How many judgments cite Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO?

26 judgments on BharatTax cite Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO (121 ITD 343), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 119, Section 131, Section 133(6), Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 263.

Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO

121 ITD 343Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#4448 most cited

What is Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO authority for?

A Commissioner must find an assessment order to be both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest to validly exercise revision powers under section 263. The powers of revision under section 263 are wide.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO · section 263 · erroneous and prejudicial · revision powers · CIT · Principal Commissioner of Income-tax · inadequate enquiry · non-application of mind · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.

Sections most often in play

Section 119 Section 131 Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263 Section 271B Section 44AB

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiry malabar industrial section 263(1)erroneous and prejudicial principal commissioner of income-tax non-application of mind section 119 section 263 section 26 limited scrutiny revenue expenditure scrutiny assessment

Judgments citing Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Te Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

ITA/53/2024HC Karnataka05 Jun 2025

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 260ASection 263Section 40

…- 1 - ITA No.53 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ITA NO. 53 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1 . THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. 2 . THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, PRESENT ADDRESS, DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI N, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. TE C…

Shri Pareshkumar Narshibhai Siroya, Dhoraji, Dist. Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

ITA 127/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.127/Rjt/2022

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld. CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 68

…Vs. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 2. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 3. Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (ALL) 187 ITR 412 4. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl.CIT&Ors (Del.) 99 ITR 375 5. Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, SB-Chennai) 121 ITD 343, 313 ITR(AT) 182 6. SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2010-TIOL-646-HC- MAD-IT. 7. Shakti Credits Ltd Vs. CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 3058 (Luck.'A¹ Trib) 8. Shoreline Hotel PvtLtd. Vs. CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 2982 (Mum.'E…

Exotic Realtors and Developers, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

…ent order under section 143 (3) dt. 12/06/2020. However, the Ld. DR by extra written submissions dt. 22/07/2024 has placed reliance on Special Bench judgement of ITAT in case of Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO, Company Circle-III, Coimbatore reported in [2009] 121 ITD 343 (Chennai) to demonstrate that it is not necessary under section 263 for PCIT to make any enquiry before cancelling the assessment order. The reliance was placed on para 3 wherein it is held that “ It is not necessary for the Commissioner of Income Tax to make further enquiries before cancelling the assessment orders of the Assessing Officer. The…

Parshottambhai Maganlal Ramotia, Rajkot vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Rajkot-1 - PCIT-1 Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 29/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2017-18 Parshottambhai Maganlal Ramotia, Vs. Pr. Cit-1 C/O. Parli Cosmetic Laser Centre Rajkot. Usha Kiran Apartment 10, Sardar Nagar Main Road Rajkot. Pan : Abjpr 3979 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri R.K. Takwani, Ld.Dr Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Takwani, ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 68Section 69A

…i Vs. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 2. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 3. Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (ALL) 187 ITR 412 4. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl.CIT&Ors (Del.) 99 ITR 375 5 Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, SB-Chennai) 121 ITD 343, 313 ITR(AT) 182 6 SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2010-TIOL-646-HC- MAD-IT. 7 Shakti Credits Ltd Vs. CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 3058 (Luck.'A1 Trib) 8. Shoreline Hotel Pvt.Ltd. Vs. CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 2982 (Mum.'E" Trib.) 9. Kapil Ratan Associates Vs CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 2931 (Mum.'A1 Trib) 69 SOT 188 (Mum.) 10. Swadeshi Vilas Private Lt…

Sourabh Sharma, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) a

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

…evi Saraogi v/s CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 Swarup Vegetable Products Industries v. CIT (All) 187 ITR 412 Gee Vee Enterprises v/s. Addl. CIT &Ors. (Del.) 99 ITR 375. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., v. CIT (SC) 243 ITR 83 Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd., v. ITO (ITAT, SB-Chennai), 121 ITD 343: 313 ITR (AT) 182 SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT 2010-TIOL-646-HC-MAD-IT Madras High Court in the case of Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 490 (Mad.) wherein it is held that the powers of the Commissioner are very wide in exercising the powers of revision u/s 263. It is no doubt true that for making a valid order u/s 263,…

Sindya Securities and Investments Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Corp.Circle-6[2], Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 438/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.438/Chny/2022 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Sindya Securities & Investments Pvt. Ltd. Acit बनाम/ No.609, Lakshi Bavan, V Floor Corporate Circle 6(2) Sundaram Avenue, Mount Road Chennai Vs. Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aalcs-3297-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar (Ca) & Shri Vishwa Padmanabhan,(Ca) - Ld.Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. S. Senthil Kumaran (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03-08-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-09-2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar (CA) &For Respondent: Dr. S. Senthil Kumaran (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 28

…n 2 to Sec. 263 was applicable. Relance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati in the case of CIT vs. Jawahar Battacharjee (24 Taxmann.com 215) as well as the decision of ITAT Chennai Special bench in Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. vs. ITO (121 ITD 343) to support the application of Sec.263. 3.4 The Ld. CIT-DR also referred to the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (56 Taxmann.com 286) wherein it was held that it was necessary on the part of the appellate authorities to ensure effective enquiry, if AO fails to conduct proper enquiry.…

Omm Shree Realcon Pvt. Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. Pr.CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 97/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Om Shree Realcon Pvt Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit- Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar-1 Plot No.418, Forest Park, 8, Forest Park, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabco 3118 P (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Sarangi, Ca S.K.Sarangi, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 28 /0 06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 28 /0 /06/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Sarangi, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

…(refer, inter alia, Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66 (SC); Toyota Motor Corpn. v. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 52/173 Taxman 458 (SC); Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi); and Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 343 (Chd.) (SB)). So, however, the ld. CIT, the competent authority, has given a definite direction to the AO to frame fresh assessment, setting aside that made in the first instance, in terms of his directions, i.e., of the loan/s amount being assessable as deemed dividend u/s. 2(22)(e) in the assessee's hands, so that it is a decision on merits as…

Shri Praful Gautambhai Kothari, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 163/RJT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 163/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…lTO. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 2. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 3. Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (ALL) 187 ITR 412 4. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl.CIT&Ors (Del.) 99 ITR 375 5. Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, SB-Chennai) 121 ITD 343, 313 ITR(AT) 182 6. SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2010-TIOL-646-HC- MAD-IT. 7. Shakti Credits Ltd Vs. CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 3058 (Luck.'A' Trib) 8. Shoreline Hotel Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 2982 (Mum.'E" Trib.) 9. Kapil Ratan Associates Vs CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 2931 (Mum.'A1 Trib) 69 SOT 188 (Mum.) - 10. Swadeshi Vilas Privat…

Sachin Ramdas Mohite, Satara vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-3, Pune

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 395/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena

Section 263Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, AM I.T.A. No. 395/PUN/2019 : A.Y. 2013-14 Mr. Sachin Ramdas Mohite A/P Khandala, Dist. Satara 415 523 PAN: AMDPM 1310 D : Appellant Vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-3, Pune Respondent Appellant by : Shri M.K. Kulkarni Respondent by: Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date of hearing : 04-10-2022 Date of pronouncement : 10-10-2022 ORDER PER SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ; This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2013-14 arises against the Pr. CIT-3’s order No. Pn/Pr.CIT/263/MBR/2017-18/5000 dated 06-03-2018, in pr…

Sericulturists Cum Farmers Service Co-Operative Society Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Sericulturists Cum Farmers Service Co-Operative Society Ltd., The Principal 01Sfcs Building, Commissioner Of Near Bus Stop, Income Tax – 2, Sarjapura Town, Bengaluru. Vs. Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 125. Pan: Aaaas6468H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Ranjan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit-2, Bangalore U/S. 263 Of The Act Relating To A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. Tax Effect Relating To Grounds Of Appeal Each Ground Of Appeal The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bengaluru-2 ("Pr. Cit") Dated 30-Mar-2022, Passed Under I. Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ("The Act") N.A Insofar It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To The Law, Weight Of Evidence, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…P Ltd. (2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 5. Ashok Logani (2012) 347 ITR 22 (Delhi) 6. Gee Vee Enterprises (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) 7. Vedanta Ltd. (2021) 279 Taxman 358 (Born) 8. V. K. Bharathi (2019) 102 taxmann.com 255 (Kar) 9. Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO (200 121 ITD 343 (Chennai)(SB) 10. Lokesh M. (2021) 187 ITD 342 (Bang) 20. In view of the above discussion, the aforesaid assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue in terms of section 263. The assessment order is accordingly, set aside for this purpose and the AO is directed under section 263, to make a fresh assessment in accordan…

Shri Manoj B. Mansukhani, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2017-18 Shri Manoj Bhagwan Principal Commissioner Mansukhani, of Income Tax, Rajkot-1 Plot No. 113-116, Vs (Respondent) Rishi House, Industrial Area Ward No. 6, Gandhidham-Kutch-370201 PAN: ABCPM8333P (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 04-07-2022 Date of pronouncement : 21-09-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2017-18, arises from order of the P…

Sampkhand Group Seva Sahakari Sangh Limited, Samphkand vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

ITA 366/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Sampkhand Group Seva Sahakari Sangh Ltd., The Principal No. 104, Sahakari Commissioner Of Sangh, Kumta Road, Income Tax, Janmane, Hubli. Vs. Samphkand – 581 315. Pan: Aanas3902K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 11-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 29/03/2022 U/S. 263 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit, Hubli Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Hubli, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 8o

…Ltd. (2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 4. Ashok Logani (2012) 347 ITR 22 (Delhi) 5. Gee Vee Enterprises (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) 6. Vedanta Ltd. (2021) 279 Taxman 358 (Born) 7. V. K. Bharathi (2019) 102 taxmann.com 255 (Kar) 8. Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO (2009) 121 ITD 343 (Chennai)(SB) 9. Lokesh M. (2021) 187 ITD 342 (Bang) 21. In this case, the assessee has not given any information regarding filing of appeal. No appellate order has been received. As per information available, the assessee has not filed any appeal. In view of these facts. this order is in accordance with Explanation 1(c) below section 263 which s…

Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporatio Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1452/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 263

…s. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 ii.Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V s. CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 iii.Swamp Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (ALL) 187 ITR 412 iv.Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl.CIT & Ors (Del.) 99 ITR 375 v.Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, SB-Chennai) 121 ITD 343, 313 ITR(AT) 182 Vi.SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2010-TIOL-646-HC- MAD-IT. vii.Shakti Credits Ltd Vs. CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 3058 (Luck.'A' Trib) viii.Shoreline Hotel Pvt.Ltd. V s. CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 2982 (Mum.'E" Trib.) ix.Kapil Ratan Associates Vs CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 2931 (Mum.'A'Trib) 69 SOT 188 (Mum.) x.Swadeshi Vilas Private…

Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 724/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 263

M/S. Kalinga Mining Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. Principal CIT, Cuttack Charge, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 168/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Jesthi, ARFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR

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

…ssessment and the order may also be erroneous when the expenditure allowed was against the provisions of law.” 11. We further find that the Special Bench of I.T.A.T., Chennai has also decided the identical issue in the case of Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. vs. ITO [121 ITD 343 (Chennai-SB)], wherein the I.T.A.T. held as under :- “It is not necessary for the Commissioner to make further enquiries before canceling 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 be…

Rpw Projects P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3836/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rpw Projects Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of (Earlier Known As Essel Rpw Income Tax Circle-8, Room Vs. Projects Private Limited 135, No. 611, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Continental Building Dr. Annie Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai- 400020. 400018. Pan No. Aaecm1665J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. Advocate & : Mr. Rahul Hakani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/12/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2019

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, CIT-DR

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

…o enquire in case of inadequate inquiry.” The Ld. counsels also rely on the decision in CIT v. Reliance Communication Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 217 (Bom.) (HC) (220), CIT v. Reliance Communication Ltd. [2017] 244 Taxman 55 (SC), Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. CIT (2009) 121 ITD 343 (Chennai) (SB) (Trib), Geevee Enterprises v. Add. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) (HC), CIT v. Ralson Inds. (2007) 288 ITR 322 (SC), CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 161 (Bom) (HC), CIT v. Shree Manjunatheware Packing Products and Comphor (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC). 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relies on the decision in CIT v. Goetze (Ind…

Sh. Nittan Aneja, Sbs Nagar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, both the assessee’s appeal and the Revenue’s C

ITA 288/ASR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 288/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Joshi (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…rpn. [2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del) (affirmed by the apex court vide its judgment at [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC)), on some of which reliance stands placed by the ld. Pr. CIT as well (refer para 6, pgs. 12-13 of his order) (also refer: Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 343 (Ch)(SB)). 3.3 Lack of enquiry, it may be noted, is principally a matter of fact. That is, whether there indeed was, in the facts and circumstances of a case, ground for reasonable satisfaction available to the assessing authority, or that further probe or enquiry was required, i.e., was necessary or warranted under the circumstances, is essenti…

Lally Motors India Pvt. Ltd, Jalandhar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 218/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 218(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Sameer Bhatia (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D. R.)

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 309 (All); CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT vs. Toyota Motor Corpn. [2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del) (affirmed by the apex court, vide its judgment at [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC)). (also refer: Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 343 (Ch.)(SB)). 4.2 The second, equally relevant, aspect of the matter is if the provision could be invoked in the absence of any tax-exempt income. Toward this, while the ld. Pr.CIT relies on the Board Circular 5/2014, the ld. Authorized Representative (AR), the assessee’s counsel, was during hearing at pains to emphasize that the same stands since…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3752/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…can be applied to the peculiar facts of each case. The decision in Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT 67 ITR 83 (SC), Malabar Industrial Company vs CIT (243 ITR 83 (SC), Swaroop Vegetables Products Industries Ltd. vs CIT 187 ITR 412 (All.), Raj laxmi Mills Ltd. 121 ITD 343 (SB)(ITAT)(Chennai) and SRM Systems and Software Pvt. Ltd. 2010-TIOL-646-HC-MAD-IT throws light on the issue. Similarly, CIT vs Infosys Technologies Ltd. 341 ITR 293 and CIT vs Jawahar Bhattacharya Ji 341 ITR 434 (Gauh.-FB) was decided, considering the particular facts. It is also noted that in Kapil Ratan Associates vs CIT (2015) 55 taxman.…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3748/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Section 153ASection 263