Ranka Jewellers v. Addl. CIT

328 ITR 148High Court2010#2309 most cited

What is Ranka Jewellers v. Addl. CIT authority for?

When the Assessing Officer has considered an issue and applied his mind during the assessment proceedings, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax cannot invoke jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act to revise the order, as it is not permissible to give another opportunity to the AO. Revision under Section 263 is not meant for substituting the Commissioner's view for the AO's considered view.

50

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Ranka Jewellers v. Addl. CIT · Section 263 Income Tax Act · revision of assessment order · Pr. CIT jurisdiction · issue considered by AO · application of mind by AO · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. · Max India Ltd. · scope of revision · prejudicial to interest of revenue

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 142(1)Section 115BBESection 1961Section 69ASection 144BSection 43B

Issues it is cited on

section 115bbasection 114section 147rinadequate enquiryprejudicial to interest of revenuemalabar industriallack of enquiryprincipal commissioner of income-taxrevision u/s 263revision under section 263violation of natural justicesection 69b

Judgments citing Ranka Jewellers v. Addl. CIT

VALOUR AUTOPACK,GOR KHIJADIYA, MORBI GUJARAT vs. THE PR. CIT 1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanja Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269S

…1 /RJT/2025 (AY : 2021-22) 11 20. We note that the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. by invoking his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act is giving another opportunity to the Ld. A.O., which is not permissible. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ranka Jewellers vs. Addl. CIT (328 ITR 148) relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], has held that once the issue was considered by the A.O., the remedy of the revenue could not lie in invoking of the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. C…

RAMABEN MAGANLAL ZALARIA,RAJKOT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT

ITA 276/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 274 To 276/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Vs. The Pcit-1, Umakant Udhyognagar, Near Rajkot 360001 Gandhiya Estate, Mavdi Plot, Rajkot-360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpz0156C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 274 to 276/RJT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 to 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Vs. The PCIT-1, Umakant Udhyognagar, Near Rajkot 360001 Gandhiya Estate, Mavdi Plot, Rajkot-360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACPZ0156C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. AR राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of Hearing : 26/08/2025 घोषणाक"ता…

RAMABEN MAGANLAL ZALARIA,RAJKOT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT

ITA 275/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 274 To 276/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Vs. The Pcit-1, Umakant Udhyognagar, Near Rajkot 360001 Gandhiya Estate, Mavdi Plot, Rajkot-360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpz0156C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 274 to 276/RJT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 to 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Vs. The PCIT-1, Umakant Udhyognagar, Near Rajkot 360001 Gandhiya Estate, Mavdi Plot, Rajkot-360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACPZ0156C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. AR राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of Hearing : 26/08/2025 घोषणाक"ता…

RAMABEN MAGANLAL ZALARIA,RAJKOT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, RAJKOT

ITA 274/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 274 To 276/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 To 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Vs. The Pcit-1, Umakant Udhyognagar, Near Rajkot 360001 Gandhiya Estate, Mavdi Plot, Rajkot-360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacpz0156C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos. 274 to 276/RJT/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 to 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Ramaben Maganlal Zalaria, Vs. The PCIT-1, Umakant Udhyognagar, Near Rajkot 360001 Gandhiya Estate, Mavdi Plot, Rajkot-360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AACPZ0156C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. AR राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of Hearing : 26/08/2025 घोषणाक"ता…

RADHESHYAM PAPER MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,LILAPAR ROAD,LILAPAR vs. PCIT-RAJKOT-1,INCOME TAXDEPARTMENT,OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,PCIT-RAJKOT-1, AAYKAR BHAVAN RING ROAD RACE COURSE RAJKOT

In the result, appeal OF the assessee is allowed

ITA 243/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member), SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Raiyani, Ld.A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi, Ld.CIT-D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 69Section 69B

…cer is unsustainable in law”. 14. We note that the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. by invoking his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act is giving another opportunity to the Ld. A.O., which is not permissible. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ranka Jewellers vs. Addl. CIT (328 ITR 148) relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], has held that once the issue was considered by the A.O., the remedy of the revenue could not lie in invoking of the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. C…

KETAN GORI,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(10), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.42/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 Ketan Gori The Pr.Cit बनाम Plot No.3009 Jamnagar. Gidc Phase-Iii Vs. Dared. Pan : Ahppg 5892 A (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sagar Shah, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

…er is unsustainable in law”. 16. We note that the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. by invoking his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act is giving another opportunity to the Ld. A.O., which is not permissible. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ranka Jewellers vs. Addl. CIT (328 ITR 148) relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], has held that once the issue was considered by the A.O., the remedy of the revenue could not lie in invoking of the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. C…

SOHAM PAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MORBI vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 371/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

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

…er is unsustainable in law”. 18. We note that the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. by invoking his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act is giving another opportunity to the Ld. A.O., which is not permissible. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ranka Jewellers vs. Addl. CIT (328 ITR 148) relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], has held that once the issue was considered by the A.O., the remedy of the revenue could not lie in invoking of the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. C…

SHAMJI NATHU VAISHYA,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 327/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

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

…er is unsustainable in law”. 18. We note that the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. by invoking his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act is giving another opportunity to the Ld. A.O., which is not permissible. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ranka Jewellers vs. Addl. CIT (328 ITR 148) relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], has held that once the issue was considered by the A.O., the remedy of the revenue could not lie in invoking of the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. C…

KISHOR VELJIBHAI FOFANDI,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 326/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

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

…er is unsustainable in law”. 18. We note that the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. by invoking his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act is giving another opportunity to the Ld. A.O., which is not permissible. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ranka Jewellers vs. Addl. CIT (328 ITR 148) relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], has held that once the issue was considered by the A.O., the remedy of the revenue could not lie in invoking of the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. C…

DEEPMALA MARINE EXPORTS,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 324/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

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

…er is unsustainable in law”. 18. We note that the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. by invoking his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act is giving another opportunity to the Ld. A.O., which is not permissible. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ranka Jewellers vs. Addl. CIT (328 ITR 148) relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], has held that once the issue was considered by the A.O., the remedy of the revenue could not lie in invoking of the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. C…

CHUNILAL GOVIND VANIK,VERAVAL vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 323/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

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

…er is unsustainable in law”. 18. We note that the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. by invoking his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act is giving another opportunity to the Ld. A.O., which is not permissible. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ranka Jewellers vs. Addl. CIT (328 ITR 148) relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], has held that once the issue was considered by the A.O., the remedy of the revenue could not lie in invoking of the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. C…

BHARATKUMAR KALYANJIBHAI BHINDI,JUNAGADH vs. PCIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT , RAJKOT

ITA 312/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhasr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 324/Rjt/2024 322/Rjt/2024 323/Rjt/2024 312/Rjt/2024 326/Rjt/2024 327/Rjt/2024 329/Rjt/2024 331/Rjt/2024 335/Rjt/2024 371/Rjt/2024

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

…cer is unsustainable in law”. 18. We note that the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. by invoking his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act is giving another opportunity to the Ld. A.O., which is not permissible. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ranka Jewellers vs. Addl. CIT (328 ITR 148) relying on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], has held that once the issue was considered by the A.O., the remedy of the revenue could not lie in invoking of the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. C…

GMR VARALAKSHMI FOUNDATION,RAJAM vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION, , HYDERABAD AT VIZAG

ITA 110/VIZ/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri Manish V. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 25Section 263Section 80G

…e assessment order. In this regard he relied upon judgement of Hon’ble Madras High court in the case of CIT vs., M/s. Farida Shoes Private Limited, 259 ITR 342 (Mad.) and the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of Ranka Jewellers vs. ACIT [2010] 328 ITR 148 (Bom.) (HC). 7. Learned counsel further referring to various issues discussed by the CIT(E) in his order u/sec. 263 of the Act submitted that the CIT(E) denying the benefit of exemption u/sec.11 of the Act only on the ground that the 13 ITA.No.110/VIZ./2021 Registration Certificate issued u/sec.12A of the Act is not in the name of the assessee…

HARMONY YARNS PVT. LTD.,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 348/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.348/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Harmony Yarns Private Vs. The Pcit-1, Limited, Surat Plot-65, 1St Floor Subhash Nagar Society, Ghod Dod Road, Nr. Ram Chowk, Surat – 395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaach5895F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Airiju Jaikaran, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/10/2023 23/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

…cer is unsustainable in law”. 22. We note that the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. by invoking his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act is giving another opportunity to the Ld. A.O., which is not permissible. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ranka Jewellers vs. Addl. CIT (328 ITR 148) relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], has held that once the issue was considered by the A.O., the remedy of the revenue could not lie in invoking of the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. C.I.T. wa…

SHRI CHAMPAKBHAI D. PATEL,BARDOLI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT & TP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 15/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.15/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) M/S. Champakbhai D. Patel, Vs. The Cit(It & Tp), Mota Sardar Chowk, Bardoli, Ahmedabad Surat - 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Atlpp0997K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Shri S. M. Keshkamat, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ies in the matter. [Para 21]” 18. We note that the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. by invoking his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act is giving another opportunity to the Ld. A.O., which is not permissible. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ranka Jewellers vs. Addl. CIT (328 ITR 148) relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], has held that once the issue was considered by the A.O., the remedy of the revenue could not lie in invoking of the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Therefore, the order of the Ld. C.I.T. wa…

SHANKAR ZETHABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.124/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Shankar Zethabhai Patel, Vs. The Pcit(Central), 505, Sraynik Park Appartment, Rander Surat. Road, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cfepp7235M Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) 15/06/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…cer is unsustainable in law”. 14. We note that the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. by invoking his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act is giving another opportunity to the Ld. A.O., which is not permissible. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ranka Jewellers vs. Addl. CIT (328 ITR 148) relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], has held that once the issue was considered by the A.O., the remedy of the revenue could not 124/SRT/2022/AY.2018-19 Shankar Zethabhai Patel lie in invoking of the jurisdiction u/s 2…

DRISTI TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. PR. CIT, GHAZIABAD

ITA 3813/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…Ltd. (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) - CIT V Krishna Capbox (P) Ltd. (2015) 60 taxmann.com 243 (All) - D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 20 taxmann.com 587 (All.) - CIT V Vam Resorts & Hotels (P) Ltd. (2019) 111 taxmann.com 62 (Allahabad) - Ranka Jewellers V Addl. CIT 328 ITR 148 (Bom) 6 - S.K. Jain V CIT (2010) 127 ITD 217 (Agra)(TM) - Punjab State Civil Suppliers Corn. Ltd. Vs. CIT 200 ITR (P& H) 6. On the other hand, learned DR submitted that there is no error in the findings of learned Pr. CIT. 7. Appreciating the material on record it can be observed that apparently from the order of learned Pr. CIT it is establish…

KANAIYA READYMADE STORES,SURAT vs. PR. CIT-1, SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 61/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.61/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Kanaiya Readymade Stores, The Pcit-1, Surat. Vs. 3/199-200, Main Bazar, Opp. Laliya Lake, Olpad, Surat – 394540. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfk1700E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2023

Section 143(3)Section 263

…wer under section 263 of the Act. We note that the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. by invoking his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act is giving another opportunity to the Ld. A.O., which is not permissible. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ranka Jewellers vs. Addl. CIT (328 ITR 148) relying on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and CIT ITA No.61/SRT/2022/AY.2017-18 Kanaiya Readymade Stores vs. Max India Ltd. [(2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)], has held that once the issue was considered by the A.O., the remedy of the revenue could not lie in invoking of the jurisdictio…

SHRI SUNNY CHADRAKANT FUDHANAWALA,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIR3(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.271/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Sunny Chandrakant Deputy Commissioner Of Fudhnawala, 47, Matawadi, Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Vs. Nr. Bhavani Mata Mandir, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate Lambe Hanuman Road, Nr. New Civil Hospital Road, Surat-395006 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahpf 6359 G (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Manish J Shah, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.271/SRT/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Sunny Chandrakant Deputy Commissioner of Fudhnawala, 47, Matawadi, Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Vs. Nr. Bhavani Mata Mandir, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate Lambe Hanuman Road, Nr. New Civil Hospital Road, Surat-395006 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAHPF 6359 G (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Manish J Shah, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri Ashok B. Koli…

M/S FORTUNE METALIKS LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR Khanna
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…HD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 17 of 35 (2012) 81 CCH 69 ; judgment of the Hon'ble ITA T Surat Bench, in the case of Pramod Keshari Chand Shah vs. PCIT in ITA No. 43/SRT/2018 and decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ranka Jewellers vs. ADIT 328 ITR 148 for the proposition that the order u/s 263 may be quashed. 5.13 Carrying the Bench through the detailed assessme nt order and referring to the documents pointed out in Paper Book-1 specifically page-2 addre ssing the gross sales of the assessee company for the period ended on 31.03.2016 and 31.03.2015 which reflected gross sales of Rs.35598394…

Showing 1–20 of 50 · Page 1 of 3