How many judgments cite Revenue (K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar v. CIT?

67 judgments on BharatTax cite Revenue (K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar v. CIT (220 ITR 657), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Revenue (K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar v. CIT come up under?

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

Revenue (K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar v. CIT

220 ITR 657High Court1996#1684 most cited

What is Revenue (K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar v. CIT authority for?

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, justifying revision under Section 263, if the Assessing Officer fails to make necessary inquiries or examine materials provided by the assessee, leading to a routine assessment.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar v. CIT · 220 ITR 657 · 1996 Madras High Court · Section 263 revision · AO lack of inquiry · erroneous and prejudicial order · failure to examine replies · routine assessment Section 143(3) · duty to inquire

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263 Section 142(1)Section 143(3A)Section 143(3B)Section 144B Section 14A Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

assessment order erroneous section 263(1)malabar industrial revision under section 263 lack of enquiry erroneous and prejudicial section 119 chief commissioner section 263 section 26 section 92ca section 92c

Judgments citing Revenue (K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar v. CIT

Ambuja Cements Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-3, Mumbai

ITA 3474/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Sourabh Soparkar, AR (virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…hese cases have to be distinguished from other cases (i) where there is enquiry but the findings are incorrect/erroneous; and (ii) where there is failure to make proper or full verification or enquiry. 9.1 In the case of K.A. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. CIT (1966) 220 ITR 657 (Mad), it was likewise held by hon'ble Madras High Court held that the officer is expected to make an inquiry of a particular item of income and if he does not make an inquiry as expected, that would be a ground to interfere u/s 263 as such an order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Section 2…

Be Healthy Pharmacy, Mumbai vs. DCIT 41(3)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

ITA 3666/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Be Healthy Pharmacy Pcit-41 Shop No. 04, Gala Residency Room No. 541 Chsl, Gala Compound, Haji Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Bapu Road, Malad East C-41 To 43 Mumbai-400 097. Bandra-E, Mumbai-51. Pan : Aatfb6476A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Satyaparkash R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ronak Doshi

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194CSection 194HSection 263

…18(Mum-Tribu) : The AO called for material relating section 10B deduction and obtained – but without examining them, assessment was completed under section 143(3) and hence revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 was held valid. d) K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar, 220 ITR 657 (Mad) : Where the replies filed by appellant were not examined by AO, and a routine assessment was done, then Revision under section 263 is valid. 13. Thus, seen the facts and circumstances from this perspective especially because of the observations made by Ld. PCIT at page 5, para 5.4 that the appellant deducted TDS under section 194C on the p…

Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2844/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 94(7)

…CIT(1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC)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 another order in the case of K.A. Ramaswami Chettiar Vs. CIT (1966) 220 ITR 657 (Mad), it was also held that the officer is expected to make an inquiry of a particular item of income and if he does not make an inquiry as expected, that would be a ground to interfere u/s 263 as such an order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 6.5 In the case of PVS Multiplex India Ltd V CI…

Jabeen Tradelink Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1197/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj ManglaFor Respondent: Shri VivekPerampurna CIT-DR

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

…an inquiry as expected, that would be a ground for the Commissioner to interfere with the order passed by the Officer since such an order passed by the Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue [KA. Ramaswamy Chettiar v. CIT. (1990) 220 ITR 657, 665 (Mad)]. The above referred judgments are now explicit in the section itself and therefore from the explanation it is clear that the present case of the assessee is clearly covered under Explanation 2(a) of Section 263 of the Act inserted w.e.f. 01-05-2015. 6 The failure of the Assessing Officer to make enquiries which were warranted under th…

Shri Hari & Co Owners, Kaithal vs. Pr. CIT, Chandigarh -1, Rohtak

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 403/CHANDI/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…quarely applicable to the present case, wherein the word erroneous in section included cases where there has been a failure to make necessary inquiries. We also hold that madras High Court Judgment in case of K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar another reported in (1996) 220 ITR 657 (Mad) wherein it has been held that when the Income Tax Officer is expected to make an inquiry of a particular item of income and if he does not make an enquiry as expected that would be a ground for the Commissioner of Income Tax to interfere under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with the order 13 passed by the Income Tax Officer. Sinc…

Shri Hari & Co Owners, Kaithal vs. Pr. CIT, Chandigarh -1, Rohtak

In the result, both the above appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 402/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Patchirajan Lakshmanan, Madurai vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 597/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 597/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Principal Commissioner Of Patchirajan Lakshmanan, V. Income Tax, No. 102F,/16Z/3, Maduari -1, Dhanasekaran Nagar, Madurai – 625 002. Polepettai (West) – 628 002. [Pan:Aazpl-1396-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

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

…the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd Vs CIT (260 ITR 599) has held but has failed to do so, the order passed by him was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Further, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in K. A. RamaswamyChettiar vs. CIT (220 ITR 657) has held that when the Officer is expected to make an enquiry of income and if he does not make an enquiry as expected, it is to be a ground to interfere with the order passed by the Assessing Officer since such an order passed by the officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer…

Sh. Baljit Singh, Ludhiana vs. Pr. CIT, Ludhiana -1, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 416/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Kaushal &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68Section 92C

…king provisions of section 263 because order passed as such by Assessing Officer was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of K.A. RamswamyChettiar&Anr Vs. CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad.). Moreover, the facts of the case are squarely covered by Explanation 2 of Sec.263, which is inserted w.e.f. 01.06.2015. It is as under :- 1. The order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made. 2. The order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim. 3. The order has not been made in…

Pearl Tracom(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Kolkata

ITA 375/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234B

…n inquiry as expected, that would be a ground for the Commissioner to interfere with the order passed by the Officer since such an order passed by the Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue (K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar V. CIT, (1996) 220 ITR 657). 7.2. In my considered opinion, this is a case of lack of enquiry on the part of the AO. The decision on this issue could be taken only after examining and verifying the facts / submission of the AR on this score. Not collecting the full facts and not taking enquiry to logical end which could enable AO to take decision based on the totality of f…

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

…P a g e | 1 Bimal V. Pala Vs. PCIT-26 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bimal 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 asse…

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 279/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…by the AO would render the assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue held in following cases. 1. Jagdish Kumar Gulati vs CIT 269 ITR 71 (All.) 2. Duggar & Co. vs CIT 220 ITR 456 (Del) 3. K.A. Rama Swami Chhettiar vs CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad.) 4. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons discussed above, the assessment order dated 19-03-2021 for the assessment year 2018-19 passed by the AO is held erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the purpose of Section 263 of the Act. The said order has been passed by the…

M/S Marathon India Ltd., Rajasthan vs. Smt. Pratima Kaushik, PCIT-1, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no order as to cost

ITA 235/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Jain, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 338Section 80Section 801E

…by the AO would render the assessment order erroneous as well as projudicial to the interest of the revenue as held in following cases: 1. Jagdish Kumar Gulati vs CIT 269 ITR 71 (Allahabad) 2. Duggal & Co. 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) 3. KA. Rama Swami Chettiar vs CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad) 6. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons discussed AO is held erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue for the purpose of section 263 of the I.T. Act. The said order has been passed by the Assessing Officer in a routine and casual manner without applying the applicable se…

M/S. Pearl Tracom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-4, Kolkata

ITA 495/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

…n inquiry as expected, that would be a ground for the Commissioner to interfere with the order passed by the Officer since such an order passed by the Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue (K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar V. CIT, (1996) 220 ITR 657). Page 6 of 49 I.T.A. No.: 495/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/s. Pearl Tracom Pvt. Ltd. 7.2. In my considered opinion, this is a case of lack of enquiry on the part of the AO. The decision on this issue could be taken only after examining and verifying the facts / submission of the AR on this score. Not collecting the full facts and not t…

Smt Elizebeth Vasheelakumari, Nagercoil vs. Aci, Circle-I, Nagercoil Range, Nagercoil

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

ITA 783/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.783/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Elizebeth Vasheelakumari, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 3, Parama Street, W.C.C. Road, Income Tax, Circle I, Nagercoil 629 001. Nagercoil Range, Nagercoil. [Pan:Abqpe8121P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit 1, Madurai, Dated 21.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 54F

…Officer was required to examine the claim of the assessee but has failed to do so, the order passed by him was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Further, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in K. A. Ramaswamy Chettiar vs. CIT (220 ITR 657) has held that when the Officer is expected to make an enquiry of income and if he does not make an enquiry as expected, it is to be a ground to interfere with the order passed by the Assessing Officer since such an order passed by the officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this case, the assessing officer failed to a…

Cavinkare Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1603/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1603/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Cavinkare Private Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 12, Cavin Ville, Income Tax, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet Company Circle-I(3) Chennai-600 018. Chennai-600 034. Pan:Aaacb 3754B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R.Mohan Reddy, CITFor Respondent: 24.11.2022

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 35Section 36(1)(ii)

…Officer was required to examine claim of the assessee, but has failed to do so, the order passed by him was not only erroneous, but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Further, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in K. A. Ramaswamy Chettiar vs. CIT (220 ITR 657) has held that when the Officer is expected to make an enquiry of income and if he does not make an enquiry as expected, it is to be a ground to interfere with the order passed by the Assessing Officer, since such an order passed by the officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.Regarding powers of the PCIT u/s 263 of the A…

Parimal Chandrakant Zaveri, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 283/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 263

…-16 Page No 5 Parimal Chandrakant Zaveri vs. Pr.CIT inquiries on the vital aspects which is an erroneous order and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 4.1. The Ld. PCIT relied on the Madras High Court judgment in the case of K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar (220 ITR 657), wherein it was held that the ITO is expected to make an enquiry of a particular item of income and if he does not make an enquiry as expected, that would be a ground for Commissioner of Income Tax to interfere under section 263 holding that the assessment order passed by the A.O. is an erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. There…

M/S. C & E Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 636/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

…n inquiry as expected, that would be a ground for the Commissioner to interfere with the order passed by the Officer since such an order passed by the Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue (K. A. Ramaswamy Chttiar vs. CIT (1996) 220 ITR 657).” 3. However, at the time of hearing, the assessee has failed to satisfy the ld. PCIT in support of its claim, therefore, the ld. PCIT held that the impugned assessment order dated 28.03.2016 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and thus he directed the ld. AO pass fresh assessment order after cons…

Hindustan Sales Industrial Corporation, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 94/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR

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

…s prejudicial to the interest of revenue as held in following cases: Jagdish Kumar Gulati vs CIT 269 ITR 71 (Allahabad) 14 HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, JAIPUR VS PR. CIT-1, JAIPUR Duggal & Co. 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) K. A. Rama Swami Chettiar vs CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad) (b) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tara Devi Agarwal vs. CIT [(1973) 88 ITR 323] in which Hon'ble court stated that where a stereotype order is passed, which simply accepts what the assessee has said in the return and fails to make enquiries which are called for in the circumstances of the case, the commissioner is justified in holdin…

M/S Kinnor Kinnoree, Kolkata vs. CIT-X, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/KOL/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

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

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

…ke an enquiry as expected, that would be a ground for the Commissioners to interfere with the order passed by the Officer since such an order passed by the Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. (K.A Rarnaswamy Chettiar V. CIT(1996) 220 ITR 657, 665 (Mad). In the Supreme Court case 243 ITR 83, 88,-89, the CIT noted that the ITO passed the order of Nil assessment without application of mind. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the High Court has rightly held that the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263 was justified. In CIT V. Active Traders (P) Ltd.…

Om Prakash Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 204/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us. In This Appeal The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Saraswat (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

…ng Officer to make a fresh assessment - Held, yes Case law is not applicable upon the facts of the assessee as the detailed inquiries were made by AO 3. K A Assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 - RamaswamiChettiar Whether Explanation to section 263(1), which 220 ITR 657 (Madras) was introduced by Finance Act, 1988 with effect from 1-6-1988 would be applicable even prior to 1-6-1988 - Held, yes Case law is not applicable upon the facts of the assessee 1.8 Appellant relies upon the following landmark judgements by Hon’ble Supreme Court which have laid the law/clarified the law of Section 263: 1.8.1 Malabar Indus…