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

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

Amit Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 28, Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 4050/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah and Ms. Niyanta Mehta-Ld. ArsFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma-Ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…order of Ld. AO. Once a plausible & legally sustainable view has been taken by Ld. AO in the matter, the revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 would not be warranted. 4.4 We draw support from the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in Moil Ltd. Vs. CIT [81 Taxmann.com 420] wherein Hon’ble court has held as under: - 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…

Rpw Projects P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3836/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rpw Projects Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of (Earlier Known As Essel Rpw Income Tax Circle-8, Room Vs. Projects Private Limited 135, No. 611, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Continental Building Dr. Annie Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400020. 400018. Pan No. Aaecm1665J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. Advocate & : Mr. Rahul Hakani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2019

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…iel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom)(HC)( 117), the Ld. counsels argue that the AO’s action cannot be termed as erroneous simply because the Commissioner does not agree with his conclusions. Further, relying on the decision in MOIL India Ltd. v. CIT (2017) 396 ITR 244 (Bom), it is stated by them that where the disallowance is made on an ad-hoc percentage basis, the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the Commissioner is not sustainable and when there is discussion for disallowance of claim and if there is no discussion for allowability of the claim, after making inquiry, the order cannot be revised.…

M/S K Mohan & Co.(Exports)P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1197/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. K.Mohan & Co. (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. B-162/5, Begur Road, Bommanahalli, Bengaluru. … Appellant Pan: Aaacl9811H

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR)
Section 10BSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. K.Mohan & Co. (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. B-162/5, Begur Road, Bommanahalli, Bengaluru. … Appellant PAN: AAACL9811H Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri Suresh Muthukrishnan, CA. Respondent by : Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 28/01/2019 Date of pronouncement: 31/01/2019 O R D E R Per PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM : The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax…

Olive Hospitals Private Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 770/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Olive Hospitals Pvt Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax-4, Pan: Aabco 0749 G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri D.V.Anjaneyulu Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.01.2019 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

For Appellant: Sri D.V.AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35A

…udice to the interest of Revenue and therefore, the twin conditions of section 263 of the Act are not satisfied and the revision order needs to be set-aside. He relied upon the following decisions in support of the above contention: 1. MOIL Ltd vs. CIT [2017] 396 ITR 244 (Bom.) 2. CIT vs. Reliance Communication Ltd [2017] 396 ITR 217 (Bom.) 3. CIT vs. Nirav Modi [2016] 390 ITR 292 (Bom.) 4. Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd vs. JCIT [2014] 152 ITD 132 5. CIT and Another Vs. Gokuldas Esports, Paprika, Weal Monumertal Memorials [2011] 333 ITR 214 6. CIT vs. G.K. Kabra [1995] 251 ITR 707 (Cal.) 7. Unipro Techno Infrastruct…

Pravardhan Seeds Priavate Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 667/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Years: 2012-13 Pravardhan Seeds Pvt. Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaaafcp0118A

For Appellant: Shri C.S. SubramanyamFor Respondent: Shri YVST Sai
Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. 10 I.T.A. No. 667/Hyd/17 Pravardhan Seeds Pvt. Ltd., Hyd. Fine Jewellery (India) ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom), Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gabrial India Ltd.(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and MOIL Ltd. Vs. CIT-1, Nagpur (2017) 396 ITR 244 (Bom). We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are of a strong conviction that the Principal CIT had traversed beyond the scope of his jurisdiction and revised the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3), dated 29.01.2015, which as observed by us hereinabove, was passed by the A.O after making the necessary inquiries and verificat…

Ultratech Cement Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Central - 1, Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2999/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhita No. 3000/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ita No. 3001/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja, D.R
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263Section 263(2)Section 80I

…P a g e | 1 ITA No. 2999/Mum/2018 & ors A.Y 2009-10 & ors Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT, C-1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member ITA No. 3000/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) ITA No. 3001/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ultratech Cement Limited Pr. Commissoiner of Income Tax Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing, Central -1 2nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Vs. Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO. Bldg. Road, Andheri (E), M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400093 Mumbai PAN – AAACL6442L Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Arv…

Metropolitan Stock Exchange of India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 14, Mumbai

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

ITA 4081/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sumant Chadha &
Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM I.T.A. No.4081/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s. Metropolitan Stock Exchange of Principal Commissioner of Income India Pvt. Ltd. Tax Act, 1961 Tax – 14, 4th Floor, Vibgyor Tower, R. No. 469, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 4th Floor, M. K. Road, Plot No. C-62, Opp. Trident Hotel, Bandra Kural Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 089 PAN/GIR No. AAFCM 6942 F (Appellant) (Respondent) : Appellant by : Shri Sumant Chadha & Shri Jitendra Trivedi : Shri Anadi Varma Respondent by Date of Hearing : 01.08.201…

Right Tight Fastners Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -11, Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 3102/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Devendra Jain, Ld. ARFor Respondent: B. Srinivasan, Ld. CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…in our opinion, was bereft of any merits. Therefore, we quash the same and restore the quantum assessment order of Ld. AO. The above conclusion reached upon by us is further fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court rendered in Moil Ltd. Vs. CIT [81 Taxmann.com 420] wherein Hon’ble court has held as under:- ITA.No.3102/Mum/2018 Right Tight Fastners Private Limited Assessment Year-2014-15 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 diff…

Dr. Vijay Athalye, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 29, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3787/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Smt. Vidisha Kalra
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…ional authority, the assessment order cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) MOIL Ltd. v/s CIT, [2017] 396 ITR 244 (Bom.); ii) Shivlal Choudhuri v/s PCIT, [2017] 88 taxmann.com 861; iii) Narayan Tatu Rane v/s ITO, [2016] 70 taxmann.com 227; iv) Metacaps Engineering and Mahendra Construction Co. v/s CIT, ]2017] 86 taxmann.com 128; 4. As regards the merits of the issue, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, as per the provision of section 54 of the…

Shekhar S. Dadarkar, Mumbai vs. DCIT 24(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5255/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Cit-24, Bandra Kurla Prop. M/S S.D. Construction Vs. Complex, Bandra (E), Geetanjali Chs Ltd., Plot Mumbai-400050. No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. Pan No. Adapd8694G Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Shekhar Dadarkar Dcit-24 Bandra Kurla Prop. M/S S.D. Construction Vs. (E), Mumbai-400050. Geetanjali Chs Ltd., Plot No. 11, Shastri Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai- 400104. Pan No. Adapd8694G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil A. Desai, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 31 /05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil A. Desai, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manjunatha Swamy, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263Section 271B

…4) for AY 2007-08 by ITAT ‘B’ Bench New Delhi; M/s Anish Ahmad & Sons v. CIT(A) (2008) 297 ITR 441 (SC); CIT v. M/s Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Private Limited (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom); CIT v. Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC); Moil Limited v. CIT (2017) 396 ITR 244 (Bom); Pr. CIT v. Ramchandra Naidu [Tax Appeal No. 16 of 2016] decided on July 24, 2017 by Bombay High Court; Idea Cellular Limited v. DCIT (2008) 301 ITR 407 (Bom); CIT v. Gabriel India Limited (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom); CIT v. Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom); Refex Industries Limited v. DCIT (ITA No. 972/Mds/2014) by ITAT ‘C’ Bench Chennai;…

Lhotse Developerrs & Traders P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 12, Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2811/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Lhotse Developers & Traders Dcit, Ward 12(3)(2) Pvt. Ltd., Raheja Chambers, Room No. 363, Aayakar Linking Road, Santaxruz (West), Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400054. Mumbai-20. Pan: Aabcl0079N Apellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nishit Gandhi (Ar) Respondent By : Shri R.P. Meena (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2018 Order Per Pawan Singh;

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Lhotse Developers & Traders DCIT, Ward 12(3)(2) Pvt. Ltd., Raheja Chambers, Room No. 363, Aayakar Linking Road, Santaxruz (West), Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400054. Mumbai-20. PAN: AABCL0079N Apellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Nishit Gandhi (AR) Respondent by : Shri R.P. Meena (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing : 02.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2018 ORDER PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. The instant appeal by assessee under section 253 of the Income-tax Act…

Manoir Petro India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

ITA 2626/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manoir Petro India Limited, Pr. Cit-1 602, B-Wing, Universal Room No.387, बनाम/ Business Park, Chandivali 3Rd Floor, Vs. Farm Road, Off Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aafcm5210J

Section 263

…to various pages of the paper book and also para-4 of the impugned order. Reliance was placed upon the decision in the case of CIT vs Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. 404 ITR 1(SC), CIT vs Fine Jewellery India Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303(Bom.), Moil Ltd. vs CIT (2017) 396 ITR 244 (Bom.), Small Wonder Industries vs CIT (ITA No.2464/Mum/2013), order dated 24/02/2017. 2.1. On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-DR, Ms. Sunita Billa, defended the revision order by contending that the Ld. Assessing Officer merely examined the profit & loss account for which our attention was invited to para-4 of the 4 Manoir Petro India Limited I…

Neptune Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(1)-3, Mumbai

ITA 2852/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: S/Shri Mayur Kishnadwala; Sunil K. RamaniFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Sanjay-CIT-DR
Section 143Section 263

…been looked into. The Commissioner was not, therefore, justified in invoking powers u/s. 263 . The order of the Appellate Tribunal setting aside the revision order passed by the Commissioner was not perverse. No question of law arose. In the case of MOIL Ltd.(396 ITR 244)Nagpur bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has dealt with the revisionary order passed by the CIT.In that matter on a perusal of the orders passed by the authorities,it appeared that before the assessment order was passed, a notice was served on the assessee u/s. 142(1) of the Act and 20 queries pertaining to different heads were made therein.…

Anil L Taodarwal, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3498/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3498/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Anil L. Todarwal Pr. Cit-19, Room No. 228, 43, Satyam Industrial Estate, बिधम/ 2Nd Floor Matru Mandir, Subhash Road, Jogeshwari Tardeo Road Vs. (E), Mumbai- 400060 Mumbai-400007 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpt4329D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी /Respondent) :

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Yadav, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 263Section 263(1)Section 40

…iew is fortified by the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (India) ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom), Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gabrial India Ltd.(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and MOIL Ltd. Vs. CIT-1, Nagpur (2017) 396 ITR 244 (Bom). We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations are of a strong conviction that the Principal CIT had traversed beyond the scope of his jurisdiction and revised the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3), dated 29.01.2015, which as observed by us hereinabove, was passed by the A.O after making the necessary inquiries and verificat…