How many judgments cite Swarup Vegetable Products v. CIT?

60 judgments on BharatTax cite Swarup Vegetable Products v. CIT (187 ITR 412), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Swarup Vegetable Products v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 263, Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 119, Section 133(6).

Swarup Vegetable Products v. CIT

187 ITR 412High Court1991#1914 most cited

What is Swarup Vegetable Products v. CIT authority for?

When an Assessing Officer accepts an assessee's claim without conducting proper inquiries or a full investigation, the Commissioner is justified in concluding that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, thereby warranting revision under Section 263.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Swarup Vegetable Products v. CIT · Section 263 · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · inadequate enquiry by AO · lack of inquiry · assessment without proper investigation · PCIT powers under Section 263 · setting aside assessment order · revision of assessment order

Also reported as

54 Taxmann 175

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263 Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 119 Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 194A

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenue inadequate enquiry malabar industrial revision u/s 263 assessment order erroneous section 263(1)lack of enquiry erroneous and prejudicial section 54f principal commissioner of income-tax section 119 section 263

Judgments citing Swarup Vegetable Products v. CIT

SUMANTH BADIGA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE - 5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 628/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.628/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Sumanth Badiga, The Dcit, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad – 500 004. Vs. Hyderabad. Telangana. Telangana. Pan Ahqpb8508F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वधिध/Assessee By : Ca C S Subrahmanyam & Sri V. Siva Kumar, Advocate िधजस् व द्वधिध/Revenue By : Sri Lv Bhaskara Reddy, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधिीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.02.2026 घोषणध की तधिीख/Pronouncement: 06.02.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: CA C S Subrahmanyam and Sri V. Siva Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA.No.628/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Sumanth Badiga, The DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad – 500 004. vs. Hyderabad. Telangana. Telangana. PAN AHQPB8508F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वधिध/Assessee by : CA C S Subrahmanyam and Sri V. Siva Kumar, Advocate िधजस् व द्वधिध/Revenue by : Sri LV Bhaskara Reddy, CIT-DR सुिवधई की तधिीख/Date of hearing: 02.02.2026 घोषणध की तधिीख/Pronouncement: 06.02.2026 आदेश/ORD…

SHARADA ELECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-3, PUNE

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

ITA 1432/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

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

…ssary to further detail the reasons given by the Commissioner because on the face of the record the orders were prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd vs. CIT (AII) 187 ITR 412 has held that when the ITO had accepted the claim without making proper enquiries, the Commissioner was justified in coming to the conclusion that the ITO's order was erroneous inasmuch as it was not passed after a full enquiry and a proper investigation and that it is also prejudicial to the revenue. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of…

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

…ering was opining that this could be a case of money laundering was justified 9. Swarup Vegetable Products Vs CIT [1991] 54 Taxman 9. Swarup Vegetable Products Vs CIT [1991] 54 Taxman 9. Swarup Vegetable Products Vs CIT [1991] 54 Taxman 175 (Allahabad)/[1991] 187 ITR 412 (Allahabad)/[1990] 90 175 (Allahabad)/[1991] 187 ITR 412 (Allahabad)/[1990] 90 175 (Allahabad)/[1991] 187 ITR 412 (Allahabad)/[1990] 90 CTR 113 (Allahabad) CTR 113 (Allahabad) Manju Rakesh Jain amount did not constitute his income. ITO accepted amount did not constitute his income. ITO accepted amount did not constitute his income. ITO accepted…

SHRI PARESHKUMAR NARSHIBHAI SIROYA,DHORAJI, DIST. RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 127/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.127/Rjt/2022

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld. CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 68

…interest of Revenue. For such proposition of law reliance was made by ld. PCIT on following cases: 1. Rampyari Devi Sarogi Vs. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 2. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 3. Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (ALL) 187 ITR 412 4. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl.CIT&Ors (Del.) 99 ITR 375 5. Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, SB-Chennai) 121 ITD 343, 313 ITR(AT) 182 6. SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2010-TIOL-646-HC- MAD-IT. 7. Shakti Credits Ltd Vs. CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 3058 (Luck.'A¹ Trib) 8. Shoreline Hotel PvtLtd. Vs. CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 2982 (Mum.'E…

GRANT MEDICAL FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1193/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Khare (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar – CIT-DR

Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 Grant Medical Foundation CIT Exemption, Pune 40, Sassoon Road, Vs. Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune – 411001 PAN: AAATP1145P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Rahul Khare (through virtual) Department by : Shri Amol Khairnar – CIT-DR Date of hearing : 02-12-2024 Date of pronouncement : 20-02-2025 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.03.2024 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (h…

PATCHIRAJAN LAKSHMANAN,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 597/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 597/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Principal Commissioner Of Patchirajan Lakshmanan, V. Income Tax, No. 102F,/16Z/3, Maduari -1, Dhanasekaran Nagar, Madurai – 625 002. Polepettai (West) – 628 002. [Pan:Aazpl-1396-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…ion of Law or with incorrect assumption of facts or without any inquiry into the matter or without application of mind [Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs. CIT (243 ITR 83)]. The Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Swarup Vegetable Products Vs CIT (187 ITR 412) has held that when the Assessing Officer accepted the assessee's claim without making proper enquiries, the Commissioner acting under section 263 was justified in setting aside the assessment order. Similar view has been taken by the Madras High Court in Jai Bharath Tanners (264 ITR 673). The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Ashok Ley…

PARSHOTTAMBHAI MAGANLAL RAMOTIA,RAJKOT vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJKOT-1 - PCIT-1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 29/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2017-18 Parshottambhai Maganlal Ramotia, Vs. Pr. Cit-1 C/O. Parli Cosmetic Laser Centre Rajkot. Usha Kiran Apartment 10, Sardar Nagar Main Road Rajkot. Pan : Abjpr 3979 H (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri R.K. Takwani, Ld.Dr Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2023 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Takwani, ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, ld.CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 68Section 69A

…icial to the interest of Revenue. For such proposition of law. Reliance is made on following cases: 1 Rampyari Devi Sarogi Vs. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 2. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 3. Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (ALL) 187 ITR 412 4. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl.CIT&Ors (Del.) 99 ITR 375 5 Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, SB-Chennai) 121 ITD 343, 313 ITR(AT) 182 6 SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2010-TIOL-646-HC- MAD-IT. 7 Shakti Credits Ltd Vs. CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 3058 (Luck.'A1 Trib) 8. Shoreline Hotel Pvt.Ltd. Vs. CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 2982 (Mum.'E" Tri…

SOURABH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT,JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) a

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

…to make such enquiry, order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue-CIT need not prove that it is erroneous and he can revise it u/s 263. 7 Sourabh Sharma vs. PCIT Rampyari Devi Saraogi v/s CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 Swarup Vegetable Products Industries v. CIT (All) 187 ITR 412 Gee Vee Enterprises v/s. Addl. CIT &Ors. (Del.) 99 ITR 375. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., v. CIT (SC) 243 ITR 83 Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd., v. ITO (ITAT, SB-Chennai), 121 ITD 343: 313 ITR (AT) 182 SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT 2010-TIOL-646-HC-MAD-IT Madras High Court in the case of Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 490 (Mad.…

ASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 697/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43(5)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”ए” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.697/PUN/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.CIT-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next to RTO, Sangam, s Pune – 411001. PAN: AIDPS 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Kishor B Phadke – AR Revenue by Shri Keyur Patel, IRS – CIT-DR Date of hearing 28/07/2023 Date of pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This…

VISHAL NAGPAL,SAHARANPUR vs. PR.CIT , MUZAFFARNAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3790/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…t aside the assessment order and send the matter for a fresh assessment if he is satisfied that further enquiry is necessary, and that the order of the AO is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue [Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. vs. CIT, (1991) 187 ITR 412, 415- 416(AU.)]. In that case, in exercise of its power under section 263, the Commissioner set aside the assessment order as the same was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue because the claim of the assessee was accepted without proper enquiries. The action of the Commissioner was upheld by the High Court. In the facts of U…

K.RAJESWARI,WEST TUTICORIN vs. PR.CIT, MADURAI-1

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

ITA 487/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri K. Balasubramanian, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263

SMT ELIZEBETH VASHEELAKUMARI,NAGERCOIL vs. ACI, CIRCLE-I, NAGERCOIL RANGE, NAGERCOIL

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

ITA 783/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.783/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Elizebeth Vasheelakumari, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 3, Parama Street, W.C.C. Road, Income Tax, Circle I, Nagercoil 629 001. Nagercoil Range, Nagercoil. [Pan:Abqpe8121P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : None ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax/Cit 1, Madurai, Dated 21.03.2020 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 50CSection 54F

SHRI PRAFUL GAUTAMBHAI KOTHARI,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

ITA 163/RJT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 163/Rjt/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang Khakhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…r the provisions of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. There are various judicial decisions in 1. Rampyari Devi SaroglTO. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 2. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 3. Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (ALL) 187 ITR 412 4. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl.CIT&Ors (Del.) 99 ITR 375 5. Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO (ITAT, SB-Chennai) 121 ITD 343, 313 ITR(AT) 182 6. SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2010-TIOL-646-HC- MAD-IT. 7. Shakti Credits Ltd Vs. CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 3058 (Luck.'A' Trib) 8. Shoreline Hotel Pvt Ltd. Vs. CIT 2015 Tax Pub (DT) 2982 (Mum.'E"…

CAVINKARE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1603/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice- & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1603/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Cavinkare Private Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of 12, Cavin Ville, Income Tax, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet Company Circle-I(3) Chennai-600 018. Chennai-600 034. Pan:Aaacb 3754B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. R.Mohan Reddy, CITFor Respondent: 24.11.2022

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 35Section 36(1)(ii)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा य! एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ%वाल, लेखा सद(य के सम! BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1603/Chny/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/s. Cavinkare Private Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner of 12, Cavin Ville, Income Tax, Cenotaph Road, Teynampet Company Circle-I(3) Chennai-600 018. Chennai-600 034. PAN:AAACB 3754B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. T.Banusekar, C.A अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. R.Mohan Redd…

SHRI MANOJ B. MANSUKHANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, , RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2017-18 Shri Manoj Bhagwan Principal Commissioner Mansukhani, of Income Tax, Rajkot-1 Plot No. 113-116, Vs (Respondent) Rishi House, Industrial Area Ward No. 6, Gandhidham-Kutch-370201 PAN: ABCPM8333P (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 04-07-2022 Date of pronouncement : 21-09-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2017-18, arises from order of the P…

M/S KINNOR KINNOREE,KOLKATA vs. CIT-X, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/KOL/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA No. 176/KOL/2022 Assessment Year : 2005-2006 M/s. Kinnor Kinnoree IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 176/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2005-2006 M/s. Kinnor Kinnoree,......................................................................Appellant 98, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata-700029 [PAN: AAFFK1754N] -Vs.- Commissioner of Income Tax-X,.....................................................Respondent 2, Gariahat Road (South), Dakshinapan, Kolkata-700068 Appearances by: Sri Soumitra Choudhury,…

SHRI CHANDRASEKARAN JOSEPH VIJAY,,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2 (2),, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3345/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3345/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Chandrasekaran Joseph Vijay, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 17/9, Vijay Shanthi Four Seasons, Income Tax, 7Th Cross Street, Shastri Nagar, Central Circle 2(2), Adyar, Chennai 600 020. Chennai. [Pan:Aabpv3488N] (अपीलाथ&/Appellant) ('(थ&/Respondent) अपीलाथ& की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate '(थ& की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 29.03.2022 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai Dated 30.10.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 274

…. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order without making any enquiry and relied the decisions in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. v CIT[2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), Swarup Vegetable Products v. CIT (187 ITR 412)(All), PCIT v. Venus Woolen Mills [2019] 105 taxmann.com 287 (P&H), Lakshmi Vilas Bank v. JCIT in TCA No. 1370/2008 & Vedanta Ltd. v. CIT in Tax 5 I.T.A. I.T.A. No. I.T.A. I.T.A. No. No. 334 No. 34 345/Chny/ 34 /Chny/ /Chny/19 /Chny/ 19 19 19 Appeal No. 1/2016 with C. A. No. 17/2016 and submitted that the order passed by A.O is erroneous and…

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

…ssioner 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 to the interest of the revenue. 8.1 In the case of Swarup Vegetable Products vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1990) 187 ITR 412 (All), it was held by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as under:- I.T.A No. 765/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No. 6 True Sparrow System Pvt. Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT "It is beyond dispute that, U/s. 263 of the IT Act, the CIT does have the power to set aside the assessment order and send the matter for a fresh assessment if he is satisfied that further enquir…

SMT. JYOTI ASHOK KOTECHA vs. C.I.T.-(CENTRAL), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 258/NAG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker

Section 127Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 292B

…on the following decisions :- (i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC). (ii) Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT, 386 ITR 162 (Cal.). (iii) Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT, 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC). (iv) Swarup Vegetable Products vs. CIT, 187 ITR 412 (All.). (v) CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bom.). Thus, the ld. CIT-DR pleaded that no interference is called for in the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (Central) u/s 263 of the Act. 11. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to the validity of the pow…

SMT. MEENA DILIP KOTECHA vs. C.I.T.-(CENTRAL), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 257/NAG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Chadraker

Section 127Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 292B

Showing 1–20 of 60 · Page 1 of 3