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.

26

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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 119Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271BSection 44AB

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquirymalabar industrialsection 263(1)erroneous and prejudicialprincipal commissioner of income-taxnon-application of mindsection 119section 263section 26limited scrutinyrevenue expenditurescrutiny assessment

Judgments citing Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO

Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3747/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

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.…

M/S. Aspinwall & Co. Ltd, Cochin vs. The DCIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 277/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.Assessment Year:2011- 12

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 263

…t lack of proper enquiry tantamount that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 8.3 Similar issue has arisen before the Special Bench of I.T.A.T. Chennai “B” Bench in the case of Rajalaksmi Mills Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer [2009] 121 ITD 343 (Chennai) (SB). The facts of this case were that the assessee enclosed the balance sheet along with the return and in the balance sheet the assessee made a provision for gratuity amounting to Rs.7,85,600/-. The assessee claimed it as deduction in the return of income. The Assessing Officer allowed the same without making any discussion in the ord…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-Cir-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3494/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Procter & Gamble Cit-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp6332M

Section 263Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, सी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/s Procter & Gamble CIT-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AAACP6332M "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Yogesh Thar and Ms. Moksha Mehta Shri Subachan Ram CIT-DR राज…

Neelamalai Agro Industries Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1224/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Mr.Jairam Raipura, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…e 8D of :- 5 -: Income Tax Rules. The Ld.AR has not made out a case that the AO has verified the expenditure and accepted the disallowance made by the assessee. The Ld.CIT relied on the decision of Special Bench ITAT, Chennai in Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO 121 ITD 343 (Chennai). Since the AO has not made any inquiries in respect of the expenditure incurred for earning the exempted income the assessment passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT and dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 5.0 In the result, the appeal of the asse…

Namita V Samant, Mumbai vs. CIT City II, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1065/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1065/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Namita V. Samant, Cit, City-11/Acit-11(3)(2), बनाम/ 405, Raheja Crest Building No.1, Mumbai Off Link Road, Oshiwara, Vs. Andheri(W), Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aazps 4624 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. R. Agarwal ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Jha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 21.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 18.7.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) By The Commissioner Of Income Tax-11, Mumbai (‘Cit’ For Short) Dated 23.2.2016 Setting Aside Her Assessment For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12 Vide Order Dated 14.2.2014. 2. The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, An Individual & Her Husband, Shri Vivek V. Samant (Vvs), Both Individually Hold Substantial Voting Power (I.E., In Excess Of 10%) During The Relevant Year In Three Companies In Which Public Is Not Substantially Interested, I.E., Ybpl, Ycpl & Yiepl, As Under:

For Appellant: Shri N. R. AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Jha
Section 2(22)(e)Section 263

…o make proper enquiry (refer, inter alia, Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC); Toyota Motor Corporation vs. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC); Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del); and Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 343 (Ch.)(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 4 Namita V.…

Ayyazuddin J, Khan, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT- 22

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2881/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2881/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ayyazuddin J. Khan Ito-22(3)-1, Block No. 103, Aggarwal Upavan, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway बनाम/ Plot No. 11, Sector – 19, Nerul, Station, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 706 Navi Mumbai-400 073 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Atxpk 4365 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kishore K. Poddar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri H. N. Singh

For Appellant: Shri Kishore K. PoddarFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 263

…. Toyota Motor Corpn. [2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del) (affirmed by the apex court, vide its judgment at [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC)); CIT vs. Arunaben Sumankumar [2003] 259 ITR 386 (Guj); besides by the larger bench of the tribunal in Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. vs. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 343 (Chen) (SB), signifying the application of the concept in a variety of fact situations. Coming to the facts of the case, it is not clear if the loan confirmations were filed by the loan creditors; while the assessment order records the assessee having filed the same, the impugned revision order states of no such confirmations being on record. Be…