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.

67

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

Issues it is cited on

assessment order erroneoussection 263(1)malabar industrialrevision under section 263lack of enquiryerroneous and prejudicialsection 119chief commissionersection 263section 26section 92casection 92c

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

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Holdings Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 263

…y the AO would render the assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial 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. K.A. Rama Swami Chettiar vs CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad) 9. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons discussed above, the assessment order dated 27-12-2019 for A.Y. 2017-18 passed by the 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 Assess…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Food Industries Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Incometax-1, Jaipur

ITA 191/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us On The Following Grounds In This Appeal;

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…f Deniel Merchants P. Ltd. & others Vs. ITO. He also relied upon the decision of M/s. Gee Vee Enterprise 99 ITR 375 Delhi High Court, Jagdish Kumar Gulati Vs. CIT 269 ITR 71 (Allahabad HC), Duggal & co. 220 ITR 456(Delhi), K. A. Ramaswami Cehttiar Vs. CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad). 8. On merits the ld. AR of the assessee submitted before us that his detailed submission which is extracted here in below : “Facts: The assessee, a Private Limited Company. The main object of the company is of Manufacturing and Marketing of Dairy products. The source of income of the assesse during the year under consideration is intere…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 190/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 263

…y the AO would render the assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial 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. K.A. Rama Swami Chettiar vs CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad) 9. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons discussed above, the assessment order dated 27-12-2019 for A.Y. 2017-18 passed by the 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 Assess…

Anup Enterprises, Mumbai vs. The Principal CIT-19, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 1641/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalanup Enterprises, 41, 4Th Floor, Neelkamal, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026 Pan: Aaafa5067D ...... Appellant Vs. The Pr.Cit-19, Room No. 228, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai-400007 ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-19, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Ld. Pr.Cit) Dated 22.03.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 263Section 263(1)Section 3

…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, 665 (Mad)]. The above referred judgments are now explicit in the section itself and the judgments which state that once inquiry is made, the order is insulated from provision of s. 263 will no longer be applicable by virtue of Explanation 2 to Section 263 inserted w.e.f. 01-06-2015.” 14. Considering the facts of the case, the law discussed above…

Neelam Medatwal, Jaipur vs. Pcti-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 62/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…he AO would render the assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests 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. K.Am Rama Swami Chettiar vs. CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad.) 1. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tara Devi Agarwal vs. CIT [(1973) 88 ITR 323] in which Hon’ble CCourt stated that where a stereotype order is passed, which simply accepts what the assessee has said in the return and falls to make enquiries which are called for in the circumstances of the case the commissioner is justified in holdin…

Mahalaxmi Kundan Meena Diamond Jewellers P Ltd, Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jaipur

ITA 119/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Avdesh Kumar (CIT)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…the AO would render the assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial 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. K.A. Rama Swami Chettiar vs CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad.) 12. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons discussed above, the assessment order dated 25-12-2019 for A.Y. 2017-18 passed by the 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 Asses…

Visa Power Limited, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 829/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम Visa Power Limited P.C.I.T-4, Kolkata-700 069 Visa House, V/S. 8/10 Alipore Road, Kolkata-700 027. Pan: Aaccv-1853-D अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member and Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम Visa Power Limited P.C.I.T-4, Kolkata-700 069 Visa House, V/s. 8/10 Alipore Road, Kolkata-700 027. PAN: AACCV-1853-D अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By None Appellant/Assessee ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Shri Tushal Dhawal Singh, CIT/Ld.DR Respondent/Department सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 09-06-2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date 13 -06 -2022 of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. This appeal of the assess…

True Sparrow Sysytem Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Vadodara

In the result, we hold that the Ld

ITA 765/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Tuhsar Hemani, Sr. A.R. with Shri Anil R. Shah, C.A. &For Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal, CIT-D.R
Section 10ASection 10BSection 263Section 56F

…the Act at the time of assessment proceedings. 7. In view of the above discussion the order is seen to have been passed by not making proper enquiries, examining the records and without appreciating the provisions. 8. In the case of K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar (220 ITR 657) the Hon'ble Madras High Court has held that when 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 the Commissioner of Income Tax to interfere U/s. 263 with the order passed by the ITO, since such an order passed by the ITO is erroneous and prejudicial…

L/H Late Shri Arvindbhai Narsinhbhai Patel (Shri Pareshbhai Patel), Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

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

ITA 385/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, SR. Adv., with ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 54B

…two are contradictory with each other since the amount of cash was not out of the capital gain account. 8. In this regard, the Ld. PCIT has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of K. A. Ramaswamy Chettiar, reported in 220 ITR 657 and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Swarup Vegetable Products vs. CIT, reported in (1990) 187 ITR 412 (All) which is also found to be proper and relevant to the issue involved before us. 9. We do not find any iota of evidence submitted by the assessee before the Revenue during the reopening proceeding under…

Doraiswamy Suresh (HUF), Coimbatore vs. PCIT-1, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 609/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.609/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Doraiswamy Suresh (Huf), Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 4, Ramalinga Adigalar Nagar, Income Tax, Nehru Nagar, Kalapatti, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore-641 014. Coimbatore. Pan: Aaihd 1367H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. M.Rajan, CIT &
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी.दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी.मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम% BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.609/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Doraiswamy Suresh (HUF), Vs Assistant Commissioner of 4, Ramalinga Adigalar Nagar, Income Tax, Nehru Nagar, Kalapatti, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore-641 014. Coimbatore. PAN: AAIHD 1367H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. D.Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. M.Ra…

Jaydeep J Patel (HUF), Nadiad vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 312/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vartik R. Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Arti, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…erification. 7. The issues in the light of the in the preceding paras need to be verified. In view of the discussion the order is to have been passed by the Officer without enquiries, & verification of material on record. 8. In the of K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar (220 ITR 657) the Hon'ble Madras Court held when the ITO is to make an enquiry of a particular item of income if he does not make an enquiry as expected, that would be a ground for the Commissioner of Income to interfere U/s.263 with the by the ITO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue 3.1 In the of case of Swarup Vegetable Products vs.…

Alps Liesure Holiday Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 1406/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Us. We Have Noted That Despite

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Atri, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…t examine the submission with reference to the credit made to the capital work in progress. In the absence of the same, the credit to capital work in progress was unexplained and liable to be added U/s. 68 of the Act 5. In the case of K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar (220 ITR 657) the Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that when 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 the Commissioner of Income Tax to interfere U/s,263 with the order passed by the ITO, since such an order passed by the ITO is erroneous and prejudicial…

Sh. Gurbachan Singh Brar, Moga vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Moga

ITA 207/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 263(1)

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar Before : Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 204 to 205/Asr/2017 Assessment Year2010-11 V.S. ITO, Ward – 2 Smt Surinder Kaur Brar D/o. Sh. Pal Singh Moga C/o. Brar Motors, Moga Road Baghanpurana, Distt. Moga PAN:ACWPB4197M (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 206/Asr/2017 Assessment Year2010-11 V.S. ITO, Ward – 2 Sh. Santokh Singh Brar Prop. M/s. EssEss Filling Station Moga C/o. Brar Motors, Moga Road Baghanpurana, Distt. Moga PAN:ADBPB2312A (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 207/Asr/2017 Assessment Ye…

Sh. Santokh Singh Brar, Moga vs. ITO, Ward - 2, Moga

ITA 206/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 263(1)

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar Before : Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 204 to 205/Asr/2017 Assessment Year2010-11 V.S. ITO, Ward – 2 Smt Surinder Kaur Brar D/o. Sh. Pal Singh Moga C/o. Brar Motors, Moga Road Baghanpurana, Distt. Moga PAN:ACWPB4197M (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 206/Asr/2017 Assessment Year2010-11 V.S. ITO, Ward – 2 Sh. Santokh Singh Brar Prop. M/s. EssEss Filling Station Moga C/o. Brar Motors, Moga Road Baghanpurana, Distt. Moga PAN:ADBPB2312A (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 207/Asr/2017 Assessment Ye…

Biz Secure Labs Private Limited, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Pune

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

ITA 1406/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1406/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman JainFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…m to examination would not make a view of the Assessing Officer. A view has necessarily been preceded by the examination and opting to choose one of the possible views. The same view has been taken in the case of K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar Vs. CIT reported in 220 ITR 657 (Mad) wherein it was held as under : “25. When an officer is expected to make inquiry of a particular item of income and if he does not make any inquiry as expected, that would be a ground 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.” A…

Satish Kumar Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 260/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as decided in the following cases by various courts: (1968) 67 ITR 84(SC) Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi (1973) 88 ITR 323(SC) Tara Devi Aggarwal (1975) 99 ITR 375(Delhi) Gee Vee enterprises (1966) 220 ITR 657 (Mad) K.A. Ramaswami Chettiar & Another (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] -…

Ravish Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 47/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…e assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as decided in the following cases by various courts: (1968) 67 ITR 84(SC) Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi (1973) 88 ITR 323(SC) Tara Devi Aggarwal (1975) 99 ITR 375(Delhi) Gee Vee enterprises (1966) 220 ITR 657 (Mad) K.A. Ramaswami Chettiar & Another (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT…

Rachit Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 46/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…e assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as decided in the following cases by various courts: (1968) 67 ITR 84(SC) Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi (1973) 88 ITR 323(SC) Tara Devi Aggarwal (1975) 99 ITR 375(Delhi) Gee Vee enterprises (1966) 220 ITR 657 (Mad) K.A. Ramaswami Chettiar & Another (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT…

Jaikishan Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 45/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…e assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as decided in the following cases by various courts: (1968) 67 ITR 84(SC) Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi (1973) 88 ITR 323(SC) Tara Devi Aggarwal (1975) 99 ITR 375(Delhi) Gee Vee enterprises (1966) 220 ITR 657 (Mad) K.A. Ramaswami Chettiar & Another (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT…

Reeta Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 44/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…e assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as decided in the following cases by various courts: (1968) 67 ITR 84(SC) Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi (1973) 88 ITR 323(SC) Tara Devi Aggarwal (1975) 99 ITR 375(Delhi) Gee Vee enterprises (1966) 220 ITR 657 (Mad) K.A. Ramaswami Chettiar & Another (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT…