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 366,421 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 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 1961Section 147Section 144BSection 148Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 263(1)inadequate enquirymalabar industriallack of enquiryprejudicial to interest of revenuerevision under section 263assessment order erroneousrevision u/s 263erroneous and prejudicialsection 263non-application of mindsection 26

Judgments citing Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Nekkanti Systems Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 484/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Nekkanti Systems Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward – 16(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaccn1440J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Vs. Nekkanti Systems Private Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(1), Pan : Aaccn1440J. Hyderabad. Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao. Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Are The Two Connected Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue For A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Against The Orders Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad Dt.29.03.2019 U/S 263 Of The Act & Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Hyderabad Dt.23.01.2019 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, Respectively.

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar – CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year : 2014-15 Nekkanti Systems Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward – 16(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AACCN1440J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Vs. Nekkanti Systems Private Commissioner of Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(1), PAN : AACCN1440J. Hyderabad. Assessee by: Sri S. Rama Rao. Revenue by: Sri Rajendra Kumar – CIT DR Date of hearing: 18.07.2022 Date of pronouncement: 27.07.2022 O…

Giraffe Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 9, Mumbai

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

ITA 2663/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalegiraffe Developers Pvt Vs. Pr. Cit – 9, Ltd Room No. 214, 2Nd 111, G Wing, Akruti Floor, Aayakar Commercial Complex, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Next To Akruti Centre Churchgate, Point, Central Road, Mumbai-400020. Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn2778D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Madhur Agrawal & Shri.Fenil Bhatt.Ar Respondent By : Shri.S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Madhur Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri.S.Anbuselvam.DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271ASection 271BSection 40Section 40A(2)Section 92D

…lauses of section 35 B (1)(b) under which the claim would fall, he could validly exercise his jurisdiction under section 263 even without recording a final conclusion regarding allow ability of deduction. Similarly, in the case of Rampyari Devi Saragi Vs. CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC) the CIT under section 263 of the Act has concluded that assessments for the relevant assessment years (Assessment Year 1952-53 to 1960-61) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue inasmuch as assessee has neither resided nor carried on any business from the address declared in return and that AO accepted initial capital, gift r…

M/S. Samprasiddhi Infratech, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 129/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…genuineness of the claim which M/s. Samprasiddhi Infratech, Bangalore Page 15 of 24 are called for in the circumstances of the case. In taking the aforesaid view, we are supported by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT (67 ITR 84) (SC), Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (88 ITR 323) (SC), and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd's case ( 243 ITR 83) (SC). 5.4 In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. case the Hon'ble Court has held as under: “There can be no doubt that the provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer, it is onl…

Dr. R Sridhar, Mysuru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 691/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 50E

…ous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. We notice that the Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v .ACIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del) considered a similar issue and held as under:- “In Tara Devi Aggarwal v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) also the Income-tax Officer, Howrah, while remarking that the source of income of the assessee was income from speculation and interest on investments stated that neither the assessee was able to produce the details and vouchers of the speculative transactions made during the accounting year nor was there evidence regarding the interest recei…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 9 Kolkata vs. Binod Kumar Tekriwal

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are allowed and the

ITAT/32/2022HC Calcutta15 Jul 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 15Th July, 2022. Appearance :- Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant

Section 260ASection 263Section 69C

…iry made a disallowance only to the extent of 3% of the bogus purchase. With regard to the aspect of the assessing officer as to making inquiries, the PCIT referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84, Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) and the decision of the other High Courts. Further, the PCIT took note of the Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 1.6.2015 and pointed out if an order has been passed by the Assessing Officer without making any inquiry or verification the…

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Surat vs. Diva Diamonds Pvt. Ltd, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 128/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.128/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Diva Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), 302, Gokul Building, Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, 1St Room No.108, Floor, Surat-395007 Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.13/Srt/2020 [Arising In Ita No.128/Srt/2020] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Diva Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of 302, Gokul Building, Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, 1St Room No.108, Floor, Surat-395007 Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Applicant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.313/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Diva Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Principal Cit-1,Surat 1St 302, Gokul Building, Room No.123, Floor, Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395007 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 263

…t making any inquiry, then the order must be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Hon'ble High Court has also considered ratio of earlier decisions viz. decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84(SC), Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) and the decision in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) and decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. ACIT (supra) while passing the order in favour of the revenue in the case of CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. L…

Diva Diamonds Pvt. Ltd, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 313/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.128/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Diva Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), 302, Gokul Building, Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, 1St Room No.108, Floor, Surat-395007 Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.13/Srt/2020 [Arising In Ita No.128/Srt/2020] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Diva Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of 302, Gokul Building, Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, 1St Room No.108, Floor, Surat-395007 Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Applicant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.313/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Diva Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Principal Cit-1,Surat 1St 302, Gokul Building, Room No.123, Floor, Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395007 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 263

…t making any inquiry, then the order must be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Hon'ble High Court has also considered ratio of earlier decisions viz. decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84(SC), Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) and the decision in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) and decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. ACIT (supra) while passing the order in favour of the revenue in the case of CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. L…

M/S. Anand Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nashik vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax -1, Nashik

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1245/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Anand Nagari Sahakari Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Patsanshta Maryadit Nashik Near Jain Bhavan, Artillery Centre Road, Nashik Road, Nashik – 422101 Pan : Aaala0059M Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…y accepts what the assessee has stated in his return and fails to make enquiries which are called for in the circumstances of the case[for illustrations on the point, see Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT, (1968) 67 ITR 849(SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323(SC)]. 3 Anand Nagari Sah Patsanshta Maryadit It is not necessary for the Commissioner to make further enquiries before cancelling the assessment orders of the Assessing Officer. The Commissioner can regard the order an erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer should have made further inquiries before ac…

Ramanamurthy Mathod Srinivasmurthy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 281/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…his return and fails to make enquiries or examine the genuineness of the claim which are called for in the circumstances of the case. In taking the aforesaid view, we are supported by the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT (67 ITR 84) (SC), Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (88 ITR 323) (SC), and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd's case ( 243 ITR 83) (SC). Ramanamurthy Mathod Srinivasmurthy, Bangalore Page 12 of 26 10. In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. case the Hon'ble Court has held as under: “There can be no doubt that the provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mi…

Axis Cades Aerospace Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Bangalore-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 777/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

…e AO failed to examine its allowability based on documents and evidences. Page 6 of 9 13. The Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v .ACIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del) has held as under:- “In Tara Devi Aggarwal v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) also the Income-tax Officer, Howrah, while remarking that the source of income of the assessee was income from speculation and interest on investments stated that neither the assessee was able to produce the details and vouchers of the speculative transactions made during the accounting year nor was there evidence regarding the interest recei…

Smt. Rashmi Pahariya, Jabalpur vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 28/JAB/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri L.L. Sharma, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 50C

…as always been understood to be, explained and elucidated by the higher courts of law time and again, with some of the earlier decisions by the Apex Court in the matter being Geeta Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1970] 76 ITR 496 (SC); Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). 4.3 We, in view of the fore-going, find no reason for interference with the impugned order and, accordingly, decline to. We decide accordingly. 4 | P a g e Rashmi Pahariya vs. Pr. CIT 5. In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on June 27, 2022 sd/- (Manomohan Das) Accountant Member Dated: 27/06/…

Upal Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the asses

ITA 871/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Upal Developers Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of Market City Resources Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-8, Second Floor, R.R. Hosiery Bldg. Vs. Mumbai. Shree Laxmi Woolen Mills Estate, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacu 7953 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Upal Developers Private Limited, Principal Commissioner of Market City Resources Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-8, Second Floor, R.R. Hosiery Bldg. Vs. Mumbai. Shree Laxmi Woolen Mills Estate, Mumbai-400011. PAN No. AAACU 7953 K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Vijay Mehta, AR Revenue by : Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 12/04/2022 Date of pronouncement : 21/06/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is dire…

Vinod Kumar Kundanmalji Jain, Chennai vs. PCIT-8, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees in I

ITA 310/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:307/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

For Appellant: Shri. M. Abhishek, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…e accepted without enquiry, the assessment order was erroneous and order u/s 263 was justified. In case of Supercloth, 99 lTD 300 (Chn), it was held that lack of enquiry by AO was sufficient to invoke revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263. In case of Rampyari Devi 67 ITR 84 (SC), it was held that accepting the issue without conduction enquiry is valid ground for invoking proceedings u/s 263. In case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has neither applied her ::9 :: I.T.A. Nos.307 to 310/Chny/2021 mind nor made any enquiry called for all required details to come to a proper conclusion, in fact, many of the explanat…

Vinod Kumar Kundanmal, Chennai vs. PCIT-8, Chennai

ITA 309/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:307/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

For Appellant: Shri. M. Abhishek, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…e accepted without enquiry, the assessment order was erroneous and order u/s 263 was justified. In case of Supercloth, 99 lTD 300 (Chn), it was held that lack of enquiry by AO was sufficient to invoke revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263. In case of Rampyari Devi 67 ITR 84 (SC), it was held that accepting the issue without conduction enquiry is valid ground for invoking proceedings u/s 263. In case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has neither applied her ::9 :: I.T.A. Nos.307 to 310/Chny/2021 mind nor made any enquiry called for all required details to come to a proper conclusion, in fact, many of the explanat…

Tarun Kundanmal HUF, Chennai vs. PCIT-8, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees in I

ITA 308/CHNY/2021[2013-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022AY 2013-15

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:307/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

For Appellant: Shri. M. Abhishek, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…e accepted without enquiry, the assessment order was erroneous and order u/s 263 was justified. In case of Supercloth, 99 lTD 300 (Chn), it was held that lack of enquiry by AO was sufficient to invoke revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263. In case of Rampyari Devi 67 ITR 84 (SC), it was held that accepting the issue without conduction enquiry is valid ground for invoking proceedings u/s 263. In case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has neither applied her ::9 :: I.T.A. Nos.307 to 310/Chny/2021 mind nor made any enquiry called for all required details to come to a proper conclusion, in fact, many of the explanat…

Tarun Kumar Kundanmalji Jain, Chennai vs. PCIT-8, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees in I

ITA 307/CHNY/2021[213-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:307/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013 - 2014

For Appellant: Shri. M. Abhishek, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. S. Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…e accepted without enquiry, the assessment order was erroneous and order u/s 263 was justified. In case of Supercloth, 99 lTD 300 (Chn), it was held that lack of enquiry by AO was sufficient to invoke revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263. In case of Rampyari Devi 67 ITR 84 (SC), it was held that accepting the issue without conduction enquiry is valid ground for invoking proceedings u/s 263. In case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has neither applied her ::9 :: I.T.A. Nos.307 to 310/Chny/2021 mind nor made any enquiry called for all required details to come to a proper conclusion, in fact, many of the explanat…

Visa Power Limited, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 829/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम Visa Power Limited P.C.I.T-4, Kolkata-700 069 Visa House, V/S. 8/10 Alipore Road, Kolkata-700 027. Pan: Aaccv-1853-D अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ble. Investigation should always be faithful and fruitful. Unless all fruitful areas or enquiry are pursued the enquiry cannot be said to have been faithfully conducted. " The Hon'ble Supreme Court, further, in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi­Vs­ CIT(l968) 67 ITR 87(SC) and Srnt. Tara Devi Aggarwal­ Vs­CIT(1973)8B ITR323(SC) has held that in absence of proper enquiries, the assessment order would become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprise­Vs­Addl. CIT(1975) 99 ITR 375 has also held as under:­ "The reason is obvious. The posi…

Radiant Life Care Mumbai P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 896/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 56(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner of 401, 4th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6th floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAGCR 9198 D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue by : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing :…

Radiant Life Care Mumbai P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 895/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 56(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner of 401, 4th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6th floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAGCR 9198 D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue by : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing :…

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 13, Mumbai

ITA 3600/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 163Section 263Section 40

…case of ITO vs. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company (213 ITR 843), Hon’ble Delhi High Court in cases of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. ADCL (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), DLF Commercial Developers Ltd., Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC), Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of India Finance Ltd. 389 ITR 242 and co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Kapil Mehta, Delhi vs. PCIT. 9. So far as first ground for invoking the revisionary jurisdiction by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 263 of the Act that the order passed by the AO by not disallowing Employee Welfare Cost 6 M/s.…