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 366,314 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

Sunitha, Coimbatore vs. PCIT -1, Coim, Batore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2013/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, IRS, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [PAN: BHQPS 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri N.V. Balaji,…

Asian Hotels (North) Limited, New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-1, New Delhi

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

ITA 654/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember M/S. Asian Hotels (North) Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, 1A, Hotel Hyatt Regency, Delhi – 1. Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110 066. (Pan: Aaaca0125H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi-1 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Pcit’) Dated 31.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2016 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.32,48,76,393/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143 (3)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 438

…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 upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of twofold conditions for the purpose o…

M/S Swift Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT, Kolkata-1I, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1032/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 143Section 148Section 263

…order u/s. 148 of the I. T. Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, which is discussed in detail later in this order.” 2.3. The Ld. Pr. CIT placed reliance upon the following judicial pronouncements: i) Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC), 5 Swift Vintrade Pvt. ltd., AY: 2009-10 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), vi) CIT Vs. Nivedan Vanijya Niyojan Ltd. 263 ITR 623 (Cal), vii) CIT V. Bhagwati Jewels Lt…

Max Hospitals and Allied Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai -3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2907/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Max Hospitals & Principal Allied Services Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor, Income Tax Mumbai- 3 Man Excellenza, Room No.612, Vs. S. V. Road, 6Th Floor, Vile Parle (W.), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400056 Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aagcr9198D Mumbai- 400020. Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogia Nagpal (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…e case are such as to provoke an inquiry. Arbitrariness in either accepting or rejecting the claim has no place. Hon’ble Supreme Court in many cases have taken such view. To name a few, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT reported in 67 ITR 84, Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT reported in 88 ITR 323, and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd in case of 243 ITR 83. 4.13. In the present facts of the case, the order passed by the Ld.AO, therefore becomes erroneous because enquiry has not been made regarding the share valuation report based on which the assessee determined the share value at premium. It…

Etah Wine Traders, Kasganj vs. PCIT, Bareiily

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 117/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaetah Wine Traders V. Pcit, Bareilly C/O Kunwar Devendra Singh Aaykar Bhawan, Central Yadav, Laxmiganj, Kasganj, Revenue Building, Kamla Uttar Pradesh-207123. Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, Bareilly. Pan:Aaaae1483E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vivek Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Manu Chaurasia, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 10 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 10 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manu Chaurasia, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…of the CIT under the old Act held that,” where assessment was completed by the ITO with under haste, without holding necessary enquiry, it is sufficient to hold that the assessment order is erroneous.” (iii) In the case of Smt Tara Devi Agarwal vs CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323(SC), it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, “even where income has not been earned and is not assessable merely because the assessee wants it Page 4 of 12 to be assessed in his or her end in order to assist someone else who would have been assessed to a larger amount, the assessment to made can certainly be erroneous and prejudicial to the in…

Faiveley Transport Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Hosur vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1598/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member), SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ए, , "ायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी एस.आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1598/CHNY/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Faiveley Transport Rail Technologies The Principal Commissioner India Private Limited, Vs. of Income Tax-1, Post Box No.39, Chennai. Harita, Hosur 631 509. PAN: AAGCS 8525B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. Ashik Shah,…

Sandeep Kumar, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1545/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1544/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2015-16) ITA No.1542/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14) Sandeep Kumar ITO House No.317, Ward-2(3), C.R. Building Sector-8, Faridabad Vs. Faridabad-121001 Haryana-121006 PAN:AHIPG5861A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri KVSR Krishna, Adv. Respondent by Shri Sujit Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 07/08/2024 Date of Pronouncement 18/10/2024 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: 1. These bunch of four appeals of the Asse…

Sandeep Kumar, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1542/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1544/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2015-16) ITA No.1542/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14) Sandeep Kumar ITO House No.317, Ward-2(3), C.R. Building Sector-8, Faridabad Vs. Faridabad-121001 Haryana-121006 PAN:AHIPG5861A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri KVSR Krishna, Adv. Respondent by Shri Sujit Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 07/08/2024 Date of Pronouncement 18/10/2024 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: 1. These bunch of four appeals of the Asse…

Ganadhipati Construction Private Ltd, Patna vs. PCIT, Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 360/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 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)”.[Emphasis Supplied] 16. In the light of the provisions of section 263 of the Act and a settled position of law, powers u/s 263 of the Act can be exercised by the Pr. Commissioner/Commissioner on satisfaction of twin conditions, i.e., the assessment order should be erroneous and also…

Ganadhipati Construction Private Limited, Patna vs. PCIT, Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 359/PAT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 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)”.[Emphasis Supplied] 16. In the light of the provisions of section 263 of the Act and a settled position of law, powers u/s 263 of the Act can be exercised by the Pr. Commissioner/Commissioner on satisfaction of twin conditions, i.e., the assessment order should be erroneous and also…

Ganadhipati Construction Private Limited, Patna vs. PCIT, Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 358/PAT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 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)”.[Emphasis Supplied] 16. In the light of the provisions of section 263 of the Act and a settled position of law, powers u/s 263 of the Act can be exercised by the Pr. Commissioner/Commissioner on satisfaction of twin conditions, i.e., the assessment order should be erroneous and also…

Ganadhipati Construction Pvt Ltd, Patna vs. PCIT, Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 357/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 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)”.[Emphasis Supplied] 16. In the light of the provisions of section 263 of the Act and a settled position of law, powers u/s 263 of the Act can be exercised by the Pr. Commissioner/Commissioner on satisfaction of twin conditions, i.e., the assessment order should be erroneous and also…

Ganadhipati Construction Private Limited, Patna vs. PCIT, Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 356/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 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)”.[Emphasis Supplied] 16. In the light of the provisions of section 263 of the Act and a settled position of law, powers u/s 263 of the Act can be exercised by the Pr. Commissioner/Commissioner on satisfaction of twin conditions, i.e., the assessment order should be erroneous and also…

Goutam Ghosh, Howrah vs. P.C.I.T., Kolkata - 13, Kolkata

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

ITA 1080/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 263Section 45Section 56(2)(X)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

…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)”. [Emphasis Supplied] 11.1. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Limited as reported in 295 ITR 0282 has held that: “2. At this stage we may clarify that under para 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) this Court has taken the view that…

St.Joseph'S Educational Trust, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Chennai - 1, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1620/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Institute Of Science & Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Educational Trust, Vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Tax, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Central, Chennai -1 [Pan: Aamts 3888G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’’"ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ ITA Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’s Institute of Science and Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [PAN: AAHTS 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"…

St.Joseph'S Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Chennai - 1, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1619/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Institute Of Science & Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [Pan: Aahts 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-2021) St. Joseph’S Educational Trust, Vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Tax, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Central, Chennai -1 [Pan: Aamts 3888G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’’"ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी जगदीश, लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ ITA Nos.1618 & 1619 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2020-2021) St. Joseph’s Institute of Science and Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Technology Trust, Tax, No.56C, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Central, Chennai -1 Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. [PAN: AAHTS 9943B] आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1620 /Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष"…

St.Joseph'S Institute of Science and Technology Trust, Chennai vs. PCIT Central Chennai - 1, Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1618/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2024AY 2018-19
Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

…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. (See 'Rampyari Devi Saraogiv CIT[(1968) 67 ITR 84(SC)] and in "Tara Devi Aggarwalv.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 upon Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., has discussed the sanctity of two-fold conditions for the purpose of invok…

Shankar Roadways, Burdwan vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir. 1(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 703/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 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 Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC)”. [Emphasis Supplied] 11.1. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Limited as reported in 295 ITR 0282 has held that: “2. At this stage we may clarify that under para 10 of the judgment in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) this Court has taken the view that…

M/S Rana & Joshi Buildtech P Ltd, Indore vs. The PCIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 229/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanim/S. Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pr. Cit-1 Pvt. Ltd. Bhopal (Formerly Known As M/S Rana Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ) Vs. 218 Civil Lines, Below Dainik Bhaskar Office Vidisha (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcr9858P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26 .09.2024

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271E

…easons I am satisfied that this is a fit case where action u/s 263 is justified and inescapable. This view of mine further gains strength and support by the ratio of the decisions in the case laws mentioned here below: “1. Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi us CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that assessment made in undue haste and without making inquiries which are called for the circumstances of the case is erroneous and prejudicial to the Interest of revenue. Page 6 of 27 ITANo.229/Ind/2023 M/s Rana & Joshi Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. 2. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Hon'b…

Window Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT (Central) - 2, Kolkata

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

ITA 1060/KOL/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Sept 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Akkal Dudhewala, A.RFor Respondent: Subhendu Datta, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…F. Jain vs. ITO 101 ITR 1, 8 (Kar) 5 Window Technologies Pvt. Ltd. AY: 2019-20 iv.Malabar Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83, 87-88 (SC) affirming the Hon'ble Kerala High Court’s decision in 198 ITR 611 v.Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 & Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) vi.CIT vs. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works [1998] 231 ITR 53/96 Taxman 1 6. In the written submissions filed before us, the assessee has submitted as under: The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the Ld. Pr. Commiss…