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

Ashok Kumar Sinha, Ghaziabad vs. Prcit, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3615/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 263

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3615/DEL/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) Ashok Kumar Sinha, Vs. Pr. CIT C-258, Govindpuram, 1st Floor, CGO Complex –I, Ghaziabad Hapur Road, PAN : AWKPS6166R Kamla Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA & Ms. Rinki Sharma, ITP Respondent by Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 30.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement 20.08.2019 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed against the order dated 30.03.20…

Udit Prasad Babu, Sambalpur vs. CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 239/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.239/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Udit Prasad Babu, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sambalpur New Colony, Budharaja, Sambalpur स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aaypb 0331 K (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.Panda, Senior Advocate With Shri B.R. Panda, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.M.Keshkamat, Citdr

For Appellant: Shri B.Panda, Senior Advocate with Shri B.R. Panda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Keshkamat, CITDR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 264

…tances of the case are such so as to provoke an enquiry, it is his duty to make proper enquiry. Failure to make enquiry in such circumstances would make the assessment order 10 erroneous. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT, 88 ITR 323 (SC), has held that the CIT may consider an order of the AO to be erroneous not only it contains some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of fact on the face of it but also because it is a stereo typed order which simply accepts what the assessee has stated in his return and fails to make enquiries which are called for in the circumstances of…

M/S. Swastik Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT, 5(1), Indore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 486/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jul 2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…ed 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 Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [67 ITR 84] and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal [88 ITR 323] (SC).” 6. If we apply the ratio held down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) on the facts of the present case there would not be any infirmity into the order of Ld. CIT(A) in holding that assessment order is erroneous…

M/S. Satyashiv Shares & Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT= 8, New Delhi

ITA 2791/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charym/S. Satyashiv Shares & Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Securities Pvt. Ltd, Tax, M-11, South Extension, Part-2, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aancs5482Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri R. C Rai, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 131Section 133Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…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…

Ankush Garg, Rohtak vs. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2287/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 263

…because such an inquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct." Reference was also made to decisions of the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Saraogi versus CIT, (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal (Smt) versus CIT, (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) wherein it has been observed that where the Assessing Officer had accepted a particular contention or issue without inquiry whatsoever, the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. These two decisions were explained in the case of DG Housing Project Limited…

Medicare Tpa Service (I) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Kol - 4, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1045/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1045/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Medicare Tpa Service (I) Pvt. Ltd………………………......…………………………………………Appellant 6B, Bishop Lefroy Road Ground Floor 10, 6B, Paul Mansion Bhowanipore Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aadcm 1682 L] Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -4..................................................…..…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A.K. Nayak, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 22Nd, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 10Th , 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata - 4, (Ld. Pr. Cit) Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (The ‘Act’), Dt. 27/02/2018, For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Outset We Find That There Is A Delay Of 13 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal On Time. Hence The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of, Health Insurance Claim Processing Etc. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30/09/2013, Declaring Income Of Rs.4,80,10,710/-. The Assessing Officer Completed Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.5,37,81,250/- Under The Normal Provisions & At Rs.2,72,98,018/- As Book Profit U/S 115Jb Of The Act. The Ld. Pr. Cit, Issued A Showcause Notice Dt. 04/2/2017 Proposing Revision Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 04/12/2015, By Invoking His Powers U/S 263 Of The Act,On The Following Points:-

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 244ASection 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). 6.6.1. As in this case, there is no prejudice caused to the revenue, in our view, the ld. Pr. CIT has wrongly invoked his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, on this issue. 7. Coming to the other two issues, we find that the assessee has not claimed any MAT credit during the year. This…

Sheth Commercial Co., Kolkata vs. CIT-14 Kolkata, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1406/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata16 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 Sheth Commercial Co. V/S. Pr. Cit-14, C/O D.J. Shah & Co. 3, Government Place, Kalyan Bhavan, 2 Elgin Kolkata-700001 Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan No.Aakfs 409 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri P.K. Shrhari, Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 13-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 16-04-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-14, Kolkata’S Order Dated 20.03.2017 Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame Afresh Assessment After Setting Aside The Regular One Framed Dated 23.03.2015 In Exercising Revision Jurisdiction Vested U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). We Have Heard Shri Miraj D Shah Learned Authorized Representative For Assessee & Shri P.K.Srihari, Cit/Dr Appearing At Revenue’S Behest. Case File Perused. 2. It Transpires During The Course Of Hearing That The Assessee’S Pleading Challenge Correctness Of The Pcit’S Order Revising The Regular Assessment In Issue Framed By The Assessing Officer On 06.07.2016 With Directions To Frame

Section 1Section 263Section 35(1)(c)

…d that mere non-enquiry would also render a particular order passed by lower authority as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. This position has been clearly confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Sarogi v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 & Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC). The reasoning for this proposition has been explained by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of GEE VEE Enterprise Vs. Addl.CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 in the following para: ‘It is not necessary for the Commissioner to make further inquires before cancelling the assessment order of the Income Tax…

Rajesh Kumar, Hisar vs. CIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3337/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Rajesh Kumar, Vs. Cit, 1931, Gate No. 2, Behind Hisar M.G. Road, Hisar Pan :Aohpk1201L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manoj Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Sulekha Verma, Cit(Dr)

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

…x, Delhi-I, (1975) 99 ITR 375 has observed that “the word erroneous in section 263 includes the failure to make an Inquiry when the circumstances would make such an Inquiry prudent.” 7.15 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramadevi Saraogi versus CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) has also given similar observation that “where the Assessing Officer is accepted a 17 particular contention or issue without enquiry whatsoever, the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.” 8. In view of the above decisions discussed above, we can find that principle which emerge is that the Assessing Officer in the…

Philips India Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-IV, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1142/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…so offering, the order passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the same as such 24 I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited 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…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. Prcit-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1764/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] & [A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Sr Adv

Section 263

…n enquiry, but because of non- application of mind per se. Decades earlier, the Hon’ble Delhi high court, per its landmark decision in Addl. CIT v. Gee Vee Enterprises [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del), relying on two celebrated decisions by the apex court [reported at 67 ITR 84 and 88 ITR 323], explained that an assessing authority is both an adjudicator and investigator. That is, he is, besides adjudication, also charged with the responsibility of probing the matter and unearthing facts. As such, where he fails to make proper enquiry, i.e., as warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case, his order is rendered er…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. Prcit-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1763/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] & [A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Sr Adv

Section 263

M/S. Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3376/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Smt Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2012-13] M/S Celebi Delhi Cargo Management Vs. The Pr.C.I.T-2 India Pvt. Ltd New Delhi R. No. Ce-05, First Floor, Import Building – Ii, International Cargo Terminal, Igi Airport, New Delhi Pan : Aadcc 6885 B [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2019

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT- DR

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

…before Assessing Officer during the course of fresh assessment proceedings. To buttress his submission the learned counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT, West Bengal & Ors. (1968) 67 ITR 84. This is a case in which, the order issued by the Commissioner, itself revealed that the assessment was being reopened based on an additional supporting material. The Supreme Court in such fact situation 28 thus ruled that non supply of additional supporting material would not effect the basic issue of assessment being carried out without adequate…

ITO, WD-5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Purbasa Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1179/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jan 2019AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2008-09 Income Tax Officer, V/S. M/S Purbasa Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 5/5 Clive Row, 4Th Ward-5(2), P-7, Chowringhee Square, Floor, Room No.26, 8Th Floor, Room No.6, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700 069 [Pan No.Aaecp 1267B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 15-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25-01-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata’S Order Dated 29.06.2015, Passed In Case No.1575/Cit(A)-2/2015-16, In Proceedings U/S. 144 R.W.S 263 R.W.S. 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Revere The Cit(A)’S Action Deleting Unexplained Cash Credits Addition Of ₹3.14 Lac Made In The Course Of Assessment Framed On 19.03.2015. The Assessee’S Case Before Assessing Officer Was That This Sum Represented Its Share Application / Premium Raised During The Course Of Relevant Previous Year. The Assessing Officer Held In The Course Of Assessment That Assessee Had Failed To Prove Identity, Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of The Investors

Section 144Section 68

…e at all. 8. The decision of "Divine Leasing (299 ITR 268) is also not applicable as there is no evidences of commission unaccounted money in form of investment in Share Capital. 9. The CIT has also relied on following Judgment: i) Rampyari Devi Saraogivs.CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC) ii) Tara Devi Agarwal vs CIT 88 ITR 323 (SC) iii) Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375, 386 (Del) iv) CIT vs Sophia Finance Ltd. 205 ITR 98 (Del) v) CIT vs Active Traders P. Ltd. 214 ITR 583 (Cal) ITA No.1179/Kol/2015 A.Y. 2008-09 ITO Wd-5(2), Kol. Vs. M/s Purbasa Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Page 5 vi) CIT vs NivedanVanijya Niyojan Ltd. 263 I…

Smt. Sefali Sarkar, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 17, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2464/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 263Section 273ASection 37(1)

…that mere non-enquiry would also render a particular order passed by lower authority as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. This position has been clearly confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 & Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). The reasoning for this proposition has been explained by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprise v. AddI.CIT[1975] 99 ITR 375.386 in the following paras:- "It is not necessary for the Commissioner to make further inquiries before cancelling the assessment order of the Incom…

Shri Hari Ram Yadav, Alwar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar

ITA 215/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263Section 54B

…icipated in the said revision proceedings and therefore, at the appellate stage, he cannot be allowed to challenge the issuance of notice. 12. The ld CIT-DR also placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rampyari Devi Sarogi Vs. CIT 67 ITR 84 to buttress his contentions and submitted that in the said decision, the 8 Shri Hari Ram Yadav vs. Pr.CIT Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down a clear legal proposition that “Section 263 does not in express form require a notice to be served as in the case of Section 147. Section 263 merely requires that an opportunity of being heard should be give…

Alok Kumar Sarkar, Hooghly vs. CIT, Kolkata-8, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 454/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Alok Kumar Sarkar..................………...................................…..……………….…...……..…….............Appellant C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Seben Brothers’ Lodge P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly Pin – 712 105 [Pan : Akkps 9552 R] Vs. Commissioner Of Income-(8), Kolkata...............................................………………...…...........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 6Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 40A(3)

…en 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 Saraogi v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 and Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323, 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 two decisi…

M/S Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT - 3, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 is allowed

ITA 1101/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Harman Connected Services Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Corporation India Private Limited, Income-Tax, [Formerly Known As Symphony Bangalore - 3. Teleca Corporation India Private Limited) No.3 & 3A, Eoiz Industrial Area, Survey No. 85 & 86, Sadarmangla Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore – 560 066. Pan : Aabcg 5658 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Revenue By Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit-I Date Of Hearing : 04.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : .12.2018 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 115Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40

…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 Devei Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC).” Therefore, for invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, the twin tests of the order being both ‘erroneous’ and ‘prejudicial to the interests of Revenue’ have to be satisfied. If we examine the issues raised by the CIT in the impugned order u/s Page 12 of 14 263 of the Ac…

M/S Preet Land Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mohali vs. Pr. CIT-2, Chandigarh

ITA 736/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Ao During Original Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri. Parikshit AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri. Jagjivan Kumar Garg

Section 143(3)Section 263

…1 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH "ीमती "दवा "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं, डा. बी.आर.आर. कुमार, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR , AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 736/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s Preet Land Promoters and बनाम Pr. CIT-2 Developers Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh Vill: Nanu Majra, Sector-86 Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADCP8893L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri. Parikshit Aggarwal राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri. Jagjivan Kumar Garg सुनवाई क"…

Celebi Delhi Cargo Management India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3182/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhary[Assessment Year: 2011-12] M/S Celebi Delhi Cargo Management Vs. The Pr.C.I.T India Pvt. Ltd New Delhi R. No. 23, Import Building - 3 International Cargo Terminal Igi Airport, New Delhi Pan : Aadcc 6885 B [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT- DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…before Assessing Officer during the course of fresh assessment proceedings. To buttress his submission the learned counsel for the Revenue has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT, West Bengal & Ors. (1968) 67 ITR 84. This is a case in which, the order issued by the Commissioner, itself revealed that the assessment was being reopened based on an additional supporting material. The Supreme Court in such fact situation thus ruled that non supply of additional supporting material would not effect the basic issue of assessment being carried out without adequate inv…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vishnu Goel, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3932/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Shivir Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT DR

Section 133Section 133ASection 271

…ITA No. 3929, 3930, 3931 and 3932/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2004-05 and 2005-06) ITO V Vishnu Goel INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3929, 3930, 3931 and 3932/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2004-05 and 2005-06) ITO, Vs. Vishnu Goel, Ward-47(1), C-65, 1st Floor, Sangam New Delhi Apartment, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi PAN: AGGPG1385A (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri S.S.Rana, CIT DR Assessee by: Shri Shivir Bajaj, CA Date of Hearing 26/09/2018 Date of pronouncement 15/10/2018 O R D E R PE…