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 366,416 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

Kapil Mehta, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central)-3, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 533/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: The Assessing Officer

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 263(1)

…een 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 Sarogiv. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal v. 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…

M/S. Jns Instruments Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1479/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year : 2011-12 Jns Instruments Ltd. Vs. Pr. Cit Gi-48, G.T. Karnal Road Central -2, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Pan Aaacj7034Q New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 263Section 92C

…3 JNS Instruments Ltd. vs Pr.CIT 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 Sarogiv. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal v. 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…

Spandana Sphoorty Financial Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 990/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. HariFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai

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

…ach one of them received from somebody and that somebody received from a third person. Therefore, prima facie, the share-holders are mere name lenders. [Para 24] ■ The attempt of the assessee, it was apprehended in the case of Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) was to assist someone else. An identical attempt is involved in this case. Who is the person sought to be assisted by the assessee? This question can only be answered after a thorough enquiry, directed by the Commissioner, is held. The assessee is interested installing that investigation on the plea that the order of the Assessing Officer is…

DCIT, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Spandana Sphoorthy Financial Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1474/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. HariFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai

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

Aditi Aggarwal, Ambala Cantt vs. Pr.CIT, Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 21/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…operty might have been determined and brought to tax. The reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following case laws: • Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83 (SC) • Rampyari Devi Sarogi Vs. CIT reported in 67 ITR 84 (SC) • Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT reported in 88 ITR 323 (SC) 4.3 Accordingly the assessment order passed by the A.O. on 28/12/2018 under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act for the A.Y. 2011-12 was cancelled with the direction to the A.O. to pass an order afresh in accordance with law after affording due and reasonable opportunity of being…

Talluri Srinivasulu, Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Nellore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 162/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2017-18 Talluri Srinivasulu, Nellore Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nellore. Pan – Aaupt9827G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad Revenue By: Shri Balakrishna Date Of Hearing: 07/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2021

For Appellant: Shri M.V. PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Balakrishna

Section 263

…luri Srinivasulu, Hyderabad. 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 Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [67 ITR 84] and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal [88 ITR 323]. In the instant case, the Commissioner noted that the Income-tax Officer passed the order of nil assessment without application of mind. Indeed, the High Court recorded the finding that the Income-tax Officer failed to apply his mind to the case in all perspect…

Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporatio Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1452/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 263

…st of the revenue and the Commissioner of Income Tax is empowered to revise such assessment by invoking the provisions of section 263. There are various judicial decisions in support of such proposition which are as under: i.Rampyari Devi Sarogi V s. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 ii.Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V s. CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 iii.Swamp Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (ALL) 187 ITR 412 iv.Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl.CIT & Ors (Del.) 99 ITR 375 v.Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, SB-Chennai) 121 ITD 343, 313 ITR(AT) 182 Vi.SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2010-TIOL-646-HC- MAD-IT. vii.Shakti C…

Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 724/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 263

Biz Secure Labs Private Limited, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Pune

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

ITA 1406/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1406/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman JainFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण] पुणे "यायपीठ “बी” पुणे म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1406/PUN/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Biz Secure Labs Private Limited, ………. अपीलाथ" / 1206, Sadashiv Peth, Appellant Pune – 411 030. PAN : AADCB6188L. बनाम v/s The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax – 1, ………. ""यथ" / Pune. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Vardhaman Jain. Revenue by : Shri Deepak Garg, CIT. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date of Hearing : 13.07.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date of Pro…

Prem Jain, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 279/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka (Adv) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)

Section 263Section 54F

…ns as under:- • Virbhadra Singh (HUF) Vs PCIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 113 (HP) • CIT vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bom) • Jeevan Investment & Finance (P.) Ltd vs. CIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 552 (Bom) • Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) • Daniel Merchants P Ltd and others (SLP No. 23976/2017 dated 29.11.2017) • In the High Court of Bombay at Goa in case of Sesa Sterlite Limited (Erstwhile Sesa Goa Ltd) vs. CIT (Tax Appeals No. 27/2015 and 28/2015 dated 2.11.2020) 14. We have heard the rival submissions and purused the material available on record. The assessee in her return…

M/S Dhara Dealers Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir.-13(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 523/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

Section 133(6)Section 139(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. RampyarideviSaraogi v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal V. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC)". 25. In Max India Ltd. (3 Supra), reiterated the view in Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. (2 Supra) and observed that every loss of Revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For example, when an Income T…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Desai (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 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 [2016J 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…

Bhagwan Das Harwani, Ajmer vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jun 2021AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri B. K. Gupta (Pr.CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 269S

…hadra Singh (HUF) Vs PCIT [2017] 86 taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh) • CIT vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bombay) • Jeevan Investment & Finance (P.) Ltd vs. CIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 552 (Bombay) • Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) 6 Bhagwan Das Harwani, Ajmer Vs. Pr. CIT, Udaipur • Daniel Merchants P Ltd and others (SLP No. 23976/2017 dated 29.11.2017) • Goa Sesa Sterlite Limited (erstwhile Sesa Goa Ltd) vs. CIT (Tax Appeals No. 27/2015 and 28/2015 dated 2nd November, 2020). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and purused the material available on record. We find t…

Decent Enclave (P) Ltd. (Formerly Known As Drishti Auto Part Accesories (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-4, Kolkata

ITA 39/KOL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

Amitanil Modi (HUF), Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 33, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.03/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Amitanil Modi (Huf) बिधम/ Pr.Cit-33 8Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan B-401, Subh Shanti Complex Vs. M.B.Road, Dhanukar Wadi Bkc, Bandra(E) Kandivali(W) Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahha5667G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajiv Harit, Cit(Dr) Assessee By: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/03/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29/03/2019 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -33, Mumbai In View Of Section 263 Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Relevant To The A.Y.2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. “ The Hon.Pr..Cit Erred In Holding The Order Framed By The Ld.Ao U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The I.T.Act, 1961 On 07.12.2016, To Be Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Accordingly The Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Hon.Pr.Cit U/S 263 Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Was Not Valid & Justified By Law.

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Harit, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…laim, it would be just and proper to set aside the assessment completed on 11-3- 2016 for the A.Y. 2010- 11 for de-novo examination of facts. This being done in spirit of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT (1969) 67 ITR 84 (SC) wherein it is held that since the assessee is getting an opportunity of being heard, no prejudice is caused to the assessee if the order is set aside. 13. In the result the assessment order as referred above is set aside." 6. The learned Pr. CIT also fails to answer the very primary question that if the purchases are going to be treated as bog…

Shri Krishna Mohan Chuorsiya, Rajgarh vs. The Pr. CIT Ujjain, Ujjain

ITA 626/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Krishna Mohan Pr. Cit Choursiya(Prop. Of M/S Laxmi Ujjain Mp बनाम/ Auto Parts) Vs. Ward No.14, Bus Stand, Kurawar Rajgarh(M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aempc3634G

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…T and also placed reliance on the following judgments: No. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vis Commissioner of Income 243 ITR 83 (SC) 1 Tax Smt. Taradevi Aggrawal V/s Commissioner oflncome Tax 2. 88 ITR 323 (SC) Rampyaridevi Saraogi V/s Commissioner of Income Tax 67 ITR 84 3 (SC) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. 345 ITR 135 4 Ltd (Delhi HC) Krishna Mohan Choursiya Gee Vee Enterprises V/s Addl. Commissioner oflncome 99 ITR 375 (Delhi HC) 5 Tax Bhushan Steel Ltd. V/s Asstt. Commissioner oflncome IT AT A Bench Delhi 6 Tax Commissioner of Income-tax v.Deepak Kumar Garg 299 ITR 435 (Madhya 7. Prades…

Ambawatt Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (C), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2552/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Ambawatt Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit (C), Kh 267, 1St Floor, 7Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, Chatterpur Enclave, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Mehrauli, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan: Aagca0991B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Satpal Gulati, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17Th February, 2017 Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Cit, Central, Gurgaon, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2014, Declaring Nil Income. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Compulsory Scrutiny & A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee On 20Th September, 2015. Notice U/S 142(1) Along With A Questionnaire Was Also Issued On 12Th May, 2016. In Response To The Statutory Notices Issued By The Ao, The Assessee Appeared Before Him From Time To Time & Furnished Replies Which Were Kept On Record. The Ao, On The Basis Of Various Details Furnished Before Him, Disallowed An Amount Of Rs.3,91,936/- U/S 40A(3) Out Of Car Repairs & Maintenance & Determined The Total Loss Of The Assessee At Rs.94,25,270/- As Against The Returned Loss Of Rs.98,17,203/-.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ambawatt Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. CIT (C), Kh 267, 1st Floor, 7th Floor, HSIIDC Building, Chatterpur Enclave, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Mehrauli, Gurgaon. New Delhi. PAN: AAGCA0991B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 10.03.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 21.05.2021 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated…

M/S Kbr Township Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO-4(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 396/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 396/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Kbr Township Pvt. Ltd……………...................…..……………………………………………….…..Appellant Room No. 4 Martin Burn Building 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aabck 0777 A] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Kolkata.....................................................................………..Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…pting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. RampyarideviSaraogi v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 interests of the Revenue. RampyarideviSaraogi v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 interests of the Revenue. RampyarideviSaraogi v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal V. CIT (197 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal V. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC)". 3) 88 ITR 323 (SC)". 25. In Max India Ltd. Max India Ltd. (3 Supra), reiterated the view in re…

Shringar Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-4, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 637/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Rampyaridevi Saraogi v. CIT Rampyaridevi Saraogi v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal V. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC)". (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC)". 25. In Max India Ltd. (3 Supra), reiterated the view in Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. (2 Supra) 25. In Max India Ltd. (3 Supra), reiterated the view in Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. (2 Supra) 25. In Max India Ltd. (3 Supra), reiterate…

Ankit Gupta, Kolkata vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…fering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. ous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Rampyaridevi Saraogi v. CIT Rampyaridevi Saraogi v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal V. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC)". (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC)". 25. In Max India Ltd. (3 Supra), reiterated the view in Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. (2 Supra) 25. In Max India Ltd. (3 Supra), reiterated the view in Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. (2 Supra) 25. In Max India Ltd. (3 Supra), reiterate…