MOIL Ltd. v. CIT

396 ITR 244High Court2017#1540 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 366,314 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

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing MOIL Ltd. v. CIT

The Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 950/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company Pcit-1 Room No.330, 3Rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9Th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Surendra Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014-15 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-01 Has Invoked The Revisional Power U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “Re.: Validity Of Order U/S, 263; On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order Dated 31 March 2021 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Without Prejudice To The Above, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Pcit”) Has Erred In Passing The Order Dated 31 March 2021 U/S. 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri K. K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263Section 36

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.950/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) बनधम/ The Indian Hotels Company PCIT-1 Room No.330, 3rd Floor, Ltd. Vs. 9th Floor, Express Towers, Aayakar Bhavan, Barrister Rajini Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Mumbai-400020. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACT3957G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri K. K. Ved Revenue by: Shri Surendra Kumar (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 17/03/2022…

M/S. Perfect Krushi Market Yard Pvt.Ltd, Nashik vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax -2, Nashik

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

ITA 464/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.464/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Perfect Krushi Market Vs. Pr. Cit-2, Yard Pvt. Ltd., Nashik. Nilgiri Park, Near Yash Lawns, Nashik- 422003. Pan : Aagcp4760P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Shri Naimish Sanjay Dixit Revenue By : Shri Kalika Singh Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07.01.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 2, Nashik [‘Pr.Cit’ For Short] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 17.01.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Pcit Erred In Passing The Revision Order U/S 263 By Holding That The Asst. Order Passed U/S 143(3) In The Case Of The Assessee Company For A.Y.2015 - 16 Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Thereby Directing The A.O. To Verify The Issue Regarding Exemption U/S 10(26Aab) De Novo. 2. The Learned Pcit Erred In Holding That The A.O. Has Not Applied The Proper Provisions Of Law While Verifying The Issue Of Allowing

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Kalika Singh
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263

…d opinion, the order cannot be termed as ‘erroneous’ for want of enquiry on the issue which is sought to be revised by the ld. Pr.CIT. The ratio of decision of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi, 390 ITR 292 (Bom.); MOIL Ltd. vs. CIT, 396 ITR 244 10 (Bom.); Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. DCIT, 301 ITR 403 (Bom.) is squarely applicable to the facts of present case. 11. Thus, the very premise of the order of ld. Pr.CIT is wrong. There is nothing on record to say that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable under the law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial…