How many judgments cite Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT?

131 judgments on BharatTax cite Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT (386 ITR 162), spanning 2017 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 144B, Section 147.

Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT

386 ITR 162High Court2016#782 most cited

What is Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT authority for?

The Principal Commissioner can revise an assessment under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer's inquiry into share application money or cash credits under Section 68 was inadequate, constituting an order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The primary onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of such credits remains with the assessee.

131

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rajmandir Estates Private Limited · Pr. CIT · Section 263 · Section 68 · inadequate enquiry · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · share application money · cash credits · onus of proof · Principal Commissioner of Income-tax · revision proceedings · non-application of mind

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144B Section 147 Section 68 Section 69

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenue inadequate enquiry section 263(1)lack of enquiry malabar industrial non application of mind erroneous and prejudicial principal commissioner of income-tax section 119 share application money section 263 section 26

Judgments citing Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Pr. CIT

Balgopal Merchants Pvt Ltd vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITAT/232/2023HC Calcutta13 May 2024

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260A

…ITAT NO. 232 OF 2023 REPORTABLE Page 1 of 26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE RESERVED ON: 03.05.2024 DELIVERED ON: 13.05.2024 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA ITAT/232/2023 (IA NO: GA/1/2023) BALGOPAL MERCHANTS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, KOLKATA Appearance:- Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Adv. Ms. Sretapa Sinha, Adv. Mr. Samit Rudra, Adv. …..For the Appellant. Mr. O…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 Kolkata vs. M/S Bst Infratech Ltd

In the result the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the learned

ITAT/67/2024HC Calcutta23 Apr 2024

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 68

…ITAT 67 OF 2024 REPORTABLE Page 1 of 35 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE RESERVED ON: 12.04.2024 DELIVERED ON: 23.04.2024 CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA ITAT/67/2024 (IA NO: GA/2/2024) THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) -2, KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. BST INFRATECH LIMITED Appearance:- Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. .….For the Appellant. Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr.…

ITO-19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mukesh Bhoormal Jain, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2177/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 19(2)(2), Vs. Mukesh Bhoormal Jain Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, 9/23, Kotwala Niwas, Piramal Chambers, 3Rd Khetwadi Lane, Lalbaug, Girgaon S.O, Mumbai -400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan/Gir No. : Aaapj7585K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Smt.Sayogita Nagpal CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 263

…es of unsecured loan received during the year. ?" 3 "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Rajmandir Estates Private Ltd vs PCIT 386 ITR 162 (cal) which has been affirmed by Hon'ble supreme court that the CIT is entitled to pass the revision order u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that the AO did not make any proper inquiry while accepting the explanation of the assessee.?" "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law it needs to be appreciated that the issue involved…

Balmukund M Vaishnav, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat

ITA 205/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Surat. 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.205/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Surat. Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 69C

…e issue of notice or completion of assessment by such authority is illegal. 8.20 In the case of P.V. Doshi v. CIT the Gujarat High Court held that the jurisdictional issue can be taken up at any stage of the proceedings. 8.21 In the case of Rajmandir Estates (386 ITR 162) the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that if the Commissioner Income-tax issuing notice u/s. 263 has lost the Jurisdiction then the notice and order issued by him is a nullity. 8.22 The Lucknow Bench of the ITAT in ITA No. 89 and 90/LKW/2015 dated 16-4-2015 in the case of Md Rizwan held that notice u/s 143(2) issued by non- jurisdictional Assess…

Shri Budhraj Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-43(6), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the legal issue as well as on merit

ITA 431/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 263

…iry are pursued the enquiry cannot be said to had been faithfully conducted". 10.1. Upholding the action of the Pr.CIT in invoking his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. Pr.CIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Cal) held that “where the A.O. had failed to conduct requisite investigation except calling for routine information from the assessee and some information u/s. 133(6) on test check basis, revision u/s 263 is valid”. This decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court was confirmed on merit by the Apex Court in Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 77…

Om Sai Housing & Development Co. P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 635/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

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

…Tax v/s Gabriel India Ltd 1993 203 ITR 108 BOM. 10 ITA.NO.635/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2015-16) Om Sai Housing & Development Co. Private Limited Reliance is placed on, Hon'ble Kolkata High Court's judgement in the case of Rajmandir Estates Private Limited vs. Pr. CIT 386 ITR 162 (Cal) which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as also in the case of Daniel Merchants Private Limited vs. ITO pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29.11.2017, that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not make any proper inquiry while accepting the e…

Nav Consec P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 9(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3258/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri. Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3258/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Nav Consec Pvt Ltd बिधम/ Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2)(3) Mumbai. Vs. C/O Sanjay Shah, 108, 1St Floor Sujata Niketan, Rani Sati Marg Malad East, Mumbai-400097 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcn1435A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Anil Surana, Ca (Written Submission) Assessee By: Dr Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Dr Mahesh Akhade, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Surana, CA (written

Section 68

…. Petruchem Pvt. Lid. v. The Income Tax Officer, (Order dated 24.4.2017 in T.C.(A) No. 1498 of 12 ITA 3258/Mum/2016 M/s Nav Consec Pvt Ltd AY 2011-12 2007; and (vi) Rajmandir Estates Private Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta), cited on behalf of the respondent are distinguishable, in that the cash credits towards share capital were admittedly only by way of book adjustment and not actual receipts which could not be substantiated as receipts towards share subscription money. 28. The appeal is, thus, allowed and the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal…

Mirum Digital Private Limited Ghatkopar West, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-6

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1489/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalmirum Digital Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 101A/101Ai, Raheja Plaza 1, A-Wing, 1St Floor, Ghatkopar (West), 35, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400086. Pan: Aancs0273K ...... Appellant Vs. Pr.Cit-6, Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/01/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR

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

…ich he had exercised revisional jurisdiction, Even if AO has applied his mind, CIT may initiate 263 as he was of the view that the matter needed further investigation. the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Rajmandir Estates Private Limited vs. Pr. CIT 386 ITR 162 (Cal) which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Daniel Merchants Private Limited vs. ITO pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29.11.2017, that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order us. 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing officer did not make any proper enquiry while accepting the explanatio…

Vinod Kumar Gupta, Uttarpradesh vs. Circle-1(1)(1), Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 664/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, CIT DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254Section 263

…, upheld the revision done by the CIT. • In the case of Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO dated 29.11.2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the law as laid down by the High Courts in Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 155 ITD 171 (Kol.), Rajmandir Estates 386 ITR 162 (Cal) etc. and held that the CIT is entitiled to rrevise the assessment order u/s 263 on the ground that the AO did not make any proper inquiry while accepting the explanation of the assessee insofar as receipt of share application money is concerned. • In the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR 83…

Keshav Saraf, Kolkata vs. PCIT-15, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 156/KOL/2021[2015-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2022AY 2015-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 108Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ry are pursued the enquiry cannot be said to have been faithfully conducted. 10.1. Upholding the action of the Pr.CIT in invoking his revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. Vs. Pr.CIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Cal) held that where the A.0. had failed to conduct requisite investigation except calling for routine information from the assessee and some information u/s. 133(6) on test check basis, revision u/s 263 is valid. This decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court was confirmed on merit by the Apex Court in Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 77 ta…

Shri Sham Sunder Aggarwal, Kapurthala vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Kaputhala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, ITA

ITA 410/ASR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 263

…, Appeal No. 2396/2017, Dated 29/11/2017 2. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC)/[2000] 159 CTR 1 (SC) 3. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT [70 taxmann.com 124 (Calcutta)/[2016] 240 Taxman 306 (Calcutta)/[2016] 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta)/[2016] 287 CTR 512] 9 Sham Sunder Aggarwal v. Pr. CIT 4. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC)/[2017] 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 5. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Comphor Works v. CIT [1998] 96 Taxman 1 (SC)/1998] 231 ITR 53 (SC)/[1997] 143 CTR 406 (SC) 6. Surya Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT I.T.A.…

D.Usha Reddy, Visakhapatnam vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Visakhapatnam

ITA 602/VIZ/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.602/Viz/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12) D Usha Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer 312 Mvv Mk Royal Gardens Ward 1(4) Waltair Uplands Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Acppd9238E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.P.G.Mudaliar, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…issue of notice or completion of assessment by such authority is illegal. 8.20. In the case of P.V. Doshi Vs CIT the Gujarat High Court held that the jurisdictional issue can be taken up at any stage of the proceedings. 8.21. In the case of Rajmandir Estates (386 ITR 162) the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that if the Commissioner Income tax issuing notice u/ s. 263 has lost the Jurisdiction then the notice and order issued by him is a nullity. 8.22. The Lucknow Bench of the ITAT in ITA No. 89 and 90/LKW/2015 dated 16.4.2015 in the case of Md Rizwan held that notice u/ s 143(2) issued by non- jurisdictional Ass…

Pawan Kumar Bansal, New Delhi vs. Prcit, Delhi-19, New Delhi

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

ITA 996/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…hants Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (Appeal No.2396/2017) dated 29.11.2017; Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR I.T.A. No.996/Del/2020 3 83 (SC) and also rendered by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Rajmandir Estates P. Ltd. vs. PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Cal.) have held that in the absence of any supporting material placed and without making any inquiry in the relevant issue the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is susceptible to revision within the scope of Section 263 of the Act. It was pointed out that the assessee has made large deposits and withdrawals in the vicinity of Rs.3…

M/S Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2015/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt. Ltd., The Pr. No. G1, Accolade Commissioner Of Apartments, Income Tax, Millers Road, 2Nd Cross, Bangalore – 4, Benson Town, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 046. Pan: Aaicm6586E Appellant Respondent : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order U/S. 263 Dated 25/01/2018 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit, Bangalore – 4 For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Impugned Revisionary Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Pcit) U/S.263 Dated; 25-01-2018 Is Opposed To The Facts Of The Case & The Law & Therefore, It Is Liable To Be Set-Aside.

For Respondent: Shri B.S. Balachandran

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/s. Majju Image & Brand Consultants Pvt. Ltd., The Pr. No. G1, Accolade Commissioner of Apartments, Income tax, Millers Road, 2nd Cross, Bangalore – 4, Benson Town, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 046. PAN: AAICM6586E APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri B.S. Balachandran, Assessee by Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Revenue by CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 14-07-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal…

M/S. Rallis India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, Cicle-8(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 913/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S. Rallis India Ltd Vs. Dcit, Circle – 8(1)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla & Room No. 624, 6Th Mistry Llp, 2Nd Floor, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Esplanade House, 29, M.K Road, Hazarimal Somani Mumbai – 400020. Marg, Mumbai – 400001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcr2657N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Jitendra Jain.Ar Respondent By : Mr.S.N Kabra. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit) – 8, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.Jitendra Jain.ARFor Respondent: Mr.S.N Kabra. DR

Section 10(34)Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 2(47)Section 263Section 263eSection 80Section 801A

…rs are being set aside to the AO for making assessment ft novo after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee to file its submission. Reliance is placed on, Hon'ble Kolkata High Court's judgement in the case of Rajmandir Estates Private Limited vs. Pr. CIT 386 ITR 162 (Cal) which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as also in the case of Daniel Merchants Private Limited vs. ITO pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29.11.2017, that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not make any proper inquiry while accepting expla…

B.R. Tv, Mumbai vs. Pt. CIT-8, Mumbai

ITA 750/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle–8,Room B.R. Tv G–38, Anand Villa,15Th Road, No.611, 6Th Floor, Vs. Santacruz (W), Mumbai–400 054 Aykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai–400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb0941M

For Appellant: Shri Hari S. Raheja, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR

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

…’s submission without any appropriate evidence, it cannot be said that documents submitted by the assessee were duly verified by the AO. Reliance is placed on, Hon'ble Kolkata High Court's judgment in the case of Rajmandir Estates Private Limited vs. Pr. CIT 386 ITR 162 (Cal) which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as also in the case of Daniel Merchants Private Limited vs. ITO pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 29.11.2017, that the CIT is entitled to revise the assessment order u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer did not make any proper inquiry while accepting the e…

Smt. Jyoti Ashok Kotecha vs. C.I.T.-(Central), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 258/NAG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker

Section 127Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 292B

…. CIT (Central) was justified in exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. In this connection, the ld. CIT-DR placed reliance on the following decisions :- (i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC). (ii) Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT, 386 ITR 162 (Cal.). (iii) Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT, 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC). (iv) Swarup Vegetable Products vs. CIT, 187 ITR 412 (All.). (v) CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bom.). Thus, the ld. CIT-DR pleaded that no interference is called for in the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (Central) u/s 263 of the Act. 11. We h…

Smt. Meena Dilip Kotecha vs. C.I.T.-(Central), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 257/NAG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker

Section 127Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 292B

Labdhan Merchants Pvt. Ltd & Anr vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward1(4) Kolkata & Ors

ITAT/339/2017HC Calcutta04 Feb 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 260ASection 263Section 68

…this Court by a similarly placed assessee raising the very same substantial questions of law and the said appeal was dismissed by this Court in the case of Rajmandir Estates Private Limited –versus- Principal Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2016) 386 ITR 162 (cal). It is further submitted that excepting the substantial question of law no.(a), which was left open, all other questions of law are decided against the assessee. Thus, following the above decision, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed answering the substantial questions of law nos.(b) to (f) against the assessee and the sub…

M/S Metrocity Developer Pvt Ltd & Anr vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2) Kolkata & Ors

ITAT/318/2017HC Calcutta25 Nov 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 260ASection 263Section 68

…. P. K. Bhowmick, learned counsel for the respondent/revenue. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that identical issue and questions of law raised above were considered and answered against the assessee by this Court in its decision reported in 386 ITR 162(Cal) [Raj Mandir Estates (P) Ltd. versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax]. Following the said decision, the present appeal (ITAT/318/2017)stands dismissed in the above-mentioned substantial questions of law are answered against the assessee. The connected application for stay, IA NO.GA/1/2017(Old NO.GA/2962/2017) also stands dismissed.…