Salora International Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

2 SOT 705Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#5076 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68 Section 11 Section 11(1)(a)Section 115BBE

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiry revision u/s 263 prejudicial to interest of revenue section 263(1)revision under section 263 lack of enquiry malabar industrial assessment order erroneous mere change of opinion erroneous and prejudicial section 119 change of opinion

Judgments citing Salora International Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…ted 17th July 2020 held that there is no concept of “partial application of mind” by the AO and there could either be application of mind or non-application of mind (iv) Delhi Tribunal Special Bench in the case of Salors International Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2005] 2 SOT 705 (Delhi) (Trib.). It was held that “Merely because from a perfectionist point of view, it is felt that some more enquires and verification could have been made by the AO, assessment order cannot be declared to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.” Thus, in view of above the observation made by your goodself in para 4 of the show…

ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 263

…Coach Body Builders [2006] 10 SOT 736 (Delhi)\n9.\nCIT vs. Mohd. Ishaq Mohd. Gulam 276 ITR 13 (MP)\n10.\nCIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 152 Taxman 242 (Raj), 296 ITR\n292\n11.\nBalram Manmani vs. ACIT 7 SOT 368 (Lucknow ITAT)\n12.\nSalora International vs. ACIT 02 SOT 705 (Delhi Tribunal)\n13.\nCIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj)\n14.\nACIT vs. Technip Italy Spa [2006] 150 Taxman 13 (Delhi\nTribunal)\n15.\nAntala Sanjaykumar Rasvjibhai vs. CIT [2012] 135 ITD 506\n(Rajkot Tribunal)\n16.\nVijay Kumar Megotia vs. CIT [2010] 3 ITR (T) 760 (Patna\nTribunal)\n17.\nRoshan Lal Vegetable Products (P) Ltd. vs. Income T…

HARIRAM HOSPITAL,ALWAR vs. PCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1535/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…Sio Shri Dungar. And Sh. Mahadev Balai v. CIT, Jaipur II and the ITO. Ward 7(2) (2017] 11 TMI 1822, Raj. HC 5 ELLORA INFRATECH PVT LTD VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-03, 2023 (10) TMI 773 ITAT DELHI, 6 Salora International Ltd. v. Add CIT (2005) 2 SOT 705 (Delhi) (Trib.) 7 GANPATI INTERNATIONAL VERSUS THE PCIT-III LUDHIANA, 2023 (3) TMI 1231 ITAT Indore 8 M/S Hari Om Stones. C/o Sh. Om Prakash v. Pr. CIT Alwar [2018] 4 TMI 393- ITAT Jaipur 9 CIT vs. Varinder Rawlley, ITA NO. 218 OF 2007, Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana’’ It is noted by the ld. PCIT in her order that ld. counsels of the asses…

SHREE AURO IRON LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 263Section 48

…s and verifications could have been made by the AO,\nassessment order cannot be declared to be erroneous and prejudicial to the\ninterests of revenue as held by Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal Special Bench in the case\nof Salora International Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2005] 2 SOT 705\nLd. PCIT had relied upon following case laws to support the invocation of\nSection 263 (as mentioned on para No. 10 on page No. 13 of the order dated\n30/03/2024)\nCitation of the Case\nFactual Matrix and whether applicable upon the\nfacts of the appellant\nWhether applicable on the facts of assessee:\n1\nMalabar\nIndustrial\nLimited Vs.\nIndustri…

M/S. ANABOND LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI-1

In the result, all the grounds appeal raised by the assesse are allowed

ITA 1625/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1625/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2018-19 M/S. Anabond Limited The Principal Commissioner Of Type-Ii, 36, Dr. V.S.I. Estate Income Tax-1 Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai Chennai-600041. [Pan: Aacca4158Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Nilay Baran Som, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35Section 5Section 80I

…mann.com 109 (Madras), Buharia Holdings (P.) Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner CIT v. Jain Construction Co [2013] 34 taxmann.com 84 (Rajasthan of Income- tax* , Company Circle-1(2) [2011] 12 taxmann.com 192 (Chennai), Salora International Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2005] 2 SOT 705 (Delhi) (Trib.), Baljees v. ACIT [2003] 127 Taxman 150 (Mag.) (Chd.) (Trib.). In the present case, during the scrutiny assessment, the AO has applied his mind and came to a conclusion that the apportionment of R&D expenditure incurred by the assessee company to Amingaon, Assam Unit is not required as there is no nexus between the R&D expenditure in…

ADVERTISING AGENCIES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION ), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

ITA 2370/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: ShriAmol Kirtane (CIT-DR.)

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 2370/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) Advertising Agencies vs Commissioner of Income tax, Association of India Exemption, Mumbai 6TH Floor, Cumballa Hill MTNL, TE B-502, Marathon Futurex, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Mumbai, 400013 G.D.Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai. PAN: AAATA5800E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Nishit Gandhi, CA Respondent by : ShriAmol Kirtane (CIT-DR.) Date of hearing : 10/07/2024 Date of pronou…

M/S JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK, ,KHARGONE vs. ACIT-2, INDORE

In the result the appeals of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 496/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaatj0529K Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Date Of Hearing 29.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05.06.2024 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…has not given elaborate finding the assessment order cannot be declared to be erroneous and prejudice to the interest of the revenue. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of Delhi Bench in the case of Solora International Ltd V/s Addl. CIT 2 SOT 705. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V/s Nirav Modi 71 Taxman.com 272. Ld. AR has then referred to the computation of income placed at page No.8 of the synopsis and submitted that the assessee has made suo-moto disallowance in respect of LAN networking and electrical expenses of Rs.27,19,000/- and therefo…

JAI INTERNATIONAL,UDAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 23/JODH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: The Date Of Hearing. 4. That The Hon’Ble Pcit Has Not Given Any Specific Instance About Rejecting The Details Submitted By Us In Response To Their Query. 5. That The Hon’Ble Pcit Has Not Given Any Specific Reason/Speaking Order Contradicting Case Laws Submitted By Us. The Hon’Ble Pcit Only Says That The Facts Are Different.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…at some more enquiries and verifications could have been made by the AO, assessment order cannot be declared to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue [Delhi Tribunal Special Bench in the case of Salora International Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2005] 2 SOT 705 (Delhi) (Trib.)] The decision of the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous simply because in his order not make an elaborate discussion in that regard. In ABCAUS Case Law Citation ABCAUS 3597 (2022) (05) ITAT, it was held that if neither the query nor the answers were reflected in the assessment order, this would not by itself lead to t…

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2, NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT – 2, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

…CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishonoi: 152 Taxman 242 (Raj.) /198 CTR 546 (Raj.) • CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers: 270 ITR 157 (MP) • CIT vs. Associated Food Profits (P) Ltd: 280 ITR 377 (MP) 12 Girnar Software Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. • Salora International Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT: 2 SOT 705 (Delhi) • Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT: 131 Taxman 32 (Delhi) (Mag.) • Shivam Leasing & Finance Ltd. vs. ITO: 68 Taxman 211 (Delhi) (Mag.) • Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd. vs. ITO: 28 ITD 231 (Delhi) • Baljees vs. ACIT: 85 TTJ 543 (Chd.) / 127 Taxman 150 (Chd.) (Mag.) • Mrs. Katiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO: 100 ITD 173(Mum.) • Balra…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’B’ JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 204/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke Om Prakash Agarwal Principal Commissioner of Vs. 256, Chhoti Chaupar, Income Tax, Jaipur-1, Jaipur. Jaipur-302003. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABWPA 2846 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Praveen Saraswat (C.A.)…

M/S BASTI WINE CO. (ENGLISH),KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

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

ITA 683/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 263

…y was required such enquiry should have been conducted by the revisionary authority himself to record finding that assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. In Salora International Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT [2005] 2 SOT 705 (Del) the Tribunal held that merely because from a preferential point of view it is appreent that some more enquiry and verification could have been made by the Assessing Officer while making assessment order cannot be declared to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas…

M/S. ASARIA LALJI VADOR,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -7, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 559/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blem/S. Asaria Lalji Vador V. Office Of Pcit – 27 C-21, Mahavir Jyot Room No. 401, 4Th Floor Opp. Odeon Shopping Centre Tower No. 6 Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai -400077 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Pan: Aabpv0149A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pradip Kapasi Department By : Ms. Shailja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Pradip KapasiFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

…T v. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC) vi. Grasim Industries Ltd. V. CIT, 321 ITR 92 7 M/s. Asaria Lalji Vador vii. Sutures India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT 431 ITR 432 (Kar.) viii. Delhi Tribunal Special Bench in the case of Salora International Ltd. v. Ad. CIT [2005] 2 SOT 705 (Delhi)(Trib.)] ix. PCIT vs. V. Dhana Reddy & Co. — [2018] 100 taxmann.com (SC) x. CIT vs. International Society For Krishna Consciousness - [2020] 117 taxmann.com 799 (Kar) h. Where the assessee has adopted the only view permissible in law and the AO has accepted the same, the order of the AO does not become erroneous and prejudicial to the intere…

M/S BASTI WINE CO. (ENGLISH),KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR

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

ITA 409/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14 M/S Basti Wine Co. (English), Vs. Pr.C.I.T.-I, 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Kanpur. Pan:Aaaab4224A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

M/S DSIIDC LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT-03, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2674/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801Section 80I

…pon the following decisions:- 1. Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO[2016] 70 Taxmann 227 (Mumbai-Trib.) 2. CIT v. Ashish Rajpal [2009] 320ITR 674 (Delhi) (HC) 3. CIT v. Vikas Polymers [2010] 194 Taxmann 57 (Delhi) (HC) 4. Salora International Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [2005] 2 SOT 705 (Delhi) (Trib.) 5. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) 6. CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills [2008] 296 ITR 238 (P&H) (HC) 7. CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (HC) 8. CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. 333 ITR 547 (Delhi) (HC) 9. Surinder Kumar Jain v. ITO, (Delhi Trib.), I.T.A. No. 2481 / DEL /2014 7. The Ld. DR submitted t…

M/S DSIIDC LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT-03, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2673/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801Section 80I

VISHAL KUMAR MANSINGHKA,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6/VNS/2021[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi01 Sept 2021AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2017-18 Vishal Kumar Mansinghka V. The Principal Cit B-38/47, K-8, Gokul Nagar Allahabad Motijhil, Mahmoorganj Varanasi Tan/Pan:Ajcpm34548 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri V. K. Jindal, C.A. Respondent By: Smt. Abha Kala Chanda, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 08 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 01 09 2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Jindal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Abha Kala Chanda, CIT (DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VARANASI CIRCUIT BENCH, VARANASI [Through Virtual Hearing] BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vishal Kumar Mansinghka v. The Principal CIT B-38/47, K-8, Gokul Nagar Allahabad Motijhil, Mahmoorganj Varanasi TAN/PAN:AJCPM34548 (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri V. K. Jindal, C.A. Respondent by: Smt. Abha Kala Chanda, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 12 08 2021 Date of pronouncement: 01 09 2021 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. Pr. CIT, Varanasi, dated 03…

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

ITA 493/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jul 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…of view, it is felt that some more enquiries and verifications could have been made by Assessing Officer while making assessment/assessment order cannot be declared to be erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. Salora International Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 2 SOT 705 (Delhi) (Trib.); b. When the Asseessing Officer takes one of the two views permissible in law and which the Commissioner does not agree with and which results in a loss of revenue, it cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue, unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is completely unsustainable in law. CIT v.…

KISAN STEEL CORPORATION,GHAZIABAD vs. PR. CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5362/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri JayMishra, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…s held that section 263 is not intended for change of opinion and cannot be invoked to take a different view from subordinate officer. He also relied on the following decisions : 1. Ganpat Rai Bishnoi 152 Taxman 242 (Raj.) 2. Salora International Ltd. (2005) 2 SOT 705 (Del.) 3. Super Casseete Industries Pvt. Ltd. 41 ITD 530 (Del) 4. Jhulelal Land Development Corporation 56 ITD 345 (BOM) 5. CIT vs. Krishna Capbox (P) Ltd. 372 ITR 310 (All.) 6. DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del) 7. Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy 100 ITD 173 (MUM) 14. Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. PCIT. He sub…

M/S.SUPRAS METALS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(3)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1395/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1395/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Poddar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…Supras Metals Ltd. AO is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. > CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [2015] 55 taxmann.com 514 (Bombay) > CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma [2010] 194 Taxman 504 (Delhi) > Salora international Ltd. v ACIT [2005] 2 SOT 705 (Delhi) 3.2 The Assessee has further relied on the following judgments wherein it is held that after examining the details the Assessing Officer has taken a view, which is a possible view then it cannot be treated that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and CIT cannot assume revisi…

JSW STEEL LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4086/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Saikja

Section 132Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 80I

…e on sale of CER that Ld AO has made requisite enquiries on all the issues, there cannot be an occasion to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 for lack of enquiry by AO. It has been held by Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Salora International Ltd vs Addl CIT [2 SOT 705] that merely because from a perfectionist point of view, it is felt that some more enquiries and verifications could have been made by assessing officer while making assessment/ assessment order cannot be declared be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 35. Moreover, there are various judgements wherein it has been held that the s…

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2