How many judgments cite Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy v. ITO, Mumbai?

101 judgments on BharatTax cite Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy v. ITO, Mumbai (101 TTJ 1095), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy v. ITO, Mumbai come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 263, Section 142(1), Section 115BBE, Section 120, Section 139(1).

Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy v. ITO, Mumbai

101 TTJ 1095Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#1081 most cited

What is Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy v. ITO, Mumbai authority for?

This case outlines the fundamental tests for invoking Section 263, holding that an assessment order is 'erroneous' if based on incorrect facts or incorrect application of law, or passed without due inquiry. For revision, both the conditions of being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue must be fulfilled.

101

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy · Section 263 · revisional power · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · Malabar Industries · lack of enquiry · application of mind · assessment order erroneous · Commissioner of Income Tax revision · principles for section 263

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263 Section 142(1)Section 115BBE Section 120 Section 139(1)Section 144A Section 147

Issues it is cited on

national tax tribunal section 120 section 144a section 129 revision under section 263 section 263(1)malabar industrial lack of enquiry erroneous and prejudicial section 54f chief commissioner section 54

Judgments citing Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy v. ITO, Mumbai

Spml Infra Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 510/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

…on, we hold that the assumption of jurisdiction by the DIT u/s 263 of the Act is not in accordance with law. We, therefore, quash the same and grounds raised by the assessee are allowed." 8.6. The ITAT in the case of Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO, Mumbai, 101 TTJ 1095, analyzed in detail various authoritative pronouncements including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries 243 ITR 83 and has propounded the following broader principle to judge the action of CIT taken under section 263: “(i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial t…

Karan Polymers Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated herein above

ITA 270/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Aby T. Varkey & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…of Assessing Officer even though the working of allowability of deduction under section 54F is available in the order under section 263 which is not disputed by the assessee before ITAT." 9.7. The ITAT in the case of Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO, Mumbai, 101 TTJ 1095, analyzed in detail various authoritative pronouncements including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries 243 ITR 83 and has propounded the following broader principle to judge the action of CIT taken under section 263. (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to…

Facit Sales(P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kol-5, Kolkata

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

ITA 406/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

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

…accordance with 13 I.T.A. No.: 406/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Facit Sales Private Limited. law. We, therefore, quash the same and grounds raised by the assessee are allowed." 10.7. The ITAT in the case of Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO, Mumbai, 101 TTJ 1095, analyzed in detail various authoritative pronouncements including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries 243 ITR 83 and has propounded the following broader principle to judge the action of CIT taken under Section 263. (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to…

Britannia Industries Ltd, Bangalore vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…ent to take note of the fundamental tests propounded in various judgments relevant for judging the action of the Ld. PCIT taken u/s 263 of the Act. The co-ordinate bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy v. ITO, Mumbai reported in [2006] 101 TTJ 1095 (Mum) analyzed in detail, various authoritative pronouncements including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and has propounded the following broad principle to judge the action of CIT taken under section 263 – (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the A…

Kaushikbhai Prahaladbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-7, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 667/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Amarjit Sinh"नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year : 2014-15 Kaushikbhai P. Patel Pr.Commissioner Of It-7 Ahmedabad. 43, Gidc Estate Vs. Naroda,Ahmedabad. Pan : Aavpp 9887 F

For Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 563

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Conducted through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "नधा"रण वष"/ Asstt.Year : 2014-15 Kaushikbhai P. Patel Pr.Commissioner of IT-7 Ahmedabad. 43, GIDC Estate Vs. Naroda,Ahmedabad. PAN : AAVPP 9887 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Mahesh Chhajed, AR Assessee by Revenue by : Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 11/05/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 13/05/2021 आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT…

M/S. Itt Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 344/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 344/Ahd/2020 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.R

Section 142Section 144Section 263Section 263(1)Section 44A

…old contentions of the ld. Representatives, we deem it pertinent to take note of the fundamental tests propounded in various judgments relevant for judging the action of the CIT taken u/s 263. The ITAT in the case of Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy Vs. ITO, Mumbai, 101 TTJ 1095, analyzed in detail various authoritative pronouncements including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries 243 ITR 83 and has propounded the following broader principle to judge the action of CIT taken under section 263. (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to…

Laxmi Ventures (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -7, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-2014

ITA 2199/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Laxmi Ventures (India) Pvt. The Principal Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax 7, Mumbai, Aaykar 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mahalaxmi , Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400034 Pan: Aaacl1082G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit (CIT DR)

Section 133Section 143Section 14ASection 263Section 40Section 68

…. CIT Vs. Gnat Ram Bishnoi (2008) 296 ITR 292 (Raj) 3. Girdhari Lal B. Rohra vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2004) 86 TTJ 0177. 4. Unilever PLC vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (2007) 18 SOT 0136. 5. Mrs. Khatiza S. OOmerbhoy vs. Income Tax Officer (2006) 101 TTJ 1095 (mum) 6. MOIL Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (High Court of Bombay (20107) 396 ITR 0244 (Bom) 7. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. High Court of Bombay (2015) 372 ITR 0303 (Bom). 8. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Max India Ltd. Supreme Court of India (2007) 295 ITR 0282. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental…

Shri Nandkishore S. Sodhan(HUF), Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 994/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 994/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Nandkishore S. Shodhan Ito, Ward-5(2)(3) (Huf) Vs Ahmedabad. D/11-12, Silver Arc Kavi Nanalal Marg Ellisbridge Pan : Aadhs 4064 F

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT-DR

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

…ld. Representatives, we deem it pertinent to take note of the fundamental tests propounded in various judgments ITA No.994 /Ahd/2016 relevant for judging the action of the CIT taken u/s 263. The ITAT in the case of Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy Vs. ITO, Mumbai, 101 TTJ 1095, analyzed in detail various authoritative pronouncements including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries 243 ITR 83 and has propounded the following broader principle to judge the action of CIT taken under section 263. (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to…

Snowhill Agencies Pvt. Ltd (Merged With Gallops Motors P. Ltd), Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1775/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1775/Ahd/2019 Asstt.Year : 2012-13 Snowhill Agencies P.Ltd. Pr.Cit, Kolkata-4 (Merged With Gallops Motors P.Ltd.) Vs Pr.Cit-2, Survey No.220P Ahmedabad) Nr.Amin Jcb Equipments S.G. Highway Sarkhej, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aaqcs 1535 F (Snowhill) Pan: Aaccg 2492 F)(Gallops)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT-DR

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

Dev Raj Garg, Shahabad (M) vs. Pr. CIT, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 774/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Chhabra, AdvFor Respondent: CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…ing contentions of the ld. Representatives, we deem it pertinent to take note of the fundamental tests propounded in various judgments relevant for judging the action of the CIT taken u/s 263. The ITAT in the case of Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy Vs. ITO, Mumbai, 101 TTJ 1095, analyzed in detail various authoritative pronouncements including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries 243 ITR 83 and has propounded the following broader principle to judge the action of CIT taken under section 263. (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to…

Dipal Piyush Palkiwala, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-2(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 3462/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.839/Ahd/2015 & आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.3462/Ahd/2016 { "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dipal Piyush Palkhiwala, Ito Ward-4(4) 27, Rivera Greens, 1St Floor, Vs Gokuldham Navjeevan Trust Building Sarkhej-Sanand Road, Sanathal, Ahmedabad-380014 Ahmedabad-382210 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Rita Dokania, Cit- Dr

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Rita Dokania, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…hd/2015 & ITANo. 3462/Ahd/2016 Dipal Piyush Palkhiwala For AY 2010-11 11 note of the fundamental tests propounded in various judgments relevant for judging the action of the CIT taken u/s 263. The ITAT in the case of Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy Vs. ITO, Mumbai, 101 TTJ 1095, analyzed in detail various authoritative pronouncements including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries 243 ITR 83 and has propounded the following broader principle to judge the action of CIT taken under section 263. (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to…

Dipal Piyush Palkiwala, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 839/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Rita Dokania, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

Smt. Illaben Jayantkumar Doshi, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 124/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.124/Rjt/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri R.D. Lal Chandani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36

…ons raised by the learned representatives, we deem it pertinent to take note of the fundamental tests propounded in various judgments relevant for judging the action of the CIT taken u/s. 263. The ITAT in the case of Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy Vs. ITO, Mumbai, 101 TTJ 1095, analyzed in detail various authoritative pronouncements including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries 243 ITR 83 and has propounded the following broader principle to judge the action of CIT taken under section 263. (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to…

Maharashtra Cricket Association, Pune vs. CIT-1, Pune

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1177/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1177/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Maharashtra Cricket Association, 5Th Floor, Amar Avinash Corporate City, 10, Bund Garden Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaatm2192D Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune

For Appellant: S/Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Ms. Nirupama Kotru, CIT and Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…ercise of jurisdiction by Commissioner. 19 Maharashtra Cricket Association 25. The powers enshrined in Commissioner under section 263 of the Act has been summarized by the Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy Vs. ITO reported in 101 TTJ 1095, as under:- “(i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the A.O is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Both the conditions must be fulfilled. (ii) Sec. 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the A,O and it was only when an order is erroneous that the section will be…

Colour Publications P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4023/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40Section 40A(2)

…ndustrial Company Ltd vs CIT (2000) 240 ITR 83 (SC). Further, the assessee also relied upon the following case laws:- 1. CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd (1993) 203 ITR 209 (Bom) 2. CIT vs Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Bom) 3. Mrs. Khatiza Oomerbhoy (2006) 101 TTJ 1095 (Mum) 6. On the other hand, the Ld.DR strongly supporting the order of the PCIT, submitted that the AO has failed to conduct required enquiries and also applied his mind on payment of performance bonus to the director of the company in the light of provisions of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act, 9 ITA 4023/Mum/2017 where it was prohibited paymen…

M/S. Globus Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result all the three appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

ITA 2491/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Globus Projects Private Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt Aparna Karan, CIT DR

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153CSection 263

…ssee and conducting such inquiry as he may deem fit Ld Commissioner will pass the order. Broad Principles established by Various Judicial Pronouncement to Judge the Action of CIT taken u/s 263 The ITAT in the case of Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy Vs. ITO, Mumbai, 101 TTJ 1095, analyzed in detail various authoritative pronouncements including the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries 243 ITR 83 and has propounded the following broader principle to judge the action of CIT taken under section 263 as follows: (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AO is erroneous and prej…

M/S. Bestech India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result all the three appeals filed by the assesses are allowed

ITA 2485/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. Globus Projects Private Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan:Aaccg5308E (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan: Aaccb2540F (Appellant) (Respondent) Bestech India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, Unit No. 5D, 5Th Floor, Assets Aria Central Circle-1, Signature Offices, Jw Marriott Hotel, Faridabad Asset Area-4, Delhi Aerocity Hospitality District, New Delhi Pan: Aabcb6551B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Smt Aparna Karan, CIT DR

Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 153CSection 263

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Subhash Kabini Power Corporation Limited

ITA/169/2015HC Karnataka29 Mar 2016

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260Section 263Section 80I

…about the facts available on record and how to construe them, we deem it pertinent to take note of the fundamental principles for judging the action of the CIT taken u/s 263. The ITAT in the case of M/s Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy Vs. ITO, Mumbai reported in 101 TTJ 1095, analyzed in details various authoritative pronouncements including the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries Co. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 and propounded the following broader tests: (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.…

Pravin L. Manania, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 123/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri. Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri. M. Dayasagar

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 263Section 54

…cord and how to construe then, we deem it necessary to take note of the fundamental principles for judging the action of the Ld. CIT taken u/s 263 of the Act. A co- ordinate bench of the ITAT Mumbai in the case of Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO reported in 101 TTJ 1095, analyzed in detail various authoritative pronouncements including the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industries Co. vs. CIT (243 ITR 83) (SC) and propounded the following broader tests:- (i) The CIT must record satisfaction that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Bothe conditi…

M/S Nirvana Business Solutions Private Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for the asst

ITA 1093/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Oct 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A No.1093/Bang/2013 (Asst. Year – 2006-2007) M/S Nirvana Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., No.98, Shri Krishna Nilayam, 3Rd Cross, Pillana Garden, 3Rd Stage, Bangalore. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore-Iii Bangalore. . Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Anurag Sahay, Cit Date Of Hearing : 31-08-2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-10-2015

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Sahay, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH ‘C’ BEFORE SHRI VIJAYPAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(TP)A No.1093/Bang/2013 (Asst. Year – 2006-2007) M/s Nirvana Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., No.98, Shri Krishna Nilayam, 3rd Cross, Pillana Garden, 3rd Stage, Bangalore. . Appellant Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore-III Bangalore. . Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Anurag Sahay, CIT Date of Hearing : 31-08-2015 Date of Pronouncement : 07-10-2015 O R D E R PER SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is dire…