessee relied upon following judicial pronouncements alongwith its submissions as under: i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83(SC) ii) CIT V. Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 292(Bom) iii) Moil Ltd. V. CIT (2017) 396 ITR 244 (Bom.) iv) CIT V. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) In all the above cases, it has been held that the pre-requisite for the exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 263, the order of the A.O. should be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It is also held that once the A.O. is satisfied about the claim on the bas…

M/S. BLUE CROSS LABORATORIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-3 , MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1806/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhblue Cross Laboratories Vs. Pcit-3 Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 612, 6 Th Floor, 1, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Peninsula Chambers, M. K. Road, Peninsula Corporate Mumbai-400020 Park, G. K. Marg, Mumbai-400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacb1549G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa R. Gandhi &For Respondent: Shri. S. Sribivasu, DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

…ssment order could not lead that the AO did not apply his mind. In this regard the Ld. Counsel referred decisions of Hon‟ble High Courts in case of CIT v/s Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) (Bom. HC), CIT v/s Mr. Jayeek Nag (ITA No. 408 of 2014), Moil v/s CIT (396 ITR 244) (Bom HC), CIT v/s Krishna Capbox Pvt. Ltd. (372 ITR 310) (All. HC) 10. The Ld. Counsel has also referred decision of ITAT Mumbai In the case of (B) Naik Sea Food Pvt. Ltd. v/s PCIT [ ITA No. 490/Mum/2020] on the proposition that expenditure incurred P a g e | 8 AY 2018-19 M/s Blue Cross Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT-3 on CSR is claimed as ded…

LAXMI NARAYAN AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…227 CTR 133, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court drew a distinction between “Lack of inquiry” and “inadequate enquiry” and held that, ‘in the case of inadequate enquiry, provisions under section 263 cannot be invoked.’ Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Moil Ltd. Vs. CIT [81 Taxmann.com 420] observed that if a query is raised during the assessment proceedings which was responded to by the assessee, the mere fact that the query was not dealt with in the assessment order then it would not lead to a conclusion that no mind has been applied to it and the Assessing Officer is not expected to raise more queries, if he was satisfied…

RAJENDRA RAJA BALI SINGH,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-17, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1263/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1263/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2018-19) Rajendra Raja Bali Singh, V Aswani Mansions, 120, Dhinshaw Vacha Road, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aavps-0558-E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,Mumbai -17 Room No.120, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, G.Block, Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri K.Gopal ,Advocate. ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Smt. Riddhi Mishra –Cit Dr सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 22/06/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/06/2023 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri K.Gopal ,AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra –CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 263

…on in the assessment order it shall not be presumed that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind or has not examined the documents furnished by the assessee. The ld.Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the decision in the case MOIL Ltd. vs. CIT, 396 ITR 244 (Bom) to contend that where the Assessing Officer allow certain expenditure without specifically mentioning about them in the assessment order, the CIT(A) cannot invoke revisional jurisdiction holding that order was passed without making any enquiry qua allowability of assessee’s claim. 3. Per contra, Smt. Riddhi Mishra representing the Departme…

RAJKUMAR IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. PCIT - 4, CHENAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 631/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy (CIT) – Ld.DR
Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह, उपा12 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ6वाल ,लेखा सद9 के सम2। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ITA No.631/Chny/2022 (िनधाBरणवषB / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/s. Rajkumar Impex Pvt. Limited PCIT बनाम/ 93/119, 4th floor, St. Mary’s Road, Chennai-4. Vs. Abhiramapuram,Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACR-3577-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee by : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (FCA) & Shri…

GA INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Shailendra Sharma (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…o show that tax which was lawfully exigible has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation a lesser tax than what was just has been imposed.” Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Moil Ltd. Vs. CIT [81 Taxmann.com 420] observed that if a query is raised during the assessment proceedings which was responded to by the assessee, the mere fact that the query was not dealt with in the assessment order then it would not lead to a conclusion that no mind has been applied to it and the Assessing Officer is not expected to raise more queries, if he was satisfied…

SPECO INFRASTRUCTURE ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL),MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

ITA 1326/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2023AY 2017-2018
For Appellant: Ms. Bhargavi P. RavalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…r verification. In order to support the aforesaid submissions, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant placed reliance upon the following judicial precedents including CIT vs. Vikas Polymers : 341 ITR 537 (Delhi), and MOIL Ltd. vs. CIT-1, Nagpur : 396 ITR 244 (Bombay). In view of the aforesaid, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the 7. Appellant submitted that the PCIT had exercised powers of revision under Section 263 of the Act without proper appreciation of material on record by incorrectly invoking provisions of Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Repre…

DHARMENDRA MEHTA,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Avadhesh Kumar (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 44A

…o show that tax which was lawfully exigible has not been imposed or that by the application of the relevant statute on an incorrect or incomplete interpretation a lesser tax than what was just has been imposed.” Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Moil Ltd. Vs. CIT [81 Taxmann.com 420] observed that if a query is raised during the assessment proceedings which was responded to by the assessee, the mere fact that the query was not dealt with in the assessment order then it would not lead to a conclusion that no mind has been applied to it and the Assessing Officer is not expected to raise more queries, if he was satisfied…

Showing 1–20 of 74 · Page 1 of 4