Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy v. ITO (Mum.)

100 ITD 173Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#2885 most cited

What is Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy v. ITO (Mum.) authority for?

A revision order under Section 263 cannot be passed by the Commissioner merely because the Assessing Officer could have made more inquiries; it requires a finding of total non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

41

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy v. ITO · Section 263 · revision order · application of mind Assessing Officer · non-application of mind · scope of revision · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · inadequate enquiry · insufficient enquiry · CIT powers Section 263 · 100 ITD 173

Also reported as

7 SOT 368

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 10(37)Section 145A(b)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(viii)

Issues it is cited on

section 141section 282a(1)section 194lasection 145a(b)section 145bsection 44afsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 262section 10(37)doctrine of merger

Judgments citing Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy v. ITO (Mum.)

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 323/PAT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…22 (d) Indian Shaving Products Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT [2007] 161 Taxman 166 (e) Pargat Singh Vs. ITO ITA No. 1111 to 1114.Chandi/2004 Assessment Years 1996-97 to 1999 – 2000 – [2006] 191 Taxation 192 (Chd. ITAT) (f) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy Vs. ITO (Mum.) [2006] 100 ITD 173. (g) M/s. Balaram Manmani Vs. Asstt. CIT (Lucknow) [2006] 7 SOT 368. (h) Zyma Loboratories Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (Mum.) [2006] 7 SOT 164. (i) Deoniti Prasad Singh v. CIT (1947) 15 ITR 165 (Pat) : TC 15R. 1583 and C.T. Narayanan Chettiar v. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 690 (Mad) : TC 15R. 1397. (j) CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works (P) Ltd. (09) 183 Taxmann 183 (Gujr…

Nalanda Engicon Pvt. Ltd, Patna vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 322/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. Nos.322 To 329/Pat/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2021-22

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…22 (d) Indian Shaving Products Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT [2007] 161 Taxman 166 (e) Pargat Singh Vs. ITO ITA No. 1111 to 1114.Chandi/2004 Assessment Years 1996-97 to 1999 – 2000 – [2006] 191 Taxation 192 (Chd. ITAT) (f) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy Vs. ITO (Mum.) [2006] 100 ITD 173. (g) M/s. Balaram Manmani Vs. Asstt. CIT (Lucknow) [2006] 7 SOT 368. (h) Zyma Loboratories Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (Mum.) [2006] 7 SOT 164. (i) Deoniti Prasad Singh v. CIT (1947) 15 ITR 165 (Pat) : TC 15R. 1583 and C.T. Narayanan Chettiar v. CIT (1966) 60 ITR 690 (Mad) : TC 15R. 1397. (j) CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works (P) Ltd. (09) 183 Taxmann 183 (Gujr…

Anshit Builders & Home Fin Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Delhi-1, New Delhi

ITA 1168/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…ion and assumption that something new may come out. 4.2 It is submitted by ld. AR that revision order cannot be passed u/s 263, unless there is total non application of mind based on cogent material Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii) 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. iv) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 4.3 It is also submitted that where all particulars are furnished before the learned assessing officer and he has applied his mind the…

Gyan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Varanasi vs. ACIT Central Circle-03, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 178/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 175 To 178/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2018-19 Gyan Infrabuild Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of Awlespur, Kandwa Vs Income-Tax (Central), Patna Varanasi - 221006 [Pan: Aaecg0509Mc] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate & Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Even Dt. 26/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. Relevant Content Of The Petition Dt. 08/06/2023 Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “…….. 1. That We Had Received An Order U/S 263 Passed By Id Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Patna On 26.03.2022. 2

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhary, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 263

…he ld AO and holding 26 I.T.A. No. 175 to 178/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 to 2018-19 Gyan Infrabuild Private Limited the same as erroneous being prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We draw support from the following judicial pronouncements: i. 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii. 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for…

Gyan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Varanasi vs. ACIT Central Circle-03, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 177/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 175 To 178/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2018-19 Gyan Infrabuild Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of Awlespur, Kandwa Vs Income-Tax (Central), Patna Varanasi - 221006 [Pan: Aaecg0509Mc] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate & Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Even Dt. 26/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. Relevant Content Of The Petition Dt. 08/06/2023 Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “…….. 1. That We Had Received An Order U/S 263 Passed By Id Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Patna On 26.03.2022. 2

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhary, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 263

…he ld AO and holding 26 I.T.A. No. 175 to 178/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 to 2018-19 Gyan Infrabuild Private Limited the same as erroneous being prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We draw support from the following judicial pronouncements: i. 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii. 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for…

Gyan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Varanasi vs. ACIT Central Circle-03, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 176/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 175 To 178/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2018-19 Gyan Infrabuild Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of Awlespur, Kandwa Vs Income-Tax (Central), Patna Varanasi - 221006 [Pan: Aaecg0509Mc] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate & Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Even Dt. 26/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. Relevant Content Of The Petition Dt. 08/06/2023 Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “…….. 1. That We Had Received An Order U/S 263 Passed By Id Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Patna On 26.03.2022. 2

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhary, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 263

…he ld AO and holding 26 I.T.A. No. 175 to 178/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 to 2018-19 Gyan Infrabuild Private Limited the same as erroneous being prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We draw support from the following judicial pronouncements: i. 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii. 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for…

Gyan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Varanasi vs. ACIT Central Circle-03, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 175/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 175 To 178/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2018-19 Gyan Infrabuild Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of Awlespur, Kandwa Vs Income-Tax (Central), Patna Varanasi - 221006 [Pan: Aaecg0509Mc] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate & Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Even Dt. 26/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. Relevant Content Of The Petition Dt. 08/06/2023 Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “…….. 1. That We Had Received An Order U/S 263 Passed By Id Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Patna On 26.03.2022. 2

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhary, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 263

…he ld AO and holding 26 I.T.A. No. 175 to 178/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 to 2018-19 Gyan Infrabuild Private Limited the same as erroneous being prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We draw support from the following judicial pronouncements: i. 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii. 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…vs. Sunder Lal iii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J. P. Srivastava & Sons Ltd. vs. CIT iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co. 16.4 The following decisions hold that a revisional order cannot be passed unless there is total non-application of mind by the AO : i) 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii) 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. C1T iii) 203 1TR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. iv) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 16.5 It has also been held that where all particulars are furnished before the AO by the assessee and he has applied his mind theret…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…vs. Sunder Lal iii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J. P. Srivastava & Sons Ltd. vs. CIT iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co. 16.4 The following decisions hold that a revisional order cannot be passed unless there is total non-application of mind by the AO : i) 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii) 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. C1T iii) 203 1TR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. iv) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 16.5 It has also been held that where all particulars are furnished before the AO by the assessee and he has applied his mind theret…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…vs. Sunder Lal iii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J. P. Srivastava & Sons Ltd. vs. CIT iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co. 16.4 The following decisions hold that a revisional order cannot be passed unless there is total non-application of mind by the AO : i) 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii) 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. C1T iii) 203 1TR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. iv) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 16.5 It has also been held that where all particulars are furnished before the AO by the assessee and he has applied his mind theret…

Girnar Software Private Limited, 6Th Floor, Jaipur Textile Market, B-2, Near Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur vs. PCIT – 2, Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

…lhi) (Mag.) • Shivam Leasing & Finance Ltd. vs. ITO: 68 Taxman 211 (Delhi) (Mag.) • Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd. vs. ITO: 28 ITD 231 (Delhi) • Baljees vs. ACIT: 85 TTJ 543 (Chd.) / 127 Taxman 150 (Chd.) (Mag.) • Mrs. Katiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO: 100 ITD 173(Mum.) • Balram Manmani vs. ACIT: [2006] 7 SOT 368 (Lucknow) • Bagaria Products Ltd. vs. JCIT: 107 TTJ 760 (Pune)(TM) Section 14A is not applicable as exempt income has not been earned It is submitted that section 14A of the Act is not applicable if exempt income has not been earned during the year under consideration. Reliance in this regard is…

Kaur Kookies (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-4, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1119/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263Section 36

…0 (All) CIT vs. Sunder Lai iii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J. P. Srivastava& Sons Ltd. vs. CIT iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. KashiNath& Co. PROPOSITION V: REVISION ORDER CANNOT BE PASSED U/S 263. UNLESS THERE IS TOTAL NON APPLICATION OF MIND BASED ON COGENT MATERIAL i) 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii) 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. iv) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. PROPOSITION VI: ALL PARTICULARS ARE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS APPLIED HIS MIND THEN REVISION IS NOT VA…

Rajiv Jain, Muzaffarnagar vs. Pr.CIT, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 530/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263(2)

…2016 dated 8-7-16 ITAT Del. 4. CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 SC 5. Shivalaya construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT Manu /ID/0265/2017 dated 16.8.2017 (TTATDelhi). 6. Braham Dev Gupta Vs. Pr. CIT (2017) 187 TTJ (Delhi) 001. 7. Mrs. Khatiza Vs. ITO 100 ITD 173 (Mum) 8. Dhruv n. Shah Vs. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ (Mum.) 369 9. Ashok Maniklal Thakkar Vs. ACIT, 97 ITD 361 (Ahd.) 6 ITA No. 530/Del./2021 AY : 2015-16 10. CIT Vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd., 372 ITR 302 (Bom.) 11. CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Del.) 7. Learned Departmental Representative submitted, in course of assessment proceeding, t…

Kisan Steel Corporation, Ghaziabad vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5362/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri JayMishra, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…SOT 705 (Del.) 3. Super Casseete Industries Pvt. Ltd. 41 ITD 530 (Del) 4. Jhulelal Land Development Corporation 56 ITD 345 (BOM) 5. CIT vs. Krishna Capbox (P) Ltd. 372 ITR 310 (All.) 6. DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del) 7. Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy 100 ITD 173 (MUM) 14. Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. PCIT. He submitted that the AO has never examined the issue under provisions of section 40(b)(v) or 40(b)(iv) and he has 13 Kisan Steel Corporation vs Pr. CIT examined only the provision of section 40 (a)(ii)((b). Similarly the AO has never examined the cost of improveme…

Hi-Rock Construction Co., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 32, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4327/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Hi Rock Construction Co. Pr. Cit -32 C-11, 2Nd Floor, 903, A, Gurukul Tower, Cst No. 890, J. S. Road, Dahisar (W), Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan: Aaffh6403B Mumbai. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi with Shri Shubham Rathi (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas (CIT-DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…08) 297 ITR 99 (All)], CIT vs. Krishna Capbox P. Ltd. [(2015) 372 ITR 310 (All)], Spectra Shares & Scrips (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT [(2013) 354 ITR 35 (AP)], PCIT vs. CLP India (P.) Ltd. [(2017) 85 taxmann.com 103 (Guj)], Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO [(2006) 100 ITD 173 (Mum)], Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. CIT [(2014) 160 TTJ 731 12 ITA No. 4327 Mum 2019-M/s Hi Rock Construction Co. (Mum Trib.)] & Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd. Vs. JCIT [(2014) 33 ITR (T) 142 (Hyd. Trib.)]. 21. In fifth alternative submission, the ld. PCIT has to deal with all objection raised by assessee, it could not b…

Acc Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 977/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Anadi Varma
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(3)Section 263

…ITA no.3206/Del./2017 (Del.); v) CIT v/s Sunbeam Auto Ltd., [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Del.); vi) ITO v/s DG Housing Projects, [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del.); vii) CIT v/s Vodafone Essar South Ltd., [2013] 212 Taxman 184 (Del.); viii) Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy v/s ITO, [2006] 100 ITD 173 (Mum.); and ix) Narayan Tatu Rane v/s ITO, [2-016] 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum.). 17. The leaned Counsel for the assessee submitted, in assessee’s own case, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the assessment years 2012–13 and 2008-09. He submitted, merely because the decision of learned Commissioner (App…

Prabha Garg, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward -2(5), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 153/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.D. Jayanthi Angayarkanni, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…r considering the assessee’s reply, material etc., and on due deliberations of various case laws viz., Malabar Industries Co. Ltd., vs. CIT, 109 taxman 66 (SC) and the ITAT, Mumbai decision in the case of Mrs. Khatiza S Oomerbhoy vs. ITO W17(3)(3) reported in 100 ITD 173 (Mum), the PCIT found that the Assessing Officer has accepted the assessee’s claim without making due verification and without conducting necessary enquiries. Thus, there is lack of application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the PCIT held that the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Reve…

Atc Telecom Tower Corporation P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 9, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2706/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2706/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Atc Telecom Tower Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit-9 (Earlier Known As Essar Telecom Aayakar Bhavan, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) बिधम/ Mumbai-400 020 403, 4Th Floor, Skyline Icon Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Near Mittal Industrial Estate Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaeca9823E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Senior Counsel &For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

…x would not be justified in dislodging the order passed by the A.O by invoking his jurisdiction under Sec. 263. The ld. A.R in order to fortify his aforesaid contention, relied upon the following judicial pronouncements: (i). Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy (2006) 100 ITD 173 (Mum) (ii). Commissioner Of Income-tax Vs.Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom) (iii). Small Wonder Industries Vs. CIT-24, Mumbai P a g e | 29 ITA No. 2706/Mum/2015 AY: 2008-09 ATC Telecom Tower Vs. Pr. CIT (ITA No. 2464/Mum/2013; dated. 24.02.2017)(Mum) (iv). Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (…

Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. Beverages Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1394/2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…missions i.e. on the question of allowing depreciation on lease hold rights. The fact that there are no elaborate discussions about a claim of deduction cannot, in the light of the decision of a coordinate bench in the case of Khatiza S Omerbhoy Vs. ITO (100 ITD 173), cannot be a good ground for assuming jurisdiction under section 263. In these circumstances, in our considered view, from the fact that the Assessing Officer has not discussed the claim of depreciation on goodwill in the assessment order even though the same claim was allowed in the earlier years and even though the Assessing Officer had…

Commissioner of Income Tax - IV vs. Beverages Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1391/2010HC Delhi14 Jan 2011
Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…missions i.e. on the question of allowing depreciation on lease hold rights. The fact that there are no elaborate discussions about a claim of deduction cannot, in the light of the decision of a coordinate bench in the case of Khatiza S Omerbhoy Vs. ITO (100 ITD 173), cannot be a good ground for assuming jurisdiction under section 263. In these circumstances, in our considered view, from the fact that the Assessing Officer has not discussed the claim of depreciation on goodwill in the assessment order even though the same claim was allowed in the earlier years and even though the Assessing Officer had…