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

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 815/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2011-12

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…

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 814/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2010-11

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…

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 813/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2018AY 2009-10

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…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3609/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 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). 2.5. We have perused the assessment order and found that the assessee made purchases from M/s Navratana Impex, who was declared as a hawala dealer by the Sales Tax Authority. This aspect was not disputed by the assessee that purchases were made from this party. It is noted that the Ld. Assessing Officer simply accepted the cla…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3608/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 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). 2.5. We have perused the assessment order and found that the assessee made purchases from M/s Navratana Impex, who was declared as a hawala dealer by the Sales Tax Authority. This aspect was not disputed by the assessee that purchases were made from this party. It is noted that the Ld. Assessing Officer simply accepted the cla…

M/S Oswal Dreamz Ltd., Ludhiana vs. Pr. CIT-3, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1365/CHANDI/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Apr 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. M.L. JoshiFor Respondent: Sh. Manu Malik
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…because of non- application of mind per se. The hon'ble Delhi high court, per its landmark decision in Adl. CIT v. Gee Vee Enterprises [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del) (cited before us by the ld. DR), 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, as warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case, his order is rendered erroneou…

M/S. Castron Technologies Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Hqrs.-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 945/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judical Member] I.T.A. No. 945/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Castron Technologies Ltd……...……………………...………………………….......… Appellant 14, Bentinck Street Room No.8 1St Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Aabcc 0646 G] A.C.I.T. Hqrs.- (1), Kolkata….…….………………………………………….……………....Respondent Ayakar Bhawan P-7, Chowringhee Square Kolkata – 700 069 Appearances By: Shri Siddharta Jhaharia, Fca & Shri Sujoy Sen, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 8Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 04Th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 263(1)

…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…

Subhash Chand Nawal (HUF), Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1037/JPR/2017[2014-15 (26Q-Q1, 2, 3, 4TH)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Mar 2018
For Appellant: None (One set W.S. filed)For Respondent: Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT)
Section 192Section 200(3)Section 206CSection 234ESection 249(2)Section 5

…Maharashtra [2005] 2 SCC 345 and which judgment has been referred to by the Calcutta High Court. The Supreme Court, in paragraph 22 stated thus: "22. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in B.S.E. Brokers' Forum v. Securities and Exchange Board of India [(2001) 3 SCC 482] after considering a large number of authorities, has held that much ice has melted in the Himalayas after the rendering of the earlier judgments as there was a sea change in the judicial thinking as to the difference between a tax and a fee since then. Placing reliance on the following judgments of this Court in the last 20 years, namely, Sreeniva…

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1(1), Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3198/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)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). 2.8. So far as, the cases relied upon by the assessee are concerned, we find that these cases may not help the assessee as these cases are based upon the facts of each case where the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and a speaking well reasoned assessment order was framed by the Ass…

Puja Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur

ITA 440/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 263

…the assessee without any enquiry as been done in the instance case, the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 is justified. The ld. Pr. CIT has also referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT[1998] 67 ITR 84 (SC), Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT [1973] 88 ITR-323 (SC), and Special Bench decision in case of M/s Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. vs. ITO (ITA No. 1074/Mds/1987 dated 24.04.2009) and held that invocation of provisions u/s 263 in the instance case is perfectly in order and in accordance with jurisprudence so laid down by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme…

Cuttack Development Authority, Cuttack vs. CIT, Cuttack

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 361/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mohapatra ARFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…` IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2009-2010 Cuttack Development Vs. CIT, Cuttack Authority, Arunodaya Market, Cuttack PAN/GIR No.AACHC 0247 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri B.K.Mohapatra AR Revenue by : Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 28/02/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 5 /03/ 2018 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT, Cuttack u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act dated 11.3.2014 for the as…

M/S Panchnath Enterprise, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. Commr. of Income Tax-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

Appeals are allowed

ITA 139/RJT/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri M. J. Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 263

…n 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:- "Thes…

Shri Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

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

ITA 4979/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblesanjay Kumar Vs Cit Prop. Tyagi Associates Meerut H-45, Gandhi Nagar, Garh Road, (Respondent) Meerut Aczpk2030M (Applicant) Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Acit H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Circle-2, Gali No. 3, Garh Road Bhansali Ground Meerut Meerut Acapk2030M (Respondent) (Applicant) Acit Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Circle-2, H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Bhansali Ground Gali No. 3, Garh Road Meerut Meerut (Applicant) Acapk2030M (Respondent)

For Appellant: “1. That the impugned
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…roducts Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1991) 187 ITR 412 (All.) " Umashankar Rice Mill Vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 638-39 (Ori) " Jadgish 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 (S.C) " Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (S.C) 7. The Ld. CIT further observed that the A.O accepted the version of the assessee without making any enquiry or verification where as it is very well settled that mere failure to make enquiries makes an order erroneous and that the Commissioner may consider an order of the AO to be erroneou…

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

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

ITA 2725/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblesanjay Kumar Vs Cit Prop. Tyagi Associates Meerut H-45, Gandhi Nagar, Garh Road, (Respondent) Meerut Aczpk2030M (Applicant) Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Acit H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Circle-2, Gali No. 3, Garh Road Bhansali Ground Meerut Meerut Acapk2030M (Respondent) (Applicant) Acit Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Circle-2, H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Bhansali Ground Gali No. 3, Garh Road Meerut Meerut (Applicant) Acapk2030M (Respondent)

For Appellant: “1. That the impugned
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…roducts Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1991) 187 ITR 412 (All.) " Umashankar Rice Mill Vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 638-39 (Ori) " Jadgish 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 (S.C) " Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (S.C) 7. The Ld. CIT further observed that the A.O accepted the version of the assessee without making any enquiry or verification where as it is very well settled that mere failure to make enquiries makes an order erroneous and that the Commissioner may consider an order of the AO to be erroneou…

Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-9, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 401/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Damadar Valley V/S. Dcit, Circle-9, Corporation, Dvc Towers Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, (4Th Floor), Vip Chowringhee Square Road,Kolkata-54 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aabcd 0541 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Md. Usman Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 17-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 21-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Dispute The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.01.2017 Set Aside The Assessment Order Date30.03.2015 For Assessment Year 2012-13 With A Direction To Re-Do The Assessment In Respect Of Issue Therein. Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Ld. Authorized Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Md. Usman, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit Was Unjustified In Law In Holding The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Passed For The A.Y. 2012-13 To Be Erroneous In So Far As It Was Prejudicial To The Interest Of

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

…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 v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 in the following para:- ‘It is not necessary for the Commissioner to make further inquiries before cancelling the assessment order of the income-tax…

Startech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 22, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3898/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Startech Engineers, Pr. Commissioner Of G-12, Sinhgarjane Soc. Income Tax-22, बनाम/ Maratha Colony, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Vs. Santracruz (E), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaxfs3063J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri D.C.Saboo & Shri Shyam Saboo राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Manjunatha Swamy-Dr

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)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). 2.5. So far as, the cases relied upon by the assessee like Shri Narayan Tatu Rane vs Income Tax Officer (ITA NO.2690/Mum/2016), Small Wonder Industries vs CIT (ITA No.2464/Mum/2013), Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd. vs Addl. CIT (1997) 108 ITR 407 (Cal.) is concerned, the factual finding is that the Assessing Officer after making proper and…

Satnam Transport Company, Indore vs. The ACIT Circle-5(1), Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 514/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…& Automation Engineers (Bombay) P. Ltd. [2008] 323 ITR 632. 4. Per contra Ld. DR opposed the submissions and placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble’ Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT(supra) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT 88 ITR 323(SC). 5. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties, perused the material on record. The issue is to be examined whether the action of the Ld. CIT for revising the assessment order is justified under the facts of the case. There is no dispute with regard to the facts that the assessee is required to deduct tax which has been accepted by t…

The DCIT, 5(1), Indore vs. M/S. Satnam Transport Company, Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 285/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…& Automation Engineers (Bombay) P. Ltd. [2008] 323 ITR 632. 4. Per contra Ld. DR opposed the submissions and placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble’ Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT(supra) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT 88 ITR 323(SC). 5. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties, perused the material on record. The issue is to be examined whether the action of the Ld. CIT for revising the assessment order is justified under the facts of the case. There is no dispute with regard to the facts that the assessee is required to deduct tax which has been accepted by t…

M/S Satnam Transport Company, Indore vs. The CIT- II, Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 248/IND/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…& Automation Engineers (Bombay) P. Ltd. [2008] 323 ITR 632. 4. Per contra Ld. DR opposed the submissions and placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble’ Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT(supra) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT 88 ITR 323(SC). 5. We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties, perused the material on record. The issue is to be examined whether the action of the Ld. CIT for revising the assessment order is justified under the facts of the case. There is no dispute with regard to the facts that the assessee is required to deduct tax which has been accepted by t…

The Asst Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri K.C.K.A.Gupta

The Appeal is dismissed

ITTA/251/2005HC Telangana03 Jan 2018

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

For Appellant: Mr.J.V.PrasadFor Respondent: Mr.C.P.Ramaswami
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 263

…the A.O. was therefore, erroneous because it is a stereo typed order which simply accepted what the assessee has stated in the block return and the A.O. failed to make enquiries which are called for in the circumstances of the case. [(88 ITR 323(SC) and 67 ITR 84(SC)]. The A.O. has even failed to compute the undisclosed income of the assessee, assessment year-wise by discussing each year’s income separately. Telescoping of income has also not been done assessment year-wise. Details of cash and Bank balances added back have also not been discussed. Therefore, neither have the undisclosed investment…