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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad Circle, Valsad vs. M/S. Mangaldeep, Valsad

In the result, appeals in ITA No

ITA 699/SRT/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.699/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Acit, Valsad Circle, Vs. M/S. Mangaldeep, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.11/Srt/2021 [Arising In Ita No.699/Srt/2018] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2015-16) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Mangaldeep, Vs. The Acit, Valsad Circle, 1St Floor, Shankeshwar Complex, Valsad. Dhobiwad, Valsad, Valsad-396001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfm7130L (Applicant-Co-Objector) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)Section 69A

…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. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, 88 ITR 323.” In the case of S.K. Srigiri and Bros. (supra), the Karnataka High Court held as under: “We have perused the orders of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has carefully considered the questions put by the authority and the answer of the partners of the assessee's fir…

Intellectual Securites Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, CC, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1031/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 1031/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Intellectual Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs DCIT, Corporate Office-505, Pragati Deep Central Circle, Building, District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Noida New Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCI7610J Assessee by : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CA & Sh. Neelkanth Khandelwal, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R…

Barclays Bank Plc, Mumbai vs. CIT (International Taxation)-Range-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 827/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 37

…ase 11.5. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Pt. Lashkari Ram 272 ITR 309(Al1), wherein it has been held that failure to make sufficient enquiry with regard to the revised income justified revision u/s 263. In the case of Ramapyari Devi Saraogi 67 ITR 84(SC), it was held that where Assessment completed in undue haste and without making proper enquiry, the CIT can invoke revisional power under sec. 263. 11.6. In the case of CIT v. Pushpa Devi [19871 164 ITR 639 (Pat,): Non- enquiry into source of capital is an error - Enquiry into the source of the initial capital is crucial for the AO. If that is n…

Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd, Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 195/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…r circumstances. [Emphasis Supplied) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its landmark judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) after considering the decisions in the case of Rampyari Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) has held that: "6. A bare reading of this provision makes it clear that the pre- requisite to exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under it, is that the order of the ITO is erroneous insofar as it is 76 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 prejudicial to the interests of the rev…

M/S- Sbep-Gril(Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 194/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…r circumstances. [Emphasis Supplied) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its landmark judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) after considering the decisions in the case of Rampyari Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) has held that: "6. A bare reading of this provision makes it clear that the pre- requisite to exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under it, is that the order of the ITO is erroneous insofar as it is 76 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 prejudicial to the interests of the rev…

M/S- Rawat Balaji (Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Prilncipal, CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 193/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…r circumstances. [Emphasis Supplied) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its landmark judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) after considering the decisions in the case of Rampyari Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) has held that: "6. A bare reading of this provision makes it clear that the pre- requisite to exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under it, is that the order of the ITO is erroneous insofar as it is 76 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 prejudicial to the interests of the rev…

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited(As Successor in Interest of Erstwhile Conginant Technology Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1320/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara(Through Video Conference) M/S. Cognizant Technology Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (As Tax, Circle 1(2), Hyderabad. Successor Of Cognizant Technology Services Pvt. Ltd.), Chennai. Pan Aadcr0712J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Kanodia (A.R.)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…that such a failure on the assessing authority part in neither carrying out detailed enquiries nor giving correct findings thereupon; indeed deserves to be revised in light of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC); Rampyari Devi Sarogi Vs. CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT & Ors 99 ITR 375 (Del) to name a few judicial precedents. 3. Learned authorized representative vehemently contended that the Assessing Officer had duly issued his section 142(1) notice on the very issue dt.26.08.2015 (Querry No.21) which stood replied on 6.10.2015 3 along with the necessary Annexure /…

Smt. Mamta Sharma, Bargarh vs. Principal CIT (Central), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/CTK/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shrichandra Mohan Garg & Manish Boradassessment Year :2012-13 Smt. Mamta Sharma, Ward Vs. Pr. Cit(Central), Visakhapatnam No.10, Near Govt. Bus Stand, Dist: Baragarh Pan/Gir No.Agvps 4382 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement :10/12/2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 153CSection 263

…com 4) (para-12) b) Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Renu Gupta vs. CIT (301 ITR 45) c) Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs, Deepak Kumar Garg (299 ITR 435) (para-4) d) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi (67 ITR 84) The A.O. was required to examine the issue in the proper perspective and he could not be perfunctory in his approach. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the course of CIT vs. Ashok Logani (11 taxmann.com 208) (para-11 &12). It was held that the AO had failed to conduct any enquiry in this regard and therefore the ass…

Reliance Home Financ Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-8, Mumbai

ITA 815/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Shekhar Gajbhiy, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 72A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.815 & 814/M/2021 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 M/s. Reliance Home Principle Commissioner Finance Ltd., of Income Tax-8, 11th Floor, Room No.611, The Ruby, 6th Floor, Vs. North-West Wing, Aayakar Bhavan, Senapati Bapat Marg, M.K. Road, Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400 028 PAN: AAEFC0305E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Thar, A.R. & Shri Chaitanya D. Joshi, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Shekhar Gajbhiy, D.R. Date of…

Vikas Oil Products, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 28/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66, the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 and CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 69 taxmann.com 170/240 Taxman 221/384 ITR 200 (SC) relevant extracts of which have been quoted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3 of its order, has arrived at a conclusion that as the Assessing Officer has passed the order of assessment without making a proper enquiry and without applyi…

Om Industries, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur, Jiapur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 27/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66, the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 and CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 69 taxmann.com 170/240 Taxman 221/384 ITR 200 (SC) relevant extracts of which have been quoted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3 of its order, has arrived at a conclusion that as the Assessing Officer has passed the order of assessment without making a proper enquiry and without applyi…

Jr Industries, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 26/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83/109 Taxman 66, the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 and CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 69 taxmann.com 170/240 Taxman 221/384 ITR 200 (SC) relevant extracts of which have been quoted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3 of its order, has arrived at a conclusion that as the Assessing Officer has passed the order of assessment without making a proper enquiry and without applyi…

Troikaa Pharmaceuticlas Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 55/AHD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Nov 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah &For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…rpose of further claim of depreciation. 7.2 On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative contended that assessment order was passed without any inquiry. It is cryptic order with haste. He has placed reliance on the decision of Rampyari Devi Saraogi 67 ITR 84(SC). He also referred decision of Toyota Motor I.T.A Nos. 55 & 56/Ahd/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18 Page No 18 Troikaa Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. The Pr. CIT Corporation, 173 Taxmann 458 (SC). The ld. Departmental Representative has also referred page no. 3 of order passed u/s. 263 by the Pr. CIT stating that Assessing Officer while finalizing the as…

M/S. Shubh Enterprise, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 317/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.317/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S Shubh Enterprise Principal Commissioner Of Income V Tp Scheme No.14, Plot No.42, Opp. Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura S. Recent Residency, Pal Village, Surat Gate, Surat-395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abzfs 6271 K (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sreenivas T Bidari, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 133Section 143Section 143(3)Section 184Section 263Section 40

…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. Commissioner of Income-tax,(1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, 88 ITR 323." In the case of S.K.Srigiri and Bros. (supra), the Karnataka High Court held as under: “We have perused the orders of the Tribunal has carefully considered the questions put by the authority and the-, answer of the partners of the assessee’s firm and based o…

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 7695/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. " 13. In the said judgment, Delhi High Court had referred to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC), wherein it has been held that where Assessing Officer has accepted a particular contention/issue without any enquiry or evidence whatsoever the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. After reference to these two decisions, the Delhi High Court observed. 'These t…

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 433/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. " 13. In the said judgment, Delhi High Court had referred to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC), wherein it has been held that where Assessing Officer has accepted a particular contention/issue without any enquiry or evidence whatsoever the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. After reference to these two decisions, the Delhi High Court observed. 'These t…

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 432/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. " 13. In the said judgment, Delhi High Court had referred to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC), wherein it has been held that where Assessing Officer has accepted a particular contention/issue without any enquiry or evidence whatsoever the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. After reference to these two decisions, the Delhi High Court observed. 'These t…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 413/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. " 13. In the said judgment, Delhi High Court had referred to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC), wherein it has been held that where Assessing Officer has accepted a particular contention/issue without any enquiry or evidence whatsoever the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. After reference to these two decisions, the Delhi High Court observed. 'These t…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 412/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. " 13. In the said judgment, Delhi High Court had referred to earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC), wherein it has been held that where Assessing Officer has accepted a particular contention/issue without any enquiry or evidence whatsoever the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. After reference to these two decisions, the Delhi High Court observed. 'These t…

M/S. Kanha Capital Services Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 5, New Delhi

ITA 2916/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh[CIT] – D.R
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…nion, the highly inadequate enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer result ing in drawing incorrect assumption of facts, makes the orders erro neous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue." (27) In the case of Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC), the Tribunal had held as follows (page 327) : "The Tribunal further held that if the orders for 1955-56 to 1959-60 were left out and the assessment order for 1960-61 was considered by itself, it could not be said that the assessment order was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. It was also observed that the factum of advance of init…