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.

How many judgments cite Swarup Vegetable Products v. CIT?

63 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 412)

L/H Late Shri Arvindbhai Narsinhbhai Patel (Shri Pareshbhai Patel), Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

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

ITA 385/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, SR. Adv., with ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, CIT DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 54B

…relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of K. A. Ramaswamy Chettiar, reported in 220 ITR 657 and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Swarup Vegetable Products vs. CIT, reported in (1990) 187 ITR 412 (All) which is also found to be proper and relevant to the issue involved before us. 9. We do not find any iota of evidence submitted by the assessee before the Revenue during the reopening proceeding under Section 147 of the Act in regard to the capital gain account scheme in respect of the several transactions entered into by the assessee both…

Doraiswamy Suresh (HUF), Coimbatore vs. PCIT-1, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 609/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.609/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Doraiswamy Suresh (Huf), Vs Assistant Commissioner Of 4, Ramalinga Adigalar Nagar, Income Tax, Nehru Nagar, Kalapatti, Non-Corporate Circle-2, Coimbatore-641 014. Coimbatore. Pan: Aaihd 1367H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. M.Rajan, CIT &

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…an incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 3. 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 assessees 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 Leyl…

Piramal Investment Opportunities Fund, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Range-20, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 700/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 700/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2015-16 ) Piramal Investment Opportunities Fund, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai 400 013 Pan: Aactp-3767-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range -20, Room No.418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai 400 012. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Ronak Doshi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : S/Shri R.K.Sahu & Milind Chavan सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 14/01/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 11/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai -20 (In Short ‘The Pcit’) Dated 12/03/2021 For Assessment Year 2015-16, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( In Short ‘ The Act’ )

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: S/Shri R.K.Sahu and Milind Chavan

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 61

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “सी ” "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एम. बालगणेश, लेखा सद"य के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं. 700/मुं/2021 ("न. व. 2015-16 ) Piramal Investment Opportunities Fund, Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel(West), Mumbai 400 013 PAN: AACTP-3767-H ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Range -20, Room No.418, 4th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai 400 012. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant by : Sh…

M/S. Swapna Motors Private Ltd., Cuttack vs. CIT, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 251/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 M/S. Swapna Motors Pvt Ltd., M/S. Swapna Motors Pvt Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Friends Colony, Cuttack Friends Colony, Cuttack Tax, Tax, Circle Circle-2(1), Arunodoya Nagar, Cuttack Nagar, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aafcs 1450 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30 /3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 / /4/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam

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

…s failure on the part of the AO to make proper enquiry, the commissioner was justified in cancelling the order of the AO. Similarly in the case of Tahlibai F Jain Vs. ITO reported in 101 ITR 1 (Kar) and Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Limited reported in 187 ITR 412 (All), the Hon'ble Courts held that the Commissioner was justified in cancelling assessment order where the claim made by the assessee in the statement fled before the AO was accepted without making proper enquiry. Further, in the case Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 198 ITR 611 (Ker) it was held that where the AO did not make prop…

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result we hold that the learned principal

ITA 737/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

For Appellant: Ms Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263(2)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…(Ahd) has also held that when assessment order is made without proper enquiries on certain points, such ICICI Bank Ltd.; AY 11-12 assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. (iv) In case of Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd., 187 ITR 412 (All.), the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held that the Commissioner does have the power to set aside the assessment order and sent for fresh assessment if he is satisfied that further enquiry is necessary and that the order of the ITO is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Further, in the case of Umashankar Saraf V/s CIT 187 ITR 638, the…

Jaydeep J Patel (HUF), Nadiad vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 312/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vartik R. Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Arti, CIT-D.R

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

…quiry as expected, that would be a ground for the Commissioner of Income to interfere U/s.263 with the by the ITO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue 3.1 In the of 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 uunder: - "It is beyond dispute that, U/s. 263 of the IT Act, the CIT does have the power to set the assessment order and send the matter for a fresh if he is satisfied that further enquiry is necessary, and that the order of the ITO is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.” I.T.A No. 3…

Alps Liesure Holiday Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 1406/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Us. We Have Noted That Despite

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Atri, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice President And Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2011-12 Alps Leisure Holidays The DCIT, Pvt. Ltd. Vadodara Central Circle-1(1)(1), PAN: AAFCA1549Q Vs Vadodara (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Ajay Atri, CIT-D.R. Assessee by: None Date of hearing : 01-12-2021 Date of pronouncement : 14-12-2021 आदेश/ORDER PER : ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Principal Commissione…

Spandana Sphoorty Financial Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 990/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. HariFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ion 263 there are various judicial decisions in support of such proposition which are as under: i. Rampyari Devi Sarogi Vs. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 114 ii. Malabar Industrial Go. Ltd. Vs. CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 iii. Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (ALL) 187 ITR 412 iv. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs: Addl. CIT&Ors (Del.) 991TR 375 v. Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO,(ITAT, S6-Chennai) 121 ITO 343, 313 ITR(AT} 182 vi. SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2010-TIOL-646-HC-MAO-IT. 8.1 There was incorrect application of law which constitutes an error and as such the. assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the in…

DCIT, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Spandana Sphoorthy Financial Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

ITA 1474/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Laxmi Prasao Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Spandana Sphoorty Vs Dy. Commissioner Of Financials Ltd., Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Hyderabao. Hyderabao. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Spandana Sphoorty Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Financials Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaics 6213N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G.V.N. Hari Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/10/2021 O R D E R Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. HariFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ion 263 there are various judicial decisions in support of such proposition which are as under: i. Rampyari Devi Sarogi Vs. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 114 ii. Malabar Industrial Go. Ltd. Vs. CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 iii. Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (ALL) 187 ITR 412 iv. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs: Addl. CIT&Ors (Del.) 991TR 375 v. Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. Vs. ITO,(ITAT, S6-Chennai) 121 ITO 343, 313 ITR(AT} 182 vi. SRM Systems & Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT 2010-TIOL-646-HC-MAO-IT. 8.1 There was incorrect application of law which constitutes an error and as such the. assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the in…

Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporatio Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1452/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant Respondent ITA No. A.Y. 724/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Andhra Pradesh Gas Deputy Power Corporation Commissioner of Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad Circle-1(1), 1452/Hyd/2019 [PAN: AABCA9105C] Hyderabad 2014-15 For Assessee : Shri V.Siva Kumar, AR For Revenue : Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR (ITA No.724/H/18) Shri Danda Srinivas, DR (ITA No.1452/H/19) Date of Hearing : 13-07-2021 (ITA No.724/H/18) 20-07-2021 (ITA No.1452/H/19) Date…

Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 724/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuappellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V.Siva Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant Respondent ITA No. A.Y. 724/Hyd/2018 2013-14 Andhra Pradesh Gas Deputy Power Corporation Commissioner of Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad Circle-1(1), 1452/Hyd/2019 [PAN: AABCA9105C] Hyderabad 2014-15 For Assessee : Shri V.Siva Kumar, AR For Revenue : Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR (ITA No.724/H/18) Shri Danda Srinivas, DR (ITA No.1452/H/19) Date of Hearing : 13-07-2021 (ITA No.724/H/18) 20-07-2021 (ITA No.1452/H/19) Date…

Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3285/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 17(2)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…, 1961 against the assessment order dated 28.3.13 passed u/s 147/143(3) for AY 2005-06 in your Case: (1) Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT(SC) 67ITR 84 (2) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 (3) Swarup Vegetable Products industries Ltd. vs CIT (AIL) 187 ITR 412 (4) CIT vs Eastern Medikit Ltd. (Del) 58 DTR 265; 337 ITR 56. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the law governing the issues involved undersign considered view that the Assessment Orders dated 28. 03.2013 as passed by the Assessing Officer for A. your case, erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and as such assumption…

Amar Singh Chaudhary, Jabalpur vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 28/JAB/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur27 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan&Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 263Section 48

…bar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) CIT v. Deepak Kumar Garg [2007] 299 ITR 435 (MP) CIT v. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corp.[2010]186 Taxman 105 (HP) Swarup Vegetable Products v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 412 (All) Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del) By the assessee CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. [1988] 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT v. Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 310 (All) (besides these two, copies of which are on record, others, as under, where also mentioned during hearing, even as their copies not on record, were neither refer…

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Baroda vs. The Pr. CIT.-1, Baroda

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1271/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri M. J. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Ms Rita Dokania, CIT.DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…issioner 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 to the interest of the revenue. 5.1 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:- °It is beyond dispute that, U/s. 263 of the IT Act, the CIT does have the power to set aside the assessment order send the matter for a fresh assessment if he is satisfied that further enquiry is necessary, and that the order of the ITO is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue." 6…

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3284/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR

Section 263

…suggesting for remedial action u/s 263 of the I. T. Act, 1961 and in view of the following case laws: Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT(SC) 67 ITR 84 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 2. Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. vs CIT(AIL) 3. 187 ITR 412 CITvs Eastern Medikit Ltd. (Del) 58DTR 265; 337 ITR 4. 56. " In view of the above errors reported by the Assessing Officer and also the Addl. CIT, the undersigned has called for and examined the relevant assessment records for AY 2005-06 to 2008-09 in your case to find out if the Assessment Order dated 31.03.2013 as passed for A.Y. 2006- 07 is…

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3281/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR

Section 263

…suggesting for remedial action u/s 263 of the I. T. Act, 1961 and in view of the following case laws: Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT(SC) 67 ITR 84 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 2. Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. vs CIT(AIL) 3. 187 ITR 412 CITvs Eastern Medikit Ltd. (Del) 58DTR 265; 337 ITR 4. 56. " In view of the above errors reported by the Assessing Officer and also the Addl. CIT, the undersigned has called for and examined the relevant assessment records for AY 2005-06 to 2008-09 in your case to find out if the Assessment Order dated 31.03.2013 as passed for A.Y. 2006- 07 is…

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3283/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR

Section 263

…suggesting for remedial action u/s 263 of the I. T. Act, 1961 and in view of the following case laws: Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT(SC) 67 ITR 84 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 2. Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. vs CIT(AIL) 3. 187 ITR 412 CITvs Eastern Medikit Ltd. (Del) 58DTR 265; 337 ITR 4. 56. " In view of the above errors reported by the Assessing Officer and also the Addl. CIT, the undersigned has called for and examined the relevant assessment records for AY 2005-06 to 2008-09 in your case to find out if the Assessment Order dated 31.03.2013 as passed for A.Y. 2006- 07 is…

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3282/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR

Section 263

…suggesting for remedial action u/s 263 of the I. T. Act, 1961 and in view of the following case laws: Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT(SC) 67 ITR 84 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83 2. Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. vs CIT(AIL) 3. 187 ITR 412 CITvs Eastern Medikit Ltd. (Del) 58DTR 265; 337 ITR 4. 56. " In view of the above errors reported by the Assessing Officer and also the Addl. CIT, the undersigned has called for and examined the relevant assessment records for AY 2005-06 to 2008-09 in your case to find out if the Assessment Order dated 31.03.2013 as passed for A.Y. 2006- 07 is…

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

…tta)/[2016] 240 Taxman 306 (Calcutta)/[2016] 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta)/[2016] 287 CTR 512] 7. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT [2017] 77 taxmann.com 285 SC)/[2017] 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 8. Swarup Vegetable Products Vs CIT [1991] 54 Taxman 175 (Allahabad)/[1991] 187 ITR 412 (Allahabad)/[1990] 90 CTR 113 (Allahabad) 9. Lakshmi 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.…

T I Steels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 9, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2176/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2176/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 T.I. Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. 98A, Block-Af, Shalimar Ward-25(1), Bagh, New Delhi-110088 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabct9896R Assessee By : Sh. Mohit Sachdeva, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. S. Rana, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.07.2019 Order Per B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Mohit Sachdeva, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR

Section 10CSection 119Section 143(3)Section 262Section 263Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 2176/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 T.I. Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, H.No. 98A, Block-AF, Shalimar Ward-25(1), Bagh, New Delhi-110088 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCT9896R Assessee by : Sh. Mohit Sachdeva, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 04.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 08.07.2019 ORDER Per B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The assessee has raised following effective grounds of appeal: ”1. That…

Swarup Vegetable Products v. CIT

What is Swarup Vegetable Products v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Swarup Vegetable Products v. CIT

L/H Late Shri Arvindbhai Narsinhbhai Patel (Shri Pareshbhai Patel), Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

Doraiswamy Suresh (HUF), Coimbatore vs. PCIT-1, Coimbatore

Piramal Investment Opportunities Fund, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, Range-20, Mumbai

M/S. Swapna Motors Private Ltd., Cuttack vs. CIT, Cuttack

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

Jaydeep J Patel (HUF), Nadiad vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Nadiad

Alps Liesure Holiday Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

Spandana Sphoorty Financial Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-3(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

DCIT, Circle-3(2), Hyderabad vs. Spandana Sphoorthy Financial Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad

Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporatio Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Amar Singh Chaudhary, Jabalpur vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jabalpur

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Baroda vs. The Pr. CIT.-1, Baroda

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Ashok Kumar Sinha, Ghaziabad vs. Prcit, Ghaziabad

T I Steels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 9, New Delhi