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 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

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

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

ITA 3931/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

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…

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

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

ITA 3930/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…

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

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

ITA 3929/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

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…

Gumpro Drilling Fluids Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 15, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2868/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids Vs Pr. Cit-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5Th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, Lbs M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcg2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri L.K.S. Dahiya Cit-Dr

Section 120Section 144ASection 263Section 35

…0), 19 xxxix. CIT v. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583/[1993] 69 Taxman 281 (Cal.) (para 20), xl. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434/209 Taxman 174/24 taxmann.com 215 (Gau.) (FB) (para 20) and xli. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) (para 27). 2.15. In CIT vs Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. and CIT vs Nirav Modi ((supra)), no doubt these cases throw light on the issue but were decided by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court to the peculiar facts of the case and on the basis of factual finding recorded by the Tribunal. 2.16. Admittedly, an incorrect assumption of fact or an…

Durgesh Autofin P.Ltd, Bijnor vs. Prcit, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2539/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2539/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Durgesh Autofin P. Ltd., Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Director, Muzaffarnagar-251002 S/O Late Sh. Tejpal Singh, Mandi Kotla, Near Nehru Murti, Chandpur, Bijnot, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd0768P Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rachna Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit, Muzaffarnagar U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 41(1)Section 68

…etable Products Industries Ltd. Vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 412 (All.) " Umashankar Rice Mill Vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 638 (Ori.) " Jagdish Kumar Gulati Vs CIT 269 ITR 71 (All.) " Gee Vee Enterprises Vs Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Del.) " Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) " Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) " Duggal & Co. Vs CIT (1996) 220 ITR 456 (Del.) " Sh. Virendra Kumar Gupta Vs CIT in ITA No. 2595/Del/2009, order dated 21.01.2011 15 Durgesh Autofin P. Ltd. 13. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT set aside the assessment order framed by the AO by observing that the AO failed to examine the case prope…

Anand Prasad Jaiswal, Cuttack vs. Principal CIT, Cuttack

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 343/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CITDR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कटक "यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM Anand Prasad Jaiswal, Vs. Principal Commissioner Prop-Anand Steel & Pipes, of Income Tax, Cuttack- At-Piligrim Road, College 753008 Square, Cuttack-753003 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/TAN No. : AGGPJ 3815 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri K.K.Bal, AR राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Saad Kidwai, CITDR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 21/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement 06/09/2018 आदेश / O R D E R…

Skylark Build, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 4370/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law." 20. In the decision Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) the apex Court considered the meaning of the word "prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue". It was held that : "Where an assessee is assessed on an income voluntarily returned, it is not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue only if it is found that the assessment was made on the basis that the income had been earned by the assesse…

Skylark Build, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai

ITA 3237/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law." 20. In the decision Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) the apex Court considered the meaning of the word "prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue". It was held that : "Where an assessee is assessed on an income voluntarily returned, it is not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue only if it is found that the assessment was made on the basis that the income had been earned by the assesse…

DCIT Cen Cir 4(2), Mumbai vs. Sudhakar M. Shetty, Mumbai

ITA 2906/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Skylark Build Acit, Central Circle-4(2) 402, Sagar Avenue 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Plot B-54, Junction Of M.K.Road, Vs. Lallubhai Park & S.V. Road Mumbai 400020 Andheri (W), Mumbai 400058 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aazfs0404K

…has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law." 20. In the decision Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) the apex Court considered the meaning of the word "prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue". It was held that : "Where an assessee is assessed on an income voluntarily returned, it is not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue only if it is found that the assessment was made on the basis that the income had been earned by the assesse…

M/S. National Transport, Keonjhar vs. Principal CIT, Cuttack Charge, Cuttack

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 179/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Aug 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CITDR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 40

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कटक "यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM M/s National Transport, Vs. Principal Commissioner Station Road, Barbil, of Income Tax, Keonjhar-758035 Aayakar Bhawan, Shelter Square, Tulsipur, Cuttack-753008 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/TAN No. : AACFN 5605 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : None राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Saad Kidwai, CITDR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 21/08/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement 24/08/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Sh…

Adambandh Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT - 8, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1206/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh. S.S.Godara[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Vs Cit, Adambandh Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Kol-8, 54/1, Rafi C/O-S.L.Kochar, Advocate, 86, Ahmed Kidwai Road, Canning Street, Kolkata-700001. Kolkata-700016. Pan-Aaaaa2455 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Anil Kochar, Advocate Respondent By Sh. G.Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2018 Order

Section 143Section 143(1)(e)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…here 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. Rampyaridevi Saraogi 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…

Himalaya International Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri N.K. Choudharyassessment Year : 2012-13 Himalaya International Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit-4, E-555, Palam Extension, 1St Floor, New Delhi. Sector-7, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110077. Pan: Aaach0158H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Meeta Singh, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…ion of income from growing of mushroom. It is a trite law that when an assessment order is passed in a hurried manner without making proper inquiries, such an order is liable to be set aside. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Pyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) has held that where an assessment is done in undue hurry, the order can be revised u/s 263. Similar view has been reiterated in several judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and several Hon'ble High Courts including the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Level Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 161 (Bom). 7. The ld. AR raised another issue b…

Grain Merchants Co-Op.Hsg. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-28, Mumbai

In the result , the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 2187/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2187/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) बिाम/ Grain Merchants Co- Pr. Cit-28 Operative Housing Society Mumbai Ltd, Plot No. 26/35, Sec-17, V. Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaaag3973H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri. Abhijit Patankar,CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

…(SC) . The assessee also relied upon following decisions to support its contentions : a) Bismillah Trading Co. v. Intelligence Officer (2001) 248 ITR 292(Ker.) b) Venkatakrishna Rice Co. v. CIT (1987) 163 ITR 129(Mad.) c) Smt Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323(SC) d) Thalibai F. Jain v. ITO (1975) 101 ITR 1(Kar.) e) CIT v. Pushpa Devi (1987) 164 ITR 639(Pat.) The learned Pr. CIT rejected the contentions of the assessee by holding as under:- “ 6. The submission of the assessee is duly considered and found not tenable. The assessee has earned interest income of Rs. 13,78,340/- form interest from FDR with…

The J.K. Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…turn 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 [1968] 67 ITR 84, Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.’s case (supra). In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.’s case (supra) 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 only when an or…

Century Seeds Private Limited (Presently Amalgamated With Hm Clause India Private Limited) R R Dist, R.R.Dist vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 942/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B. Ramakotaiah & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri S.P. Chidambaram &For Respondent: Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 942/HYD/2017 (A.Y. 2012-2013) Century Seeds Private Limited, Deputy Commissioner of Vs (Presently amalgamated with Income Tax, Circle-2(2), HM. Clause India Private Hyderabad. Limited) Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana – 501401. [PAN: AAACC 0390 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri S.P. Chidambaram & Shankar Kabse For Revenue : Smt. Alka Rajvanshi Jain, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 17.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 20…

Maharashtra Airport Development, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

…as made without making due enquiry. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in ARVEE INTERNATIONAL v. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE 19(1), MUMBAI 101 ITD 495 (Mum. Trib.) Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (Supreme Court), COLORCRAFT KASHIMIRA CERAMIC COMPOUND v. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), THANE (2017) 105 ITD 599 (Mum.), Commissioner of Income-tax v. Amalgamations Ltd. [1999] 238 ITR 963 (MAD.), CIT v. Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd 248 ITR 611 (Madras). 2.2. In reply, the ld. counsel for the assessee contended that such explanation has…

Manoir Petro India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

ITA 2626/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manoir Petro India Limited, Pr. Cit-1 602, B-Wing, Universal Room No.387, बनाम/ Business Park, Chandivali 3Rd Floor, Vs. Farm Road, Off Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aafcm5210J

Section 263

…9 Taxman 281 (Cal.) (para 20), 21 Manoir Petro India Limited ITA No.2626/Mum/2015 & C.O. No.95/Mum/2015 xl. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434/209 Taxman 174/24 taxmann.com 215 (Gau.) (FB) (para 20) and xli. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) (para 27). 2.16. So far as, the cases relied upon by the assessee like CIT vs Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. and CIT vs Nirav Modi ((supra)) are concerned, no doubt these cases throw light on the issue but were decided by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court to the peculiar facts of the case and on the basis of factual finding recorded by the T…

Late Smt. Giriraj Kaur L/H Sri Ravinder Gill, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 931/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishilate Smt. Giriraj Kaur, Vs. Ito, C/O. L/H Sri Ravinder Gill, Ward-1(2), 861, Mangal Bhawan, Muzaffarnagar Bhopa Road, Muzaffarnagar Pan: Dtppk0005J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT Dr
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…aw 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 the case [Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT, (1973), 88 ITR 323 (SC). 6.1. Reliance is also placed on the following case laws:- (i) Duggal & Co. vs. CIT, (1996) 220 ITR 456, 459 (Del.) (ii) Shri Virendra Kumar Gupta Vs CIT in ITA No 2595/D/2009 dated 21/01/2011 (ITAT, Delhi) 7. Thus, after careful consideration of assessee's submissions dated 26.12.2016…

Saigal Sea Trade, Mumbai vs. CIT -18, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2511/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

Section 142(1)Section 263

…ra 20), xxxix. CIT v. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583/[1993] 69 Taxman 281 (Cal.) (para 20), xl. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434/209 Taxman 174/24 taxmann.com 215 (Gau.) (FB) (para 20) and xli. Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) (para 27). 5.1. So far as, the cases relied upon by the assessee like CIT vs Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. and CIT vs Nirav Modi ((supra)) are concerned, no doubt these cases throw light on 20 M/s Trancfex Studios Pvt Ltd. the issue but were decided by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court to the peculiar facts of the case and on the basis of fa…

M/S/ Rashmi Metaliks Ltd., Kolkata vs. A/DCIT, CC-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 816/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 801A(4)Section 80ISection 80l

…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…