Nabha Investments Pvt. ltd. v. UOI

248 ITR 292High Court2001#1749 most cited

What is Nabha Investments Pvt. ltd. v. UOI authority for?

An assessment order is considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, warranting revision under Section 263, if there is an inadequate inquiry or non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, satisfying the two cumulative conditions required for revisional powers.

65

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,359 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Nabha Investments Pvt. ltd. v. UOI · Section 263 · revision · assessment order erroneous · prejudicial to interest of revenue · inadequate enquiry · non application of mind · erroneous and prejudicial · Principal Commissioner of Income-tax

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 194HSection 37(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 8D

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenueinadequate enquirymalabar industrialsection 263(1)assessment order erroneousrevision under section 263lack of enquirypercentage completion methodnon application of minderroneous and prejudicialsection 119principal commissioner of income-tax

Judgments citing Nabha Investments Pvt. ltd. v. UOI

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Orient Carft Ltd

ITA - 996 / 2008HC Delhi01 Jun 2012
Section 260ASection 28Section 5Section 80H

…s the view taken by the Assessing Officer was plausible. They referred and relied upon Malabar Industrial Company Limited Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and the decision of Delhi High Court in Nabha Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others (2000)246 ITR 41. The tribunal also examined the case on merits and came to the conclusion that the addition was not justified in view of the circular issued by the Board. On correct interpretation of law, the assessee was entitled to include premium or profit on sale of export quota in Section 28 (iiia/b/c). Accordingly, the twin conditions i.e. order of t…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Orient Craft Ltd

ITA - 994 / 2008HC Delhi01 Jun 2012
Section 260ASection 28Section 5Section 80H

…s the view taken by the Assessing Officer was plausible. They referred and relied upon Malabar Industrial Company Limited Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and the decision of Delhi High Court in Nabha Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others (2000)246 ITR 41. The tribunal also examined the case on merits and came to the conclusion that the addition was not justified in view of the circular issued by the Board. On correct interpretation of law, the assessee was entitled to include premium or profit on sale of export quota in Section 28 (iiia/b/c). Accordingly, the twin conditions i.e. order of t…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Orient Craft Ltd

ITA - 993 / 2008HC Delhi01 Jun 2012
Section 260ASection 28Section 5Section 80H

…s the view taken by the Assessing Officer was plausible. They referred and relied upon Malabar Industrial Company Limited Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and the decision of Delhi High Court in Nabha Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others (2000)246 ITR 41. The tribunal also examined the case on merits and came to the conclusion that the addition was not justified in view of the circular issued by the Board. On correct interpretation of law, the assessee was entitled to include premium or profit on sale of export quota in Section 28 (iiia/b/c). Accordingly, the twin conditions i.e. order of t…

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. Nagesh Knitwears P.Ltd

ITA - 591 / 2008HC Delhi01 Jun 2012
Section 260ASection 28Section 5Section 80H

…s the view taken by the Assessing Officer was plausible. They referred and relied upon Malabar Industrial Company Limited Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and the decision of Delhi High Court in Nabha Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others (2000)246 ITR 41. The tribunal also examined the case on merits and came to the conclusion that the addition was not justified in view of the circular issued by the Board. On correct interpretation of law, the assessee was entitled to include premium or profit on sale of export quota in Section 28 (iiia/b/c). Accordingly, the twin conditions i.e. order of t…

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. Nagesh Knitwears P. Ltd

ITA/591/2008HC Delhi01 Jun 2012
Section 260ASection 28Section 5Section 80H

…s the view taken by the Assessing Officer was plausible. They referred and relied upon Malabar Industrial Company Limited Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and the decision of Delhi High Court in Nabha Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Others (2000)246 ITR 41. The tribunal also examined the case on merits and came to the conclusion that the addition was not justified in view of the circular issued by the Board. On correct interpretation of law, the assessee was entitled to include premium or profit on sale of export quota in Section 28 (iiia/b/c). Accordingly, the twin conditions i.e. order of t…