Rajalakshmi Mill Ltd. v. ITO, Coimbatore

31 SOT 353Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#8988 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 10(38)Section 115BBESection 133ASection 144BSection 145

Issues it is cited on

section 44afsection 262trade creditorsinadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263lack of enquirymalabar industrialsection 263(1)non application of mindeligible businesssection 40a(3)section 194a

Judgments citing Rajalakshmi Mill Ltd. v. ITO, Coimbatore

SUMANTH BADIGA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 628/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.628/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Sumanth Badiga, The Dcit, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad – 500 004. Vs. Hyderabad. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Ahqpb8508F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वधिध/Assessee By : Ca C S Subrahmanyam & Sri V. Siva Kumar, Advocate िधजस् व द्वधिध/Revenue By : Sri Lv Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2026 घोषणध की तधिीख/Pronouncement: 06.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA C S Subrahmanyam and Sri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…tention, he has relied upon the following decisions: i. Rampyari Devi Saraogi [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC); ii. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) . iii. Swarup Vegetable Products [1991] 54 Taxman 175 (All.) iv. Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd., [2009] 31 SOT 353 (Chennai) (SB). v. SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd., T.C.(A) No.824 of 2010 dated 31.08.2010 of Madras High Court. vi. Deloitte Haskins & Sells ITA.No.1164/Mad./2012 dated 04.07.2013. 4.1. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer conducted the enquiry during the scrutiny assessment by issuing…

POONAM MARWAHA,AMRITSAR vs. ACIT DCIT CEN CIR, AMRITSAR

ITA 306/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 44ASection 69

…of land within meaning of section 2(47) Whether, since, at time of making assessment, there was no enquiry by Assessing Officer on issues raised by Commissioner, impugned revisional order was to be upheld - Held, yes [Para 24] [In favour of revenue] 5 [2009] 31 SOT 353 (Chennai) (SB) Applicability of section 263 In the case relied upon by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to make any enquiry, which was a key factor leading to the revisional order. IN THE ITAT CHENNAI BENCH 'D' (SPECIAL BENCH) Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. Officer, Circle Coimbatore Income-tax Company III…

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)

…ontended that no minimal enquiry is mandatorily to be carried by the CIT in the revisionary proceedings. Reliance in this regard has been placed on “Basera Realtors” 163 TTJ 736 (CHD), “Raj Laxmi” ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 95 31 SOT 353 (Chennai) (SB), “Daniel Merchants” (2017) TIOL 455 (SC)(IT) & “Daniel Merchants” (2017) TIOL 2526 (HC) (KOL) (IT). 39.1 In this regard, we find that no such objection was raised by the CIT in the impugned order. It is well settled that the case of the Commissioner cannot be improved upon by the DR. Reference, in this regard, can be made to “CI…

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)

…ontended that no minimal enquiry is mandatorily to be carried by the CIT in the revisionary proceedings. Reliance in this regard has been placed on “Basera Realtors” 163 TTJ 736 (CHD), “Raj Laxmi” ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 95 31 SOT 353 (Chennai) (SB), “Daniel Merchants” (2017) TIOL 455 (SC)(IT) & “Daniel Merchants” (2017) TIOL 2526 (HC) (KOL) (IT). 39.1 In this regard, we find that no such objection was raised by the CIT in the impugned order. It is well settled that the case of the Commissioner cannot be improved upon by the DR. Reference, in this regard, can be made to “CI…

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)

…ontended that no minimal enquiry is mandatorily to be carried by the CIT in the revisionary proceedings. Reliance in this regard has been placed on “Basera Realtors” 163 TTJ 736 (CHD), “Raj Laxmi” ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 95 31 SOT 353 (Chennai) (SB), “Daniel Merchants” (2017) TIOL 455 (SC)(IT) & “Daniel Merchants” (2017) TIOL 2526 (HC) (KOL) (IT). 39.1 In this regard, we find that no such objection was raised by the CIT in the impugned order. It is well settled that the case of the Commissioner cannot be improved upon by the DR. Reference, in this regard, can be made to “CI…

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

ITA 1051/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2016-2017

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

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…onouncement wherein action u/s 263 is held valid on the ground that the AO failed in making due verification and enquiry: “i. Hon’ble High Court in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (85 taxmann.com 10). ii. Rajalakshmi Mill Ltd. Vs. ITO, Coimbatore (2009) 31 SOT 353 (Chennai) (SB). iii. Dr. Rabindra Kumar Singh Vs. CIT (Central), Patna (2011) 131 ITD 39 (Ranchi).” The ld. Pr. CIT has also referred the following judicial pronouncement where in held that mere filing of an explanation was not sufficient if there is not further enquiries carried out: (i) Jeevan Investment & Finance (P) Ltd. 88 taxman.com 552 Bom)…

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

ITA 1050/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Neena Jeph
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…onouncement wherein action u/s 263 is held valid on the ground that the AO failed in making due verification and enquiry: “i. Hon’ble High Court in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (85 taxmann.com 10). ii. Rajalakshmi Mill Ltd. Vs. ITO, Coimbatore (2009) 31 SOT 353 (Chennai) (SB). iii. Dr. Rabindra Kumar Singh Vs. CIT (Central), Patna (2011) 131 ITD 39 (Ranchi).” The ld. Pr. CIT has also referred the following judicial pronouncement where in held that mere filing of an explanation was not sufficient if there is not further enquiries carried out: (i) Jeevan Investment & Finance (P) Ltd. 88 taxman.com 552 Bom)…

NAHAR COLOURS AND COATINHGS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer should have made further inquiries before accepting the statements made by the assessee in his return. (Rajalakshmi Mill Ltd vs. ITO, Coimbatore [2009] 31 SOT 353 (Chennai) (SB)) 5.5. The principle that a mere change of opinion could not be a basis for reopening completed assessments would be applicable only to situations where the Assessing Officer had applied his mind and taken a conscious decision on a particular matter in issue. It would have no application where the order of assessment did not address…

BHAGAWATI ABHILSHA CONVENTURE,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1028/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blebhagwati Abhilsha Conventure V. Pr. Cit – Mumbai – 17 A/35, Patil Bhuvan, N.S.B. Road 120, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan Mulund (W), Mumbai - 400080 Avenue-3, Near Videsh Bhavan Bandra Kurla Complex Pan: Aahfb9198D Bandra(E), Mumbai – 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri M. Subramanian Department Represented By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade

Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 263Section 43C

…gwati Abhilsha Conventure Officer has not made proper verification with regard to calculation of the deemed rent. 9. Ld. Pr.CIT by relying on various case laws in particular Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (85 Taxmann.com 10), Rajlakshmi Mill Ltd., v. ITO, [20009] 31 SOT 353 (Chennai), Dr. Rabindra Kumar Singh v. CIT [2011] 131 ITD 39 (Ranchi) and other judicial precedents to come to the conclusion that Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue accepting the assessment was made without proper verification, enquiries on the issue which the As…

SHOBHA RAMCHANDRA CHAUDHARI,YAWAL vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 1, NASHIK

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 460/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.397/Pun/2021 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 143(3)Section 263

…this case it is admitting prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax proper and valid”. b) In the case of Rajalakshmi Mill Ltd vs. ITO, Coimbatore [2009] 31 SOT 353 (Chennai) (SB), the ld. Tribunal held that “it is not necessary for the Commissioner to make further enquiries before cancelling the assessment order of the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer should have made further inquiries before accept…

RAMACHANDRA VISHNU CHAUDHARI,JALGAON vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - 2, NASHIK

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

ITA 397/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.397/Pun/2021 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 143(3)Section 263

…this case it is admitting prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax proper and valid”. b) In the case of Rajalakshmi Mill Ltd vs. ITO, Coimbatore [2009] 31 SOT 353 (Chennai) (SB), the ld. Tribunal held that “it is not necessary for the Commissioner to make further enquiries before cancelling the assessment order of the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer should have made further inquiries before accept…

SH. SURINDER PAL SINGH,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT-1, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jan 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…nue. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Mahalakshmi Liquor Promoters (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2013) 29 taxmann.com 70 • Dr. Rabindra Kumar Singh Vs. CIT(Central), Patna [2011] 131 ITD 39 (Ranchi) • Rajalakshmi Mill Ltd. Vs. ITO, Coimbatore (2009) 31 SOT 353 (Chennai)(SB) • Ambika Agro Suppliers Vs. ITO, Jalgaon [ 2005] 95 ITD 326 (Pune) • Rameshchandra Maleram Varma Vs. DCIT [2002] 121 Taxman 29 (Ahd.)(Mag.) • Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) • Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (2017-TIOL-455-SC-IT) • Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 155 ITD 171(Kol) • Lakshmi Vilas…

Rajalakshmi Mill Ltd. v. ITO, Coimbatore (31 SOT 353) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax