Nabha Investments Pvt. ltd. v. UOI

AMBUJA CEMENTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

…also made to Malabar Industrial Company Limited versus CIT, (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Page | 18 ITA No. 3474/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Ambuja Cements Limited, Mumbai decisions of Delhi High Court in Nabha Investments Private Limited versus Union of India, (2000) 246 ITR 41 (Delhi) and ITO versus DG Housing Projects Limited, (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). It has been observed in Nagesh Knitwears Private Limited (supra): "10. Section 263 has been enacted to empower the CIT to exercise power of revision and revise any order passed by the Assessing Officer, if two cumulative conditions are satisfied. Firstly, the order sou…

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry ()

…y' cannot be equated with ‘lack of enquiry' so as to render an assessment order erroneous. 2.6 The Ld. Authorized Representative also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Bismillah Trading Co. Vs. Intelligence Office [2001] 248 ITR 292 (Ker) to explain meaning of the term ‘prejudicial to Revenue'. The Ld. Authorized representative also referred to the other decisions on the issue in dispute. 2.7 With regard to the issue of 'discounts and incentives', the assessee furnished a detailed break-up of the amount of ₹154.40 crores comprising target discounts (Rs.: 64,98,79,896) ; cons…

APURVA NATVAR PARIKH & CO. PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is\ndismissed

…ade to Malabar Industrial Company Limited\nvs CIT, (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and decisions of Delhi High Court\nPage 17\nITA No. 2646/Mum/2024\nΑ.Υ. 2018-19\nApurva Natvar Parikh & Co. Pvt. Limited\nin Nabha Investments Private Limited vs Union of India,\n(2000) 246 ITR 41 (Delhi) and ITO vs DG Housing Projects\nLimited, (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). It has been observed in\nNagesh Knitwears Private Limited (supra):\n\"10. Section 263 has been enacted to empower the CIT to exercise power of revision\nand revise any order passed by the Assessing Officer, if two cumulative conditions\nare satisfied. Firstly, the order s…

INDIABULLS COMMERCIAL CREDIT LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

…imited, (2012) 345 ITR 135 (Delhi). In the said decision,\nreference was also made to Malabar Industrial Company Limited\nversus CIT, (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and decisions of Delhi High\nCourt in Nabha Investments Private Limited versus Union of\nIndia, (2000) 246 ITR 41 (Delhi) and ITO versus DG Housing\nProjects Limited, (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). It has been\nobserved in Nagesh Knitwears Private Limited (supra):\n\"10. Section 263 has been enacted to empower the CIT to exercise power of revision\nand revise any order passed by the Assessing Officer, if two cumulative conditions\nare satisfied. Firstly, the ord…

MUMBAI POSTAL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1050 & 1051/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mumbai Postal Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Ward 17(2)(1) Society Limited, Gpo Room No. 115, 1 St Floor, Building, Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai – 400001 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajm0032G Appellant .. Respondent

…favourable orders leading to the loss of tax cannot be brought under the scope of sec. 263. The deduction allowed by several judicial authorities was legitimately followed by AO in original assessment. We rely on Bismillah Trading Co. Vs. Intelligence Officer 248 ITR 292 (Ker.) & Venkatakrishna Rice Co. Vs. CIT 163 ITR 129 (Mad). Refer Annexure 3&4. iii.in the proposed action, you have interpreted scope of sec. 80P in a completely different way and concluded that the original assessment order suffered inherent deficiencies. This interpretation is farfetched, absurd and simply amounts to change of opinion to suppo…

MUMBAI POSTAL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 17(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1050 & 1051/Mum/2023 (A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2016-17) Mumbai Postal Employees Vs. Income Tax Officer, Co-Operative Credit Ward 17(2)(1) Society Limited, Gpo Room No. 115, 1 St Floor, Building, Fort, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Mumbai – 400001 C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaajm0032G Appellant .. Respondent

…favourable orders leading to the loss of tax cannot be brought under the scope of sec. 263. The deduction allowed by several judicial authorities was legitimately followed by AO in original assessment. We rely on Bismillah Trading Co. Vs. Intelligence Officer 248 ITR 292 (Ker.) & Venkatakrishna Rice Co. Vs. CIT 163 ITR 129 (Mad). Refer Annexure 3&4. iii.in the proposed action, you have interpreted scope of sec. 80P in a completely different way and concluded that the original assessment order suffered inherent deficiencies. This interpretation is farfetched, absurd and simply amounts to change of opinion to suppo…

ANUP ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL CIT-19, MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalanup Enterprises, 41, 4Th Floor, Neelkamal, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026 Pan: Aaafa5067D ...... Appellant Vs. The Pr.Cit-19, Room No. 228, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai-400007 ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-19, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Ld. Pr.Cit) Dated 22.03.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

…inciples of natural justice or without application of mind. The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. In Bismillah Trading Co. v. Intelligence Officer [2001] 248 ITR 292 (Ker.), as also in the case of Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 129 (Mad.) it was held that there must be grievous error in the order passed by the ITO which might set a bad trend or pattern for similar assessments which, on a broad reckoning, the Commissioner might think to be prejudicial to the revenue administration. The prejudice…

C.B. MUBARKA CHARITABLE TRUST,MUMBAI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhc.B. Murarka Charitable Vs. Cit(Exemption) Trust, B-310, Virwani 617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Industrial Estate, Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel Western Express Mumbai - 400012 Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai – 400063 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaatc0036C Appellant .. Respondent

…the assessee had not made compliance to the show cause notice issued. After placing reliance on the number of judicial pronouncements i.e Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. Vs. CIT(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), Bismillah Trading Company Vs. Intelligence Officer (2001) 248 ITR 292 (Karnataka) Venkateshkrishna Rice Company Vs. CIT (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Madras), Smt. Taradevi Aggarwal Vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC), Thalibai F. Jain Vs. ITO (1975) 101 ITR 1 (Karnataka), CIT Vs. Amitabh Bachhan, 384 ITR 200 & Others decision the ld. Pr. CIT held that the A.O has passed assessment order without basic verification of issue as men…

PANCH TATVA REALITY,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -27, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh () & S.Rifaur Rahman ()

…eous that the section will be attracted and incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. Further, by relying on the decision of Bismillah Trading Co. vs Intelligence Officer (2001) 248 ITR 292 (Ker) and other decisions, he held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer by not verifying the payments to the member of the AOP and no doubt, expenditure is not claimed by the assessee during the period relevant to this order; however, assessee has charged to the work in progress. Aggreived, assessee is in appeal before us raising follow…

M/S. ASARIA LALJI VADOR,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -7, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blem/S. Asaria Lalji Vador V. Office Of Pcit – 27 C-21, Mahavir Jyot Room No. 401, 4Th Floor Opp. Odeon Shopping Centre Tower No. 6 Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400077 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan: Aabpv0149A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

…uction claimed u/s. 54EC of the Act after gathering informations relating to the above by relying on section 263(1) Explanation 2 and case laws of Malabar Industries Co. Ltd., v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), Bismillah Trading Co. v. Intelligence Officer [2001] 248 ITR 292 (Ker.), Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT [1987] 163 8 M/s. Asaria Lalji Vador ITR 129 (Mad.) and CIT v. Pushpa Devi [1987] 164 ITR 639 (Pat.) and accordingly, he set aside the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to pass afresh Assessment Order considering the issues raised in the notice issued u/s. 263 of the Act…

S. NARENDRAKUMAR & CO.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT. CIRCLE- 27, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

…ugh recognized broker Mj/s Angel Commodity Broking Pvt. Ltd." 5. However, learned CIT was not satisfied. He referred to following case laws :- • Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), • Bismillah Trading Co. v. Intelligence Officer [2001] 248 ITR 292 (Ker.) • Venkatakrishna Rice Co. Vs. CIT (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad) • Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323(SC) • Thalibai F. Jain Vs. ITO (1975) 101 ITR 1 (Kar.) 6. He referred to Explanation 1 below subsection (1) of section 263 and held as under :- “In view of the above and also in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, i…