Revenue (K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar v. CIT

AMBUJA CEMENTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

…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

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

…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

…1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC)that in a stereo-\ntyped order which simply accepts what the assessee has stated\nand fails to make enquiries which are called for in the\ncircumstances is erroneous. In another order in the case of K.A.\nRamaswami Chettiar Vs. CIT (1966) 220 ITR 657 (Mad), it was\nalso held that the officer is expected to make an inquiry of a\nparticular item of income and if he does not make an inquiry\nas expected, that would be a ground to interfere u/s 263 as\nsuch an order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous and\nprejudicial to the interest of revenue.\n6.5 In the case of PVS Multiplex India Lt…

JABEEN TRADELINK PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-4, MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy S

…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…

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

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.”

…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…