Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works v. CIT T19981

143 CTR 406Supreme Court of India1997#11106 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 194ASection 263Section 272A(1)(d)Section 57(iii)

Judgments citing Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works v. CIT T19981

Manju Rakesh Jain, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2280/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 57

…re Packing Products & Camphor 12. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works Vs CIT [1998] 96 Taxman 1 (SC)/[1998] 231 ITR 53 Works Vs CIT [1998] 96 Taxman 1 (SC)/[1998] 231 ITR 53 Works Vs CIT [1998] 96 Taxman 1 (SC)/[1998] 231 ITR 53 (SC)/[1997] 143 CTR 406 (SC) (SC)/[1997] 143 CTR 406 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that word 'record' used in Hon'ble Supreme Court held that word 'record' used in Hon'ble Supreme Court held that word 'record' used in section 263(1) would m section 263(1) would mean records as it stands at time of ean records as it stands at time of examination by Commissioner but not…

Shri Sham Sunder Aggarwal, Kapurthala vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Kaputhala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee, ITA

ITA 410/ASR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. J. S. Bhasin, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chandrajit Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 263

…CTR 512] 9 Sham Sunder Aggarwal v. Pr. CIT 4. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. v. PCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC)/[2017] 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 5. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Comphor Works v. CIT [1998] 96 Taxman 1 (SC)/1998] 231 ITR 53 (SC)/[1997] 143 CTR 406 (SC) 6. Surya Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT I.T.A. No. 2158/DEL/2017) ITAT Delhi 7. Surya Financial Services Ltd. v. PCIT I.T.A. No. 2158/DEL/2017) ITAT Delhi 8. Crompton Greaves Ltd. v. CIT-6, Mumbai [2017] 82 taxmann.com 246 (Mumbai – Trib.) 9. In discussion about the assessment order, prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, the ld. cou…

Rutvi Oilfields Services Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. Pr. CIT, Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3291/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

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

…ITA No. 3291/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3291/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2014-15) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) M/s Rutvi Oilfields Services Pvt. Vs Principal Commissioner of Ltd. Income Tax, Gurgaon 327/3, Prem Nagar, HSIIDC Bldg., Vanijya Opposite Haryana Roadways, Nikunj, Gurgaon – 122022 Udyog Vihar, Phase –V, Haryana Gurgaon – 122 016 AAECR0637B Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. K. Sampath, Advocate; Respondent by Ms. Parmita M. Biswas, [CIT] – D.R. Date o…

Shri Gurvinder Singh Suri, New Delhi vs. Pr CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2644/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2644/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Gurvinder Singh Suri, Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Tax (Central)-1, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaps8291D Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Sushma Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.05.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 119Section 263Section 263(1)Section 57

…on account of premium, exercise of revisionary powers by Commissioner opining that this could be a case of money laundering was justified. 5. Shree Maniunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works Vs CIT [1998] 96 Taxman 1 (SC)/[1998] 231 ITR 53 (SC)/[1997] 143 CTR 406 (SC) Hon’ble Supreme Court held that word 'record' used in section 263(1) would mean records as it stands at time of examination by Commissioner but not as it stands at time of order passed by Assessing Officer. Material which had already come on record though subsequently to making of assessment could be taken into consideration by Commissioner…

Klaxon Trading (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Central- 3, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7265/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 7265/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14) M/S Klaxon Trading (P.) Ltd., Vs Pcit, Warehouse A-97B, Khasra Central – 3, No.50/4, New Delhi Behind Friends Dharam Kanta Shahbad Daulatpur, New Delhi – 110 042 (Pan : Aaack 3487 E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 263

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 7265/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2013-14) M/s Klaxon Trading (P.) Ltd., Vs PCIT, Warehouse A-97B, Khasra Central – 3, No.50/4, New Delhi Behind Friends Dharam Kanta Shahbad Daulatpur, New Delhi – 110 042 (PAN : AAACK 3487 E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. Respondent by Shri G. Johnson, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 09.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement 27.01.2020 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed…

Ashok Kumar Sinha, Ghaziabad vs. Prcit, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3615/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 263

…hmi Vilas Bank Vs JCIT (2018-TIOL-2284-HC-MAD-IT) 10. CIT Vs Amitabh Bachhan (69 taxmann.com 170, 240 Taxman 221, 384 ITR 200, 286 CTR 113) 11. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works Vs CIT [1998] 96 Taxman 1 (SC)/(1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC)/[1997] 143 CTR 406 (SC) 12. EIMCO K.C.P. Ltd. Vs CIT (109 Taxman 151, 242 ITR 659, 159 CTR 137) (SC) 13. CIT Vs Jaykumar B. Patil (236 ITR 469, 156 CTR 476) (SC) 14. Shoreline Hotel (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT [2018] 98 taxmann.com 234 (Bombay) 15. CIT Vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bombay) 16. CIT Vs Ashok Logani (11 taxmann.com 208. 202 Taxman 201, 3…

Ramesh Kumar Goyal HUF, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1983/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaidr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar Ito, H.No.467, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…um on account of premium, exercise of revisionary powers by Commissioner opining that this could be a case of money laundering was justified 5. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works Vs CIT T19981 96 Taxman 1 (SC)/ri9981 231 ITR 53 (SC)/f19971 143 CTR 406 (SC) Hon’ble Supreme Court held that word 'record' used in section 263(1) would mean records as it stands at time of examination by Commissioner but not as it stands at time of order passed by Assessing Officer. Material which had already come on record though subsequently to making of assessment could be taken into consideration by Commissioner.…

Ramesh Kumar, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaidr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar Ito, H.No.467, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…um on account of premium, exercise of revisionary powers by Commissioner opining that this could be a case of money laundering was justified 5. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works Vs CIT T19981 96 Taxman 1 (SC)/ri9981 231 ITR 53 (SC)/f19971 143 CTR 406 (SC) Hon’ble Supreme Court held that word 'record' used in section 263(1) would mean records as it stands at time of examination by Commissioner but not as it stands at time of order passed by Assessing Officer. Material which had already come on record though subsequently to making of assessment could be taken into consideration by Commissioner.…

Mr. Rajeev Agarwal, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1716/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamblevs Rajeev Agarwal, Pr. Cit W-7, 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Greater Kailash, Part-1, Opp. Mansarover Park, New Delhi. Rohtak. Pan No. Ahbpa5683K Appellant Respondent Appellant/ Assessee By Sh. Sameer Kapoor, Ca Respondent/ Revenue By Smt. Paramita Tripathi, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing 12.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement .06.2018 Order Per Suchitra Kamble, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 263

…TR 162 (Calcutta)/[2016] 287 CTR 512]; 4) Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC)/[2017] 245 Taxman 127 (SC); 6 5) Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works vs. CIT [1998] 96 Taxman 1 (SC)/[1998] 231 ITR 53 (SC)/[1997] 143 CTR 406 (SC) 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the records. In the present case, it is pertinent to note that the assessee admitted that there is clerical mistake in the details filed regarding sale and purchase of the gold during the month of March which was overlooked by the Assessing Officer. The assessee had purchased 1641 kg of Gold…