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

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

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

ITA 43/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…

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

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

ITA 42/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…

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

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

ITA 41/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…

Kritika Wires Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.C.I.T.-2, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 709/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15

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 (Del) Gee Vee Enterprises (1966) 220 ITR 657 (Mad) K.A. Ramaswami Cheettiar & Another (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Del) 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. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) - CIT vs.Max India Ltd. 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT…

M/S Chengmari Tea Co. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 812/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Years: 2014-15

Section 115JSection 263Section 33A

…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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court and in accordance with the amendment made to Section 263 of the' Act' with effect from 01.06.2015. I hold that the impugned assessment order dated 18.10.2016 passed by the A.O. is erroneous in s…

Bengal Steel Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 11(3), Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 699/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 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). 6. I have carefully considered the material available on record and found that the issues pointed out in the show cause needs verification as merely accepting submission without calling for relevant material / evidences during the course of assessment proceedings the A.O. failed to examine the above referred issue. After having considered the p…

M/S. La Opala RG Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Range - 12, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 559/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80ISection 80l

…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 (K.A. RamaswamyChettiar V. CIT, (1996) 220 ITR 657). 6. I have carefully considered the submission made on behalf of the assessee and perused the material available on record and found that the issues pointed out in the show cause needs verification as merely accepting' submission without calling for relevant material/evidences during the course of assessment proceedings the A.O. failed to examin…

Ankush Garg, Rohtak vs. CIT, Rohtak

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

ITA 2287/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(3)Section 263

…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 will the officer is accepted 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. On considering the entire facts of the cas…

Mohd. Momineen Qureshi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 46(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee dismissed

ITA 1987/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kakkar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…nt on the officer to investigate the facts stated in the return. The order becomes erroneous if such an 8 ITA.No.1987/Del./2018 & S.A.No.261/Del./2018 Mohd. Momineen Qureshi, New Delhi. enquiry has not been made as held, in case of Duggal & Co, vs. CIT (1996) 220 ITR 657 (Del.). If officer is expected to make an enquiry of a particular item of income and he does not make enquiry as expected, order passed by officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, as held in case of K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar vs CIT (1996) 220 ITR 456 (Mad.) In view of these facts and position of law, the assessment order is…

Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd., Baroda vs. The Pr. CIT, Vadodara-1, Baroda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 468/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.468/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

…view that the A.O. has failed to make proper enquiries, examine the records and appreciate the facts and the law while completing the assessment. Gujarat State Electricity Corp. Ltd. vs. Pr.CIT-I Asst.Year – 2008-09 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 of the ITO, since such an order passed by the ITO is erroneous and prejudicial…

S Latha, Kovilpagtti vs. ITO Ward 2, Tutitcorin

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

ITA 1820/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1819/Chny/2018 $नधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri S.Sekar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.1203/6, Rajivnagar, 6Th St., Ward-2, Kovilpatti-628 501. Tuticorin. [Pan: Apups 9551 B] (अपीलाथ(/Appellant) ()*यथ(/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1820/Chny/2018 $नधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

…o him, failure of the AO to do so, rendered the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Reliance ITA No.1819/Chny/2018 & :- 4 -: was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of K.A.Ramasamy Chettiar Vs. CIT (1996) 220 ITR 657. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below carefully. It is not disputed that in both the assessee’s cases Shri S.Sekar & Smt.S.Latha, original assessments were completed u/s.143(1) of the Act, and these were later re-opened. Reasons for such re-opening mentioned in the Assessment Order of Shri S.Sek…

S Sekar, Kovilpatti vs. ITO Ward 4, Tuticorin

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA No

ITA 1819/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1819/Chny/2018 $नधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri S.Sekar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.1203/6, Rajivnagar, 6Th St., Ward-2, Kovilpatti-628 501. Tuticorin. [Pan: Apups 9551 B] (अपीलाथ(/Appellant) ()*यथ(/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1820/Chny/2018 $नधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

…o him, failure of the AO to do so, rendered the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Reliance ITA No.1819/Chny/2018 & :- 4 -: was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of K.A.Ramasamy Chettiar Vs. CIT (1996) 220 ITR 657. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below carefully. It is not disputed that in both the assessee’s cases Shri S.Sekar & Smt.S.Latha, original assessments were completed u/s.143(1) of the Act, and these were later re-opened. Reasons for such re-opening mentioned in the Assessment Order of Shri S.Sek…

Sh. Nittan Aneja, Sbs Nagar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, both the assessee’s appeal and the Revenue’s C

ITA 288/ASR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 288/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Joshi (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…Tarajan Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [1994] 205 ITR 45 (Gau); CIT vs. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal); CIT vs. Mahavar Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); CIT v. Everest Cold Storage [1996] 220 ITR 241 (MP); K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar vs. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 657 (Mad); CIT v. Kohinoor Tobacco Products (P.) Ltd. [1998] 234 ITR 557 (MP); Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 867 (Mad); CIT vs. Export House [2002] 256 ITR 603 (P&H); CIT vs. Arunaben Sumankumar [2003] 259 ITR 386 (Guj); Pt. Lashkari Ram vs. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 309 (All); CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP)…

Lally Motors India Pvt. Ltd, Jalandhar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 218/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 218(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Sameer Bhatia (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D. R.)
Section 119Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…Vegetable Products vs. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 412 (All); Tarajan Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [1994] 205 ITR 45 (Gau); CIT vs. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal); CIT vs. Mahavar Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar vs. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 657 6 ITA No.218 (Asr)/2017(AY 2012-13) Lally Motors India P. Ltd. v. Pr.CIT (Mad); Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 867 (Mad); CIT vs. Export House [2002] 256 ITR 603 (P&H); CIT vs. Arunaben Sumankumar [2003] 259 ITR 386 (Guj); Pt. Lashkari Ram vs. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 309 (All); CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Garg [2008] 299 ITR…

Shri Abhimanyu Gupta, Patiala vs. Pr. CIT, Patiala

ITA 771/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj
Section 263

…rprises Vs. Addl. CIT & Ors 99 ITR 375 (Del) that not making an inquiry warranted on the facts of a case will make the assessment order erroneous. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of K.A. Ramswamy Chettiar & Anr Vs. CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad.). Therefore, the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act for the A.Y. 2012-13 in your case is erroneous in as much as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. " Shri Abhimanyu Gupta Assessment Year: 2012-13 6 4.1 The case of the assessee has been that the submissions advanced before the Pr. CIT demonstrates that i…

M/S Mahakali Developers & Resorts (P) Ltd, Patiala vs. Pr. CIT, Patiala

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1324/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok GoyalFor Respondent: Sh. Manu Malik
Section 142(1)Section 263

…) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court have held in that not making an inquiry warranted on the fact of a case will make the assessment order erroneous. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of K.A. Ramswamy Chettiar & 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 reads as under:- “For the purpose of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, if…

Sea Horse Hospitals Pvt. Ltd., Trichy vs. Principal CIT, Trichy

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 845/CHNY/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jun 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Chandra Poojari] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 845/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2007-2008. M/S. Sea Horse Hospitals Vs. The Principal Commissioner Pvt. Ltd Of Income Tax, (Presently Kmc Specialty Trichy -1 Hospital I Ltd) 6, Royal Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirapallai 620 001. [Pan Aadcs 0189E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. M.M. Bhusari, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 154

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी चं" पूजार", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No. 845/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2007-2008. M/s. Sea Horse Hospitals Vs. The Principal Commissioner Pvt. Ltd of Income Tax, (Presently KMC Specialty Trichy -1 Hospital I Ltd) 6, Royal Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirapallai 620 001. [PAN AADCS 0189E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri.…

Ayyazuddin J, Khan, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT- 22

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2881/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2881/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ayyazuddin J. Khan Ito-22(3)-1, Block No. 103, Aggarwal Upavan, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway बनाम/ Plot No. 11, Sector – 19, Nerul, Station, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 706 Navi Mumbai-400 073 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Atxpk 4365 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kishore K. Poddar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri H. N. Singh

For Appellant: Shri Kishore K. PoddarFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 263

…p Vegetable Products vs. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 412 (All); Tarajan Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [1994] 205 ITR 45 (Gau); CIT vs. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal); CIT vs. Mahavar Traders[1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar vs. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 657 (Mad); Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 867 (Mad.); CIT vs. Export House, Amritsar [2002] 256 ITR 603 (P&H); PT. Lashkari Ram vs. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 309 (All.); CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT vs. Toyota Motor Corpn. [2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del) (affirmed by the apex court, vide its judgment at [2008]…

M/S. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5677/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 105Section 106Section 10BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…lowing decisions. i) Rampyari Dev Saraogi v. CIT, [1968] 67 ITR 84(SC); ii) Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT, [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC); iii) Duggal & Co. v. CIT, 220 ITR 456, 459 (Del.); iv) CIT v. Pushpandevi, 164 ITR 639 (Pat.); and v) K A Ramaswamy Chettiar v. CIT, 220 ITR 657, 665 (Mad). I, therefore, set-aside the assessment order passed by the AO. He is directed to make fresh assessment after examining the applicability of provisions of section 10B(6)(i) of the I.T. Act read with provisions of Sec.14A of the I.T. Act with reference to the directions pertaining to Century Yarn unit and/or Century Denim unit. Before…

M/S. Century Textiles and Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. The ACIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 4875/MUM/2008[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2016AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 105Section 106Section 10BSection 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…lowing decisions. i) Rampyari Dev Saraogi v. CIT, [1968] 67 ITR 84(SC); ii) Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT, [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC); iii) Duggal & Co. v. CIT, 220 ITR 456, 459 (Del.); iv) CIT v. Pushpandevi, 164 ITR 639 (Pat.); and v) K A Ramaswamy Chettiar v. CIT, 220 ITR 657, 665 (Mad). I, therefore, set-aside the assessment order passed by the AO. He is directed to make fresh assessment after examining the applicability of provisions of section 10B(6)(i) of the I.T. Act read with provisions of Sec.14A of the I.T. Act with reference to the directions pertaining to Century Yarn unit and/or Century Denim unit. Before…