How many judgments cite Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT?

616 judgments on BharatTax cite Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT (67 ITR 84), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 1961, Section 147, Section 144B.

Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT

67 ITR 84Supreme Court of India1968#97 most cited

What is Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT authority for?

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests if the Assessing Officer accepts a sum offered as income by an assessee, even when that sum was not actually earned, thereby allowing revision under Section 263.

616

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT · Section 263 revision · assessment erroneous and prejudicial · unearned income offered · Assessing Officer accepting income · Commissioner's power of revision · inadequate inquiry by AO · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. reference · Income Tax Act 1961 Section 263

Also reported as

3 SCC 482240 Taxmann 221

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 1961 Section 147 Section 144B Section 148 Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 263(1)inadequate enquiry malabar industrial lack of enquiry prejudicial to interest of revenue revision under section 263 assessment order erroneous revision u/s 263 erroneous and prejudicial section 263 non-application of mind section 26

Judgments citing Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT

M/S Chotanagpur Petroleum Agency, Kolkata vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

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

ITA 161/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

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

…re a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). [Emphasis Supplied]” 8. Now, examining the facts of the instant case, we notice that during the course of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee has referred to the written submission filed during the course of revisionary proceedings regarding the issue of alleged expenditure of Rs.…

Parashnath Investment Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

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

ITA 188/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 147Section 14ASection 263

…re a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). [Emphasis Supplied]” 10. On examining the facts of the case, we notice that ld. Pr. CIT in para 2 of the impugned order has stated that the reopening proceedings were initiated by ld. AO issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act for the reason that the assessee is alleged to have taken acco…

The Commissioner of Income Tax 7 vs. M/S Paville Projects Pvt Ltd

Appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-006126-006126 - 2021Supreme Court06 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55(1)(b)

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6126 OF 2021 (@ SLP (C) NO. 13380 OF 2018) The Commissioner of Income Tax 7 …Appellant(s) Versus M/s. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd. …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature, at Bombay in ITA No.78 of 2015 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the Revenue, the Revenue has preferred the present Appeal. Civil Appeal No. 6126 of 2021…

West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT-5, Kolkata

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

ITA 266/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

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

…re a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). [Emphasis Supplied]” 9. Now, examining the facts of the case in light of the above discussion and settled judicial pronouncements we, on perusal of the financial statements filed by the assessee, observe that the interest on FDR amounting to Rs. 91,27,56,541/- is shown as part of th…

Lakme Lever Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-PCIT, Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1341/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Lakme Lever Private Limited V. Pr.Cit, Mumbai -1 Unilever House 3Rd Floor, Room No. 330 B.D. Sawant Marg, Chakala Aayakar Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400099 M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcl5555B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Department Represented By : Smt. Shailja Rai

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 263Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s. Lakme Lever Private Limited v. Pr.CIT, Mumbai -1 Unilever House 3rd Floor, Room No. 330 B.D. Sawant Marg, Chakala Aayakar Bhavan Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400099 M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AABCL5555B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Nishant Thakkar & Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Department Represented by : Smt. Shailja Rai Date of Hearing : 03.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 03.04.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. Th…

The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Thrissur vs. Sri.T.G. Chandrakumar, Thrissur

In the result, the Appeal by the Revenue is allowed on the aforesaid terms

ITA 67/COCH/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora (Accountant Member), Shri Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, FCA

Section 132Section 153CSection 268A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member Dy. CIT, Central Circle vs. T.G. Chandrakumar, S.T. Nagar, Thrissur-1 Prasunam – Thattuthaparambil (H) Sree Ramakrishna Asram Lane Punkunnam, Thrissur – 680002 [PAN: ABBPC2303A] [Appellant] [Respondent] Appellant by: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR Respondent by: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, FCA Date of Hearing: 31.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 03.04.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench This is an Appeal by the Revenue against the Order dated 18/12/2017 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (A…

Srei Equipment Finance Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

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

ITA 163/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

…re a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). [Emphasis Supplied]” 8. Now, three issues have been referred to in the impugned order; i) provision for NPA of Rs. 64,74,97,633/- written back, ii) CSR expenses claimed of Rs. 1.27 Cr and iii) excess depreciation of Rs. 8,70,860/-. 9. Now, we will examine the above three issues one…

World Trade Park Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT - 5, Mumbai

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

ITA 1364/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleworld Trade Park Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit -5 4Th Floor, Wtp, Jln Room No. 515, 5Th Marg, Jaipur, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajasthan – 302107 Mk Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr8969E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Rajiv Sahai.Ar Respondent By : Shri.Dr.Kishordhule.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-52, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sahai.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Dr.KishorDhule.CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 271B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN BR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHIR PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER World Trade Park Ltd., Vs. Pr. CIT -5 4th Floor, WTP, JLN Room No. 515, 5th Marg, Jaipur, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Rajasthan – 302107 MK Road, Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCR8969E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri Rajiv Sahai.AR Respondent by : Shri.Dr.KishorDhule.CIT-DR Date of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement 17.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the Pr.…

V.L Jewellers, Delhi vs. Circle-49(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.836/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम V.L. Jewellers, Pr. Commissioner Of 2775, 1St Floor, Gali No. 20-21, Vs. Income Tax, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Circle 49(1), New Delhi. Room No. 1202, 12, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadfv7989A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

…where a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC)." 8. On the need of the Commissioner to identify the error in the assessment order the Delhi High Court in DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) at pages 394 and 395 observed as under:- “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on the merits, the Commissioner of Inco…

V Guard Industries Limited, Vennala vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 63/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainv-Guard Industries Ltd. Principal Cit-1, 42/962, Vennala High School C R Building, I S Press Road, Vs. Road, Vennala, Kochi 682018 Ernakulam 682028 [Pan: Aaacv5492Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Anil D. Nair, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Prashant V.K., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2023 O R D E R Per: Bench This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Challenging The Revision Of It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 28/12/2018 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Kochi (‘Pr. Cit’ For Short) Vide Order U/S. 263 Dated 22/03/2021. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 08/03/2022, Though Delayed By 256 Days, Was Admitted In View Of The Blanket Condonation By The Apex Court In Suo Motu Wp(C) No.3/2020, Dated 10/01/2022, Excluding The Period From 15/3/2020 To 28/02/2022 In Reckoning The Delay In Computing Limitation Under Law & The Hearing Accordingly Proceeded With. The Assessee Is A Company Manufacturing Electrical Cables, Pumps, Solar Water Heaters, Etc. & Trading In Electrical & Electronic Goods. Revision Of It’S Impugned Assessment Is On Several Issues On Which The Revisionary Authority Found An Absence Or Lack Of Enquiry By The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Anil D. Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…e assessee’s version in absence of any supporting material and without making any enquiry, his order would be erroneous and exercise of jurisdiction u/s. 263(1) justified. As an example, it, citing it’s earlier decisions in Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC), held that where a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the AO accepting the same would be subject to sec. 263. The decision by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, reported at [1992] 198 ITR 611 (Ker), holding the assessment…

K.R.Overseas Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-(Central)-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 185/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

…re a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC)”. [Emphasis Supplied] 10.3. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Limited as reported in 295 ITR 0282 has held that: “2. At this stage we may clarify that under para 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) this Court has taken the view that…

Credit Suisse (Singapore ) Limited, Singapore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax), Mumbai-2

In the result, appeals by the assessee for 2016-17 and 2017-18 are allowed

ITA 1008/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 1007/मुं/2022 ("न.व.2016-17) आअसं. 1008/मुं/2022 ("न.व.2017-18) Credit Suisse (Singapore) Limited, C/O. Delloite Haskins & Sells Chartered Accountants Llp, 30Th Floor, Tower 3, One International Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai 400 013 Pan: Aaccc-7328-N ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation) Mumbai-2, 1706, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, ...... ""तवाद"/Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 038

For Appellant: Shri P.J.Pardiwala Sr. Advocate with Shri. Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT DR and Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. AR

Section 263

…her submissions the ld. Departmental Representative placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee , 341 ITR 434(Gawahati); (ii) CIT vs. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company , 213 ITR 843(Raj); (iii) Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT, 67 ITR 84 (SC); (iv) ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Limited, 343 ITR 329 (Del); (v) Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Additional CIT, 99 ITR 375 (Del); & (vi) CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. I.T. Reference No.27 of 2002 decided on 31/07/2017 by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. The ld. Departmental Representative prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. 4. We have he…

Credit Suisse (Singapore ) Limited, Singapore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax), Mumbai-2

In the result, appeals by the assessee for 2016-17 and 2017-18 are allowed

ITA 1007/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.J.Pardiwala Sr. Advocate with Shri. Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT DR and Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. AR

Section 263

Tata Nyk Shipping Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. CIT International Taxation-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1067/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tata Nyk Shipping Pte. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., International Taxation-3, 6, Shenton Way, #18-08B, New Delhi Oue Downtown 2, Singapore Pan :Aadct9945P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 263Section 92C

…ed to examine this aspect. Thus, he submitted, learned CIT has validly exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Hence, the order passed should be upheld. In support, he relied upon the following decisions: 1. Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT 67 ITR 84(SC) 2. CIT vs Indian Express (Mdurai) Pvt. Ltd. 140 ITR 705(Mad) 13. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the assessee submitted, neither in the show-cause notice, nor in the order passed under 25 AY: 2016-17 section 263 of the Act, the CIT has sought to make out a case that the Assessing Officer had erred in not examining or verifying the limited…

Malanadu Milk Producers Society, Kottayam vs. DCIT, Exemption, Tvm, Thiruvananthapuram

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 633/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Jose Kappan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 263

…ply accepts what the assessee has stated in its return and failed to make any inquiries which are called for in the circumstances of the case. In this regard, the judicial precedents are relied upon as held in the cases of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT, (1988) 67 ITR 84(SC), Tara Devi Aggarwal v. C1T, (1973) 88 ITR 232(SC), Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl.C1T, (1975) 991TR 375 386(Del).” 6. The assessee is in appeal against the order of the CIT(E) before the Tribunal. 7. The ld. AR submitted that the AO during the course of assessment proceedings specifically enquired about the applicability of section 2(15) and dire…

Malanadu Farmers Society, Kottayam vs. DCIT Exemptions, Tvm, Thiruvananthapuram

The appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 632/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin08 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Jose Kappan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prashant V.K., CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)Section 263

M/S. Pearl Tracom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-4, Kolkata

ITA 495/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

…. Pearl Tracom Pvt. Ltd. person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC)”. [Emphasis Supplied] 13.4. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Limited as reported in 295 ITR 0282 has held that: “2. At this stage we may clarify that under para 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) this Court has taken the view that…

M/S Prabhu Poly Pipers Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-2(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1126/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 263Section 68

…re a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). [Emphasis Supplied]” 9. Now, examining the facts of the instant case in light of the position of law and provision of Section 263 of the Act, we on perusal of the paperbook, find that a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 06.03.2017 and referring to the loose sheets seized vi…

Nya International, Surat vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.57/Srt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Court Hearing) Nya International, Vs. The Pcit-1, Unit No.360, Plot No.239, Sez, Gidc Surat. Sachin, Suarat – 394230. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn1681M

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…hile justifying the order of the Commissioner u/s 263(1) the Hon. Supreme Court opined that the CIT set aside the order for lack of inquiry and for non-application of mind. The Hon`ble Court also relied on the decision of Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 to uphold that non application of mind renders the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 10. Therefore, ld PCIT held that Assessing Officer has failed to verify the very issue of credits of Rs.70,13,43,319/- in its bank account with ING Vysya Bank for which the case was reopened. Therefore, the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.…

Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-3, Vadodara

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 178/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.178/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Vs. The Pcit-3 & Chemicals Ltd., Surat. Narmada House, Narmadanagar, Bharuch – 392015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacg8372Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Yogesh Shah, Ar Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 03/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2023

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 801Section 80I

…make such enquiry, the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this regard useful references may be made to the following cases: Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375(DEL) Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, 67 ITR 84(SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) RajalakshmiMills Ltd., vs. ITO 2009, ITOL-317-ITAT-MAD-SB It may further be stated that Explanation 2 has been inserted below sub-section (1). of Section 263 wherein it has been declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is pr…