How many judgments cite Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT?

616 judgments on BharatTax cite Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT (67 ITR 84), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 1961, Section 147, Section 144B.

Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT

67 ITR 84Supreme Court of India1968#97 most cited

What is Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT authority for?

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests if the Assessing Officer accepts a sum offered as income by an assessee, even when that sum was not actually earned, thereby allowing revision under Section 263.

616

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT · Section 263 revision · assessment erroneous and prejudicial · unearned income offered · Assessing Officer accepting income · Commissioner's power of revision · inadequate inquiry by AO · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. reference · Income Tax Act 1961 Section 263

Also reported as

3 SCC 482240 Taxmann 221

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 1961 Section 147 Section 144B Section 148 Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 263(1)inadequate enquiry malabar industrial lack of enquiry prejudicial to interest of revenue revision under section 263 assessment order erroneous revision u/s 263 erroneous and prejudicial section 263 non-application of mind section 26

Judgments citing Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT

Parshottambhai Maganlal Ramotia, Rajkot vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Rajkot-1 - PCIT-1 Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 29/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2017-18 Parshottambhai Maganlal Ramotia, Vs. Pr. Cit-1 C/O. Parli Cosmetic Laser Centre Rajkot. Usha Kiran Apartment 10, Sardar Nagar Main Road Rajkot. Pan : Abjpr 3979 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri R.K. Takwani, Ld.Dr Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Takwani, ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 68Section 69A

…here the assessment has been completed without conducting any inquiries tantamount to erroneous orders as also order prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. For such proposition of law. Reliance is made on following cases: 1 Rampyari Devi Sarogi Vs. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 2. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 3. Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (ALL) 187 ITR 412 4. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl.CIT&Ors (Del.) 99 ITR 375 5 Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, SB-Chennai) 121 ITD 343, 313 ITR(AT) 182 6 SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2010-TIOL-646-HC- MAD-IT. 7 Shakti Credits…

M/S Poornachand Agrawal, Bilaspur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 104/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 104/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Pooranchand Agrawal C/O. Bagadia Enterprises, Near Shiv Talkies, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495001 Pan : Aaifp8483G

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the Order passed by the AO is erroneous, are no longer applicable. Further, it is not out of place to mention that the honorable Supreme Court in the cases of Taradevi Agarwal Vs CIT (1972) 88 ITR 373(SC) and in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) have already held that failure to conduct enquiries on part of AO constitutes assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Therefore, the decisions rendered without taking into considerations the above decisions of the Supreme Court appear to be incorrect. 10. These fact find support from the judgment of Hon'ble…

Sourabh Sharma, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) a

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

…the case are such as to provoke inquiry-If there is failure to make such enquiry, order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue-CIT need not prove that it is erroneous and he can revise it u/s 263. 7 Sourabh Sharma vs. PCIT Rampyari Devi Saraogi v/s CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 Swarup Vegetable Products Industries v. CIT (All) 187 ITR 412 Gee Vee Enterprises v/s. Addl. CIT &Ors. (Del.) 99 ITR 375. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., v. CIT (SC) 243 ITR 83 Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd., v. ITO (ITAT, SB-Chennai), 121 ITD 343: 313 ITR (AT) 182 SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT 2010-TIOL-646-HC-MAD-IT Madras High Court in the cas…

M/S. S.R. Ferro Alloys, Jhabua vs. The PCIT, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 148/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

Section 263

…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- Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT, [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC). 10. In the instant case, the Commissioner noted that the ITO passed the order of nil assessment without application of mind. Indeed, the High Court recorded the finding that the ITO failed to apply his mind to the case in all perspective and the order passed by him was erroneous.…

Rajendra G Mishra, Nagpur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 94/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263(1)Section 54

…ng put to question by the Assessing Officer. That has admittedly not been done as the facts before us speak for themselves. Faced with the situation, we quote Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC), Tara Devi Aggarwal vs CIT 1973 SCR (2)1035 and CIT vs. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd., [2023] 453 ITR 447 (SC); to confirm the learned PCIT’s revision directions. Ordered accordingly. 7. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. 8 ITA.No.94/Nag./2020 Order pronounced in the open Court on 26.10.2023. [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SIN…

Guala Closures (India) Pvt. Ltd., Panaji vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji., Select City

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 205/PAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Shivshankar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144(3)Section 144CSection 253Section 263Section 4

…attracting PCIT’s sec.263 revision in light of Explanation-2 thereof and therefore, the same has been rightly subjected to PCIT’s jurisdiction. We also quote Malabar Industrial Company Ltd., vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC); Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC); Taradevi Aggarwal vs. CIT 1973 AIR 254 (SC); Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del.) and recently reiterated in CIT vs. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd., [2023] 453 ITR 447 (SC); to reject learned counsel’s arguments. The assessee fails in it’s instant substantive ground therefore and the Revenue’s vehement submissions supporting…

Lalita Sanjivreddy Bodkurwar, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 90/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…position, we conclude that the PCIT has rightly invoked his sec.263 revisional jurisdiction in the given circumstances of the case after placing reliance on Malabar Industrial Company Ltd., vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC); Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC); Taradevi Aggarwal vs. CIT 1973 AIR 254 (SC); Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del.) and recently reiterated in CIT vs. Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd., [2023] 453 ITR 447 (SC). The assessee fails in it’s instant appeal therefore. 8 ITA.No.90/Nag./2020 7. We make it clear before parting that the assessee shall be very much at l…

Dr, Prashant V Athani, Nipani vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 45/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Vaidhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.S. Shivshankar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69B

…of assessment to this effect. We thus uphold the PCIT’s exercise invoking sec.263 revision jurisdiction in light of hon'ble apex court’s landmark decisions in Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC), Tara Devi Aggarwal vs CIT 1973 SCR (2)1035. Rejected accordingly. 7. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms. 7 I.T.A.No.45/PAN./2022 Order pronounced in the open Court on 12.10.2023. [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 12th October, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The applicant 2. Th…

Gillette India Limited, Spa-65A, Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, District- Alwar vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 313/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. ParwalFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194Section 195Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 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). 10. In the instant case, the Commissioner noted that the ITO passed the order of nil assessment without application of mind. Indeed, the High Court recorded the finding that the ITO failed to apply his mind to the case in all perspective and the order passed by him was erroneous. It…

Sunny Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT--2, Kolkata

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

ITA 151/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 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]” 9. Now, examining the facts of the case in light of the above provisions of Section 263 of the Act and the judicial pronouncements, we notice that when the assessment records were called for by ld. Pr. CIT, there is no discussion about the issue of deduction of…

ADIT Infrapower & Multitrading Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4944/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4944 /Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Adit Infrapower & Multitrading Pvt. Vs Pcit, Ltd., Da-08, 2Nd Floor, Vikas Marg, Gurgaon Shakarpur, New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahca5582H Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ing wrong with the order if all the facts staled therein are assumed to be correct." 7 Adit Infrapower & Multitrading Pvt. Ltd. 11. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court had referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT [1973] 88 11 R 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. 12. The Hon’ble High Court further observed: “These two decisions show…

Shri Budhraj Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-43(6), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the legal issue as well as on merit

ITA 431/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ct of the order passed by the AO. Page 10 of 12 I.T.A. No.: 431/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Budhraj Agarwal. 10.2. In this context, reference can also be made to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ramapyari Devi Saraogi (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Smt. Taradevi Agarwal Vs CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that lack of adequate enquiry or verification at the relevant time by the AO would constitute “prejudice to the interest of revenue” and would make such order “erroneous". Reference in this context is invited to the decision of Delhi High Court in…

Jai Salasar Balaji Industries(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 440/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 440/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jai Salasar Balaji Industries (P) Ltd. Acit, Central Circle – 4(1), Kolkata 5, Bentinck Street Vs Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacj6970D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Kolkata -2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 28/03/2023, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Steel. E-Return Filed On 27/10/2018 Declaring Total Income At Nil For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Case Selected For Through Cass Followed By Issuance Of Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. Details Were Called For In Respect Of The Reason Of Scrutiny Selection. The Assessee Complied By Filing All The Relevant Details & The Same Were Duly Examined By The Assessing Officer & He Came To The Conclusion That The Assessee Was Entitled To The Claim Of Carry Forward Of Loss To 2

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, D/R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 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] 11. 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 t…

Bimal V. Pala Legal Heir of Late Smt. Ranjana Vrajlal Pala, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2735/MUM/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2023AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhbimal V Pala Vs. Principal Commissioner (Legal Heir Of Late Smt. Of Income Tax 26 Bkc C/O H.H. Parmar & Co. Bandra East 512, Maker Chambers, V. 221, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Apmpp6636G Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : M.V. Choksi Respondent By : S. Srinivasu Date Of Hearing 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit-26, Mumbai, Dated 16.03.2016 For A.Y. 1996-97. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 & Setting Aside The Order Dated 19/03/2014 U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 On The Ground That It Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. 2. On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Without Taking On Record The Details Submitted & Expecting To Do The Impossible Of Bring On Record The Lost Passport 3. On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit Erred In Passing Order U/S 263 Relying On Decision Of P A G E | 2 Bimal V. Pala Vs. Pcit-26 Rampyaridevi Saraogi Vs Cit 67 Itr 84(Sc), Taradevi Aggarwal Vs Cit 88 Itr 323(Sc) & Ramaswamy Chettiyar Vs Cit 220 Itr 657.665(Mad) Which Are Not Relevant To The Appellant. 4. The Appellant Reserves The Right & Alter/Amend Grounds Of Appeal At Any Time Before The Hearing.”

For Appellant: M.V. ChoksiFor Respondent: S. Srinivasu

Section 143(3)Section 263

…do the impossible of bring on record the lost passport 3. On the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT erred in passing order u/s 263 relying on decision of P a g e | 2 Bimal V. Pala Vs. PCIT-26 Rampyaridevi Saraogi vs CIT 67 ITR 84(SC), Taradevi Aggarwal vs CIT 88 ITR 323(SC) and Ramaswamy Chettiyar vs CIT 220 ITR 657.665(MAD) which are not relevant to the appellant. 4. The appellant reserves the right and alter/amend grounds of appeal at any time before the hearing.” 2. Fact in brief is that in this case assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act was completed on 19.03.2014…

Career Point Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 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] .)” (b) The Commissioner of Income Tax - 7 Vs M/S Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd. [2023] 453 ITR 447 (SC) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in a case where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has adopted one view, such a decision, which mig…

Nimita Soni Prop. Swaranlata Traders, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 41/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 263

…his return 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 (67 ITR 84) (SC), Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT M/s. Sun Minerals (88 ITR 323) (SC), and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd's case ( 243 ITR 83) (SC). In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. case 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 Offi…

Nahar Colours and Coatinhgs Private Limited, Udaipur vs. Principal Commissioner Ofincometax, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…what the assessee has stated in his retur and fails to make enquiries or examine the genuineness of the claim which are called for in the circumstances of the case. 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 323 (SC), and Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.'s ([2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC)) 3.2. 3.2. The Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) laid down a four-way test for orders being erroneous in-so-far as they are prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, liable for revision, viz. inc…

Allied Photographics India Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1083/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S Alliedphotographics Vs. Pr.Cit-1, India Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Room No.330, Kasturi Buildings, 3Rd Floor, Jamshedji Tata Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, M.K. Road, Mumbai -400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. : Aabca2068A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitish Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Smiti Samant. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-1, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Nitish Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Smiti Samant. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHIR PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s AlliedPhotographics Vs. Pr.CIT-1, India Ltd., 3rd Floor, Room No.330, Kasturi Buildings, 3rd Floor, Jamshedji Tata Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, M.K. Road, Mumbai -400020. Mumbai-400020. PAN/GIR No. : AABCA2068A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Mr.Nitish Gandhi.AR Respondent by : Ms.Smiti Samant. DR Date of Hearing 15.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement 02.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order o…

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1170/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…y loss of revenue as a consequence of such order of the Assessing Officer has be treated as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. At this juncture we also refer to decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ram Pyari Devi Sagar Vs. CIT reported in (1968) 67 ITR 84 and Taradevi Agarwal Vs. CIT reported in (1973) 88 ITR 323, wherein, it is held that, mere failure to make enquiries would make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. These principles laid down in aforesaid decision were ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore Page 4 of 15 reiterated by Hon’b…

Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1168/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C. Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263