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 366,005 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

Pune Zilha Madhyawarti Sahakari Bank Sevakanchi Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Pr. Cti -3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1086/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1086/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…ere 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). [Emphasis Supplied]” 9. On examining the facts of the instant case in light of above judicial precedents, we notice that assessee has made claim for deduction u/s.80P(2)(d) of the Act for the interest income earned from providing credit facilities to its Members. Ld. AO while 8 Pu…

Livlong Insurance Brokers Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT -4, Mumbai

ITA 2864/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Mehta,ARFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, (Sr. DR)
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 80G

…the requirement of due enquiry to be conducted by the AO while scrutinising any case in the course of assessment order is concerned, it would be relevant to quote certain landmark decisions of hon'ble 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 AO had accepted a particular contention or issue without inquiry whatsoever, the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. These two decisions show that it is not necessary for the Commissioner to make further inqui…

Alliance Nirmaan Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 263

…re as 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). " CIT Vs Max India Ltd [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC): 213 CTR 266 (SC) 1. In our view at the relevant time two views were possible on the word "profits" in the proviso to Section 80HHC(3). It is true that vide the 2005 amendment the law has been clarified with retrospective effect by inse…

Micromax Informatics Ltd, New Delhi vs. PCIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263

…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. (See Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [(1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC)] and in Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [(1973) 3 SCC 482 : 1973 SCC (Tax) 318 : (1973) 88 ITR 323].)" [Emphasis supplied] 26. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 371], while relying 17:06:54 upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of two- fold conditions for…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Te Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

ITA/53/2024HC Karnataka05 Jun 2025

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 260ASection 263Section 40

…- 1 - ITA No.53 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ITA NO. 53 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1 . THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. 2 . THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, PRESENT ADDRESS, DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI N, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. TE C…

Shenhzhen Sdg Information Co. Ltd., Delhi vs. Circle Int. Taxation 3(1)(2), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 746/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shenhzhen Sdg Information Co. Ltd., International Taxation-3, C/O- Tass Advisors Llp, 62, New Delhi Lower Ground Floor, Pocket 2, Jasola, New Delhi Pan: Aavcs7426C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Divyanshu Agrawal, Adv. Sh. Anubhav Rastogi, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.06.2025 Order

Section 263Section 44B

…eedless to say that any order that is passed without gathering relevant facts including necessary enquiries/investigation is erroneous. The courts have unanimously held this view in several cases. For instance in the cases of Ramapriya Devi Saraogi Vs CIT(SC) 67 ITR 84, Malabar Industries Co. Ltd Vs CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83, Gee VEE Enterprises Vs Addl. CIT (del) 99 ITR 375 etc, the courts have held that unlike civil court which is neutral to give a decision on the basis of evidence produced before it, an Assessing Officer is not only an adjudicator but is also an investigator. He cannot remain passive on the facts of…

M/S. Shreeji Infra, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

ITA 118/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 69A

…v Shakti Enterprise Vs. PCIT, 157 taxmann.com 492, which the Ld.AR submitted that the order has been since recalled. ii) CIT Vs. Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd., 345 ITR 135 iii) ITO Vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd in ITA No. 179/2011 iv) Rampyari Devi Sarogi Vs. CIT, 67 ITR 84 v) Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT, 88 ITR 323 vi) GeeVee Enterprises Vs. ACIT, 99 ITR 375 11. With this background, the issue to be decided is that “whether the Assessing Officer erred in not treating the amount of undisclosed income disclosed during the survey and offered to tax as business income can be considered as per the provisions of Section 69A…

Shreeji Infratech, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

ITA 117/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblem/S. Shreeji Infratech, Vs. Pcit, 110, Near Silver Wood Society, Vadodara-1, Opp. Billabong School, Vadodara Nr. Vadsar Bridge, Vadsar, Vadodara-390010 [Pan : Acwfs 1409 F] M/S. Shreeji Infra, Vs. Pcit, 344, 375, Opp. Cm Patel Farm Vadodara-1, House, Nr. Sidheswar Complex, Vadodara Kalali, Vadodara-390012 [Pan : Acrfs 5269 C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 16.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.06.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 69A

…v Shakti Enterprise Vs. PCIT, 157 taxmann.com 492, which the Ld.AR submitted that the order has been since recalled. ii) CIT Vs. Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd., 345 ITR 135 iii) ITO Vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd in ITA No. 179/2011 iv) Rampyari Devi Sarogi Vs. CIT, 67 ITR 84 v) Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT, 88 ITR 323 vi) GeeVee Enterprises Vs. ACIT, 99 ITR 375 11. With this background, the issue to be decided is that “whether the Assessing Officer erred in not treating the amount of undisclosed income disclosed during the survey and offered to tax as business income can be considered as per the provisions of Section 69…

Devprabha Construction Private Ltd., Dhanbad vs. PCIT, Dhanbad

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Devprabha Construction Private Ltd., P.C.I.T., Dev Villa, Behind Radha Swamy Arcade, Dhanbad, Vs. Saraidhela, Dhanbad-828127. Aayakar Bhawan, Luby Pan No. Aaecb 2652 A Circular Road, Dhanbad-826001 (Jharkhand) Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Virtual Hearing) Devprabha Construction Private Ltd., P.C.I.T., Dev Villa, Behind Radha Swamy Arcade, Dhanbad, Vs. Saraidhela, Dhanbad-828127. Aayakar Bhawan, Luby PAN No. AAECB 2652 A Circular Road, Dhanbad-826001 (Jharkhand) Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee represented by Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv. Department represented by Shri Shadab Ahmed, CIT-DR Date of hearing 30/04/2025 Date of pronouncement 30/05/2025 O R D E R PER: BENCH 1. This appeal by…

Ajay Kumar, Ghaziabad vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 733/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

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

…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. (See Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [(1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC)] and in Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [(1973) 3 SCC 482 : 1973 SCC (Tax) 318 : (1973) 88 ITR 323] .)” 7.2 Thus, even as observed in paragraph 9 by this Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) that the scheme of the Act is to levy and collect tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act and this task is entrusted to the Revenue…

Desai Infra Projects(I) Private Limited, Pune vs. PCIT, Central Pune, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1851/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. Pathank, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 3Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

…ere 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). [Emphasis Supplied]” 9 ITA.No.1851/PUN./2024 11. Now, examining the facts of the instant case in the light of the above judgments and discussions, we firstly take up disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. The Ld.PCIT has referred to investments made by the assessee in Kalyan Raj Desai J…

Dlf Home Developers Limited, New Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2585/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Dlf Home Developers Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Sansad Delhi-1, Marg, New Delhi-110001. New Delhi Pan-Aaccd0037H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Singhvi, Ca & Shri Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ppeal No. 2396/2017) dated 29.11.2017 2. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC)/[2000] 159 CTR 1 (SC) 3. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) 4. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tara Devi Aggarwals v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) 5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Toyota Motor Corporation v. CIT [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC) 6. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT [70 taxmann.com 124 (Calcutta)/[2016] 240 Taxman 306 (Calcutta)/[2016] 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta)/[2016] 287 CTR 512 7. Rajma…

Wind Financial Services LLP, Daman & Diu vs. PCIT, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 502/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.501 & 502/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Wind Financial Services Llp, Vs. The Pcit, [Formerly Known Wind Financial Valsad Services Pvt. Ltd.] Shop No.102/A, 436 Sq Feet Built Up, Dabhel, Daman & Diu, Valsad – 396215 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfw6369H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri S. N. Divetia, Ar Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From The Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad [In Short, ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 16.03.2024 For Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since Facts Of The Cases & The Grounds Taken Up In The Appeals Are Similar Except Variation In The Amount, These Appeals Were Heard Together & A Common Order Is Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. Ita No. 501/Srt/2024 Is Taken As The ‘Lead Case’.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.501 & 502/SRT/2024 (AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Wind Financial Services LLP, Vs. The PCIT, [Formerly known Wind Financial Valsad Services Pvt. Ltd.] Shop No.102/A, 436 Sq Feet Built Up, Dabhel, Daman & Diu, Valsad – 396215 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AADFW6369H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri S. N. Divetia, AR Respondent by Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement 21/05/2025 आदेश / O…

Wind Financial Services LLP, Daman & Diu vs. PCIT, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 501/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.501 & 502/Srt/2024 (Ays: 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Wind Financial Services Llp, Vs. The Pcit, [Formerly Known Wind Financial Valsad Services Pvt. Ltd.] Shop No.102/A, 436 Sq Feet Built Up, Dabhel, Daman & Diu, Valsad – 396215 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfw6369H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri S. N. Divetia, Ar Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Emanate From The Orders Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, ‘The Act’) By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad [In Short, ‘Ld. Pcit’], Dated 16.03.2024 For Assessment Years (Ays) 2014-15 & 2015-16. Since Facts Of The Cases & The Grounds Taken Up In The Appeals Are Similar Except Variation In The Amount, These Appeals Were Heard Together & A Common Order Is Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. Ita No. 501/Srt/2024 Is Taken As The ‘Lead Case’.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.501 & 502/SRT/2024 (AYs: 2014-15 & 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Wind Financial Services LLP, Vs. The PCIT, [Formerly known Wind Financial Valsad Services Pvt. Ltd.] Shop No.102/A, 436 Sq Feet Built Up, Dabhel, Daman & Diu, Valsad – 396215 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AADFW6369H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri S. N. Divetia, AR Respondent by Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 12/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement 21/05/2025 आदेश / O…

Radial International Mining Services Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT (Central), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1651/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 22Section 263

…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. 12 Radial International Mining Services Pvt. Ltd. (See Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [(1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC)] and in Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [(1973) 3 SCC 482 : 1973 SCC (Tax) 318 : (1973) 88 ITR 323] .)” 7.2 Thus, even as observed in paragraph 9 by this Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) that the scheme of the Act is to levy and collect tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act and this task is entrusted to the Revenue…

Assotech Moonshine Urban Developers P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263

…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. (See Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [(1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC)] and in Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [(1973) 3 SCC 482 : 1973 SCC (Tax) 318 : (1973) 88 ITR 323].)" [Emphasis supplied] 26. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Paville Projects (P) Ltd. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 371], while relying 17:06:54 upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of two- fold conditions for…

Apurva Natvar Parikh & Co. Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 2646/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…uiry to be conducted by the Assessing Officer while scrutinising any case in the course of assessment order is concerned, it would be relevant to quote certain landmark decisions of hon'ble Supreme Court as in the case of Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT [1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT(1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) it was held that in a stereo-typed order which simply accepts what the assessee has stated and fails to make enquiries which are called for in the circumstances is erroneous. In the case of K.A. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. CIT (1966) 220 ITR 657 (Mad), it was also held that the officer is expecte…

Shri Atul Srivastava, Agra vs. PCIT-1, Agra

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

ITA 57/AGR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sarika Srivastava Vs. Pr. CIT, Income-tax-1 1/114-B, Gulab Rai Marg, Delhi Agra. Gate, Agra-282002. PAN : AEOPS8100H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Atul Srivastava Vs. Pr. CIT, Income-tax-1 1/114-B, Gulab Rai Marg, Delhi Agra. Gate, Agra-282002. PAN : AGUPS9179C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Ishita Farsaiya, Advocate Department by Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT/DR Date of hearing 27.03.2025 Date of pronouncement 3…

Smt. Sarika Srivastava, Agra vs. PCIT-1, Agra

The appeals of the assessees are allowed in above terms

ITA 56/AGR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sarika Srivastava Vs. Pr. CIT, Income-tax-1 1/114-B, Gulab Rai Marg, Delhi Agra. Gate, Agra-282002. PAN : AEOPS8100H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Atul Srivastava Vs. Pr. CIT, Income-tax-1 1/114-B, Gulab Rai Marg, Delhi Agra. Gate, Agra-282002. PAN : AGUPS9179C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Ishita Farsaiya, Advocate Department by Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT/DR Date of hearing 27.03.2025 Date of pronouncement 3…

Ramesh Kumar Singh, Ranchi vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Patna, Ranchi

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 9/RAN/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

…IT after taking necessary enquiries in respect of purchase of the said land. The ld. PCIT also invoked Explanation-2 of Section 263 of the Act and also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the assessment order would become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in absence of proper enquiries. 9. Aggrieved by the order of ld. PCIT, this appeal has been filed by the assessee before the Tribunal. During the…