Sir Dorabji Tata Trust v. DCIT(E)

188 ITD 38Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2021#3649 most cited

What is Sir Dorabji Tata Trust v. DCIT(E) authority for?

An assessment order cannot be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue if the Assessing Officer conducted extensive inquiries and was satisfied with the assessee's claim during assessment proceedings.

32

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Sir Dorabji Tata Trust · DCIT(E) · 188 ITD 38 · section 263 · erroneous and prejudicial · revenue interest · assessment proceedings · inquiries · satisfaction of AO

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 194CSection 201(1)Section 201(1A)Section 206C(6)Section 206C(7)Section 263

Issues it is cited on

section 288malabar industrialsection 263(1)erroneous and prejudicialsection 263faceless assessmentsection 26revenue expenditurecomplete scrutinycapital expendituresection 28reason to believe

Judgments citing Sir Dorabji Tata Trust v. DCIT(E)

Sh. Narendar Kumar Agarwal, Jawali Bhawan, Station Road, Alwar vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271FSection 50CSection 54F

…o be erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue only because the Ld. CIT held a 8 Sh. Narendar Kumar Agarwal v. PCIT, Jaipur-1 different view. In this connection reliance is placed on the following cases:- • Sir Dorabji Tata Trust Vs. DCIT(E) 188 ITD 38 dt. 28.12.2020 (Mum.) (Trib.) The Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in Para 19-22 held as under:- “19. The question that we also need to address is as to what is the nature of scope of the provisions of Expl. 2(a) to s. 263 to the effect that an order is deemed to be "erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue" when CIT is of the view that…

M/S. Veena Patil Hospitality P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-8, Mumbai

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

ITA 627/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Veena Patil Vs. Pcit-8 Hospitality Pvt Ltd Room No. 611, 701To 705, Neelkanth 6Th Floor, Aayakar Corporate Park, Kirol Bhavan, Mk Road, Road, Vidhyavihar Mumbai – 400 020 West, Mumbai - 400086 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecv4768R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Yogesh Thar.C.A. Ar Respondent By : Shri. Achal Sharma.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-8, Mumbai, Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri. Yogesh Thar.C.A. ARFor Respondent: Shri. Achal Sharma.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…390 ITR 292 (Bom HC) 2. Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO, 2016 (70 taxmann.com 227) (T Mum) 3. CLP Power India (P.) ltd Vs. DCIT, 2018, 170 ITD 744, ( T AHD) 4. Sir Ratan Tata Trust Vs. DCIT(E), 2020, 188 ITD 151, (TMUM) 5. Sir Dorbji Tata Trus Vs. DCIT(E), 2020, 188 ITD 38, (T Mum) 6. JRD Tata Trust Vs. DCIT(E), 2020, 122 taxmann.com 275, (TMum) 7. CIT Vs. Amco Power Systems Ltd, 2015, 379 ITR 375 (Kar) 8 Wadhwa & Associates Realtors (P) Ltd Vs. ACIT, 2018, 92 taxmann.com 37 (TMum) 9. Lodha Land Development ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. 2819/M/2012, 7. We find voluminous information was submitted by the assessee, in t…

Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd, Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 195/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…IT u/s 73 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 263 of the Act are also reproduced hereunder for the ready reference of the Hon'ble Bench: • The Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench 'F' in the case of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust v. DCIT, (Exemption) Circle 2(1), Mumbai reported in [2021] 188 ITD 38 (Mumbai - Trib.) vide order dated 28.12.2020 has discussed the issue of revisionary powers of CIT u/ s 263 of the Act at length and has categorically held that: "20 . Undoubtedly, the expression used in Explanation 2 to Section 263 is "when Commissioner is of the view "but that does not mean that the view so formed by the Commissioner is not subje…

M/S- Sbep-Gril(Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 194/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…IT u/s 73 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 263 of the Act are also reproduced hereunder for the ready reference of the Hon'ble Bench: • The Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench 'F' in the case of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust v. DCIT, (Exemption) Circle 2(1), Mumbai reported in [2021] 188 ITD 38 (Mumbai - Trib.) vide order dated 28.12.2020 has discussed the issue of revisionary powers of CIT u/ s 263 of the Act at length and has categorically held that: "20 . Undoubtedly, the expression used in Explanation 2 to Section 263 is "when Commissioner is of the view "but that does not mean that the view so formed by the Commissioner is not subje…

M/S- Rawat Balaji (Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Prilncipal, CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 193/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…IT u/s 73 ITA Nos.193-195/CTK/2019 263 of the Act are also reproduced hereunder for the ready reference of the Hon'ble Bench: • The Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench 'F' in the case of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust v. DCIT, (Exemption) Circle 2(1), Mumbai reported in [2021] 188 ITD 38 (Mumbai - Trib.) vide order dated 28.12.2020 has discussed the issue of revisionary powers of CIT u/ s 263 of the Act at length and has categorically held that: "20 . Undoubtedly, the expression used in Explanation 2 to Section 263 is "when Commissioner is of the view "but that does not mean that the view so formed by the Commissioner is not subje…

Sanaa Ashiqali Raval, Mumbaui vs. Rp. CIT - 19, Mumbai

ITA 318/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansanaa Ashiqali Raval, Flat No.42, 2Nd Floor, Ajay Apartment, 25, Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Peddar Road, Mumbai-400026 Pan: Aihpr7427D ............ Appellant Vs. Pr. Cit-19 Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 ............ Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Hero Rai, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Amrish Bedio, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…made adequate enquiry before passing the assessment order. For the above-said preposition, the ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: I. 70 Taxmann.com 227 (Mum-Trib) Narayan Tatu Rane v ITO II. 51 CCH 414 (Mum-Trib) Gehna Jewellers P Ltd. v Pr. CIT III. 188 ITD 38 (Mum-Trib) Sir Dorabji Tata Trust v DCIT IV. 188 ITD 151 (Mum-Trib) Sir Ratan Tata Trust v DCIT V. 109 CCH 86 (Guj) Pr. CIT v Minal Nayan Shah VI. 111 CCH 87 (Del) Pr. CIT v Brahma Centre Development P. Ltd 8. He had also drawn our attention to para-19 of the decision in the case of Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO (70 Taxmann.com 227) to the following e…

M/S Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 23/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (Pr.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

…de necessary verification of claim of deduction u/s 80P(2)(d), his order cannot be said to be erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the following cases:- • Sir Dorabji Tata Trust Vs. DCIT(E) 188 ITD 38 dt. 28.12.2020 (Mum.) (Trib.) • CIT Vs. Vijay Kumar Koganti (2020) 275 Taxman 394 (Mad.) (HC) • CIT Vs. Green Fields Commercial Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 119 DTR 303 (J&K) (HC) 7. The principles laid down in these decision when applied to the facts of assessee's case is evident that in the assessee's case AO has made all the necessary enquiry and verifica…

The Jangid Brajman Co-Operative Credit and Saving Society Ltd., Ajmer vs. Pr.CIT, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 13/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…Ld. PCIT has perceived some wrong notion, order of AO cannot be said to be erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this connection reliance is placed on the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in case of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust Vs. DCIT(E) 188 ITD 38. It was submitted that the principles laid down in this decision when applied to the facts of assessee’s case is evident that in the assessee’s case AO has made all the necessary enquiry and verification as can be expected of a of a prudent, judicious and responsible AO in normal course of his assessment work. The Ld. PCIT has not specified as to…

Sukhdev Chayal, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

Section 143(3)Section 263

…isions cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the A.O.. It is only when an order is erroneous then the Section will be attracted. Even the Coordinate bench of ITAT in the decision of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust Vs DCIT(E) 188 ITD 38 had discussed and explained the nature and scope of provisions of explanation 2(a) of Section 263 of the Act and held as under: “19. The question that we also need to address is as to what is the nature of scope of the provisions of Explanation 2(a) to Section 263 to the effect that an order is deemed to be "erroneous and prejudicial to the inter…

Sunita Agarwal, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Sh. Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sunita Agarwal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, 98, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Aeopa 9467 R

Section 115Section 131Section 143(3)Section 263

…every type of mistake or error committed by the A.O.. It is only when an order is erroneous then the Section will be attracted. 21 ITA 25/Jodh/2021 Sunita Agarwal Vs PCIT Even the Coordinate bench of ITAT in the decision of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust Vs DCIT(E) 188 ITD 38 had discussed and explained the nature and scope of provisions of explanation 2(a) of Section 263 of the Act and held as under: “19. The question that we also need to address is as to what is the nature of scope of the provisions of Explanation 2(a) to Section 263 to the effect that an order is deemed to be "erroneous and prejudicial to the inter…

Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (Pr.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…, his order cannot be said to be erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue only for the reason that the Ld. PCIT holds a different view. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the following cases:- • Sir Dorabji Tata Trust Vs. DCIT(E) 188 ITD 38 (Mum) • CIT Vs. Vijay Kumar Koganti (2020) 275 Taxman 394 (Mad) • CIT Vs. Green Fields Commercial Pvt. Ltd (2015) 119 DTR 303 (J&K) 8. The ld. AR submitted that the principles laid down in these decisions when applied to the facts of assessee’s case, it is evident that in the assessee’s case, the AO has made all the necessary enquiry and verifica…

Smt. Krishna, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, we are of the considered view that the ld PCIT is not correct in law and facts in invoking his jurisdiction u/s 263 and the order so passed is hereby set-aside and the order of the A...

ITA 24/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jul 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B. K. Gupta (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…to be erroneous if it is passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made. The scope of the term ‘enquiries or verification’ has been beautifully explained by Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in case of Sir Dorabji Tata Trust Vs. DCIT(E) 188 ITD 38 and in terms of which, the formation of view by Commissioner should be in a reasonable manner and if the AO has taken a prudent, judicious and reasonable view, then his order cannot be termed as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In the present case, the AO has taken a prudent, judicious and reasonable view after consid…