Ranka Jewellers v. Addl. CIT

328 ITR 148High Court2010#2285 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 366,339 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

Shri Satish Kumar. S/O. Sh. Hans Raj, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 258/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.258/Asr/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2014-15 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Satish Kumar S/O Hans Raj, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of B-12, Mch-366/13, Billa Income-Tax-1, Jalandhar House, New Jagatpura, Hoshiarpur Pan: Aawpk 0932 D अपीलाथ" Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

…(243 ITR 83); CIT V. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Gujarat), CIT V. Vinod Kumar Gupta [2007] 165 Taxman 225 (P&H), CIT V/s. Max India Ltd. 2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC), ITO V. DG Housing Projects Limited [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del),Ranka Jewellers v. Addl. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 148 (Bombay), CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) [2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) Narain Singla v. Pr.CIT 62 Taxmann.com 225 (Chandigarh-Trib) , Jivan Kumar v. Pr.CIT [I.T.A.No. 219 & 672/ASR/2016 and others as per his case laws Paper Book. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that it is a settled position of law that when the…

Sunil Chhagan Bhaybhang, Nashik vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax : 1

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 932/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.932/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69

…that the proceedings carried out under section 263 on the basis of internal audit report is not sustainable. To support his contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ranka Jewellers Vs. Addl.CIT reported as 328 ITR 148. The ld. Authorized Representative finally submitted that at the most it can be a case of inadequate enquiry not lack of enquiry. Even under such circumstances, invoking of provisions of section 263 is bad in law. 3 Shri Sunil Chhagan Bhaybhang 3. Shri S.B. Prasad, representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. De…

Nuwave Esolutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3231/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamblenuwave Esolutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Cit(A) 3Rd Floor, District Centre, Delhi-V Dda Building, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Aabcn5790Q (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 40Section 92

…e issue becomes subject matter of appeal, the said issue is merged with the appellate order and revisional jurisdiction of the CIT cannot be exercised in respect of the said issue in view of Explanation (c) to Section 263:- i. Ranka Jewellers Vs. Addl. CIT(A) 328 ITR 148 (Bom) ii. CIT(A) Vs. Nirma Chemicals Works (P) Ltd. 309 ITR 67 (Guj) iii. Marical Industries Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT(A) (2008) 5 DTR 263. iv. Sadhu Ram & Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. (2007) 108 TTJ (Asr) 373. v. Sonal Garments vs Jt. CIT 95 ITD 363(Mum) (2005) vi. Saw Pipes Ltd vs Add. CIT 94 TTJ 1036(Del) vii. Hoogly Mills vs ACIT 71 I…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Healthcare Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 8, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4866/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4866 & 5096/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

Section 263Section 56Section 80Section 80I

…evision order. The assessee’s stand of entertaining a bona fide belief is also without basis in law in view of the clear position of law as enumerated in Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. (supra); Herdillia Chemicals Ltd. (supra); and Ranka Jewellers v. Addl. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 148 (Bom). We are conscious of the decision in the case of the Collector of Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC), also relied upon by the tribunal in the case of Kewalkumar Jain (supra). We have already expressed that the impugned order stands passed relying on several decisions, including by the Apex Court. The assessee could not…

Mr. Mohit Gupta, Faridabad vs. CIT, Faridabad

Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 2460/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R L Meena, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…Appellate Authority has considered the addition in its order. Further, the Ld. A.R. placed reliance upon the following judgements: i) Sheena Exports, C/o M/s. RRA Taxindia Vs CIT (I.T.A.No. 6001-2/Del/2-013 dated 15/10/2014) ii) Ranka Jewellers Vs ACIT (2010) 328 ITR 148 (Bom). iii) Slum Rehabilitation Authority Vs DIT (I.T.A.No. 2435/Mum/2014 dated 30.10.2015 ITAT Mumbai) 4. On the contrary Ld. D.R. relied upon the order passed by Ld. CIT. 5. We have perused the records placed before us, judgements relied upon by both the sides and orders passed by authorities below. 5.1 In order to initiate proceedings u/s 263…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3136/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…25 (P&H) d. CIT vs. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. ITA NOS. 3132-3136/Del/2014 (2010) 323 ITR 632 e. CIT vs. Munjal Castings (2008) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) f. CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. Ranka Jewellers vs. Add CIT (2010) 328 ITR 148 h. CIT vs. Mahendra umar Bansal (2008) 297 ITR 99 (All) 6.5 It was further stated by the Ld. AR that stand of the Ld. CIT for AY 2004-05 and next five years is contradictory and is against principles of consistency and for this contention he placed reliance on the following case laws:- a Radha Soami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) b.…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3135/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…25 (P&H) d. CIT vs. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. ITA NOS. 3132-3136/Del/2014 (2010) 323 ITR 632 e. CIT vs. Munjal Castings (2008) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) f. CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. Ranka Jewellers vs. Add CIT (2010) 328 ITR 148 h. CIT vs. Mahendra umar Bansal (2008) 297 ITR 99 (All) 6.5 It was further stated by the Ld. AR that stand of the Ld. CIT for AY 2004-05 and next five years is contradictory and is against principles of consistency and for this contention he placed reliance on the following case laws:- a Radha Soami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) b.…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3134/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…25 (P&H) d. CIT vs. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. ITA NOS. 3132-3136/Del/2014 (2010) 323 ITR 632 e. CIT vs. Munjal Castings (2008) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) f. CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. Ranka Jewellers vs. Add CIT (2010) 328 ITR 148 h. CIT vs. Mahendra umar Bansal (2008) 297 ITR 99 (All) 6.5 It was further stated by the Ld. AR that stand of the Ld. CIT for AY 2004-05 and next five years is contradictory and is against principles of consistency and for this contention he placed reliance on the following case laws:- a Radha Soami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) b.…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3133/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…25 (P&H) d. CIT vs. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. ITA NOS. 3132-3136/Del/2014 (2010) 323 ITR 632 e. CIT vs. Munjal Castings (2008) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) f. CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. Ranka Jewellers vs. Add CIT (2010) 328 ITR 148 h. CIT vs. Mahendra umar Bansal (2008) 297 ITR 99 (All) 6.5 It was further stated by the Ld. AR that stand of the Ld. CIT for AY 2004-05 and next five years is contradictory and is against principles of consistency and for this contention he placed reliance on the following case laws:- a Radha Soami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) b.…

Surya Merchants Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Kanpur

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3132/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)
Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…25 (P&H) d. CIT vs. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. ITA NOS. 3132-3136/Del/2014 (2010) 323 ITR 632 e. CIT vs. Munjal Castings (2008) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) f. CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. Ranka Jewellers vs. Add CIT (2010) 328 ITR 148 h. CIT vs. Mahendra umar Bansal (2008) 297 ITR 99 (All) 6.5 It was further stated by the Ld. AR that stand of the Ld. CIT for AY 2004-05 and next five years is contradictory and is against principles of consistency and for this contention he placed reliance on the following case laws:- a Radha Soami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) b.…