Swarup Vegetable Products v. CIT

187 ITR 412High Court1991#1812 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.

63

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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 263Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 119Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 194A

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenueinadequate enquirymalabar industrialrevision u/s 263assessment order erroneoussection 263(1)lack of enquiryerroneous and prejudicialsection 54fprincipal commissioner of income-taxsection 119section 263

Judgments citing Swarup Vegetable Products v. CIT

Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd., Baroda vs. The Pr. CIT, Vadodara-1, Baroda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 468/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.468/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

…ssioner 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 CTT 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."…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kakinada vs. Sar Chandra Environ Solutions Private Limited, Kakinada

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 149/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 147 to 149/VIZ/2018 (Asst. Years : 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15) DCIT, Circle-1, vs. M/s. SAR Chandra Environ Kakinada. Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 2nd Floor, 2nd Block, Subhadra Arcade, Bhanugudi Junction, Kakinada. PAN No. AAKCS 0054 K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.Nos.29 to 31/VIZ/2018 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 147 to 149/VIZ/2018) (Asst. Years : 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. SAR Chandra Environ vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Solutions Pvt. Ltd., K…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kakinada vs. Sar Chandra Environ Solutions Private Limited, Kakinada

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 148/VIZ/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 147 to 149/VIZ/2018 (Asst. Years : 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15) DCIT, Circle-1, vs. M/s. SAR Chandra Environ Kakinada. Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 2nd Floor, 2nd Block, Subhadra Arcade, Bhanugudi Junction, Kakinada. PAN No. AAKCS 0054 K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.Nos.29 to 31/VIZ/2018 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 147 to 149/VIZ/2018) (Asst. Years : 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. SAR Chandra Environ vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Solutions Pvt. Ltd., K…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kakinada vs. Sar Chandra Environ Solutions Private Limited, Kakinada

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 147/VIZ/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 147 to 149/VIZ/2018 (Asst. Years : 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15) DCIT, Circle-1, vs. M/s. SAR Chandra Environ Kakinada. Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 2nd Floor, 2nd Block, Subhadra Arcade, Bhanugudi Junction, Kakinada. PAN No. AAKCS 0054 K (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.Nos.29 to 31/VIZ/2018 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 147 to 149/VIZ/2018) (Asst. Years : 2010-11, 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s. SAR Chandra Environ vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Solutions Pvt. Ltd., K…

M/S Preet Land Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mohali vs. Pr. CIT-2, Chandigarh

ITA 736/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: The Ld. Ao During Original Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri. Parikshit AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri. Jagjivan Kumar Garg
Section 143(3)Section 263

…1 आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “ए” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH "ीमती "दवा "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं, डा. बी.आर.आर. कुमार, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR , AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 736/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s Preet Land Promoters and बनाम Pr. CIT-2 Developers Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh Vill: Nanu Majra, Sector-86 Mohali "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADCP8893L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri. Parikshit Aggarwal राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri. Jagjivan Kumar Garg सुनवाई क"…

Durgesh Autofin P.Ltd, Bijnor vs. Prcit, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2539/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2539/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Durgesh Autofin P. Ltd., Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Director, Muzaffarnagar-251002 S/O Late Sh. Tejpal Singh, Mandi Kotla, Near Nehru Murti, Chandpur, Bijnot, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd0768P Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rachna Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit, Muzaffarnagar U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 41(1)Section 68

…rnished to the AO. The ld. Pr. CIT held that the order passed by the AO was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 412 (All.) " Umashankar Rice Mill Vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 638 (Ori.) " Jagdish Kumar Gulati Vs CIT 269 ITR 71 (All.) " Gee Vee Enterprises Vs Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Del.) " Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) " Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) " Duggal & Co. Vs CIT (1996) 220 ITR 456 (Del.) " Sh. Virendra Kumar Gupta Vs CI…

Sh. Nittan Aneja, Sbs Nagar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, both the assessee’s appeal and the Revenue’s C

ITA 288/ASR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 288/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Joshi (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ase law in the matter is legion, rendered in different fact situations: Thalibhai F. Jain v. ITO [1975] 101 ITR 1 (Kar); CIT (Addl.) vs. Mukur Corporation [1978] 111 ITR 312 (Guj); Nittan Aneja v. Pr. CIT (AY 2011-12) Swarup Vegetable Products vs. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 412 (All); Tarajan Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [1994] 205 ITR 45 (Gau); CIT vs. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal); CIT vs. Mahavar Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); CIT v. Everest Cold Storage [1996] 220 ITR 241 (MP); K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar vs. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 657 (Mad); CIT v. Kohinoor Tobacco Products (P.) Ltd. [1998] 234 ITR 557 (…

Late Smt. Giriraj Kaur L/H Sri Ravinder Gill, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 931/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishilate Smt. Giriraj Kaur, Vs. Ito, C/O. L/H Sri Ravinder Gill, Ward-1(2), 861, Mangal Bhawan, Muzaffarnagar Bhopa Road, Muzaffarnagar Pan: Dtppk0005J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT Dr
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…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- 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 Umushankur R…

Lally Motors India Pvt. Ltd, Jalandhar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 218/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 218(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Sameer Bhatia (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D. R.)
Section 119Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 218(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Lally Motors India (P.) Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Civil Lines, Income Tax-2, Jalandhar. Jalandhar. [PAN: AABCL4446M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Sameer Bhatia (Adv.) Respondent by: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D. R.) Date of Hearing: 15.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement: 12.04.2018 ORDER Per Sanjay Arora, AM: This is an Appeal by the Assessee agitating the Order by the Pr. Commissioner of In…

Shri Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4979/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblesanjay Kumar Vs Cit Prop. Tyagi Associates Meerut H-45, Gandhi Nagar, Garh Road, (Respondent) Meerut Aczpk2030M (Applicant) Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Acit H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Circle-2, Gali No. 3, Garh Road Bhansali Ground Meerut Meerut Acapk2030M (Respondent) (Applicant) Acit Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Circle-2, H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Bhansali Ground Gali No. 3, Garh Road Meerut Meerut (Applicant) Acapk2030M (Respondent)

For Appellant: “1. That the impugned
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ils and examined them. Reliance was placed on the following case laws:- " Malabar Ind. Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) (2000) 243 ITR 83 (S.C) " CIT Vs. V. N. M.A Rathinasabapathy Nadar, (1995) 215 ITR 309 (Mad) " Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1991) 187 ITR 412 (All.) " Umashankar Rice Mill Vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 638-39 (Ori) " Jadgish Kumar Gulati Vs. CIT, 269 ITR 71 (All) " Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375 (Del) " Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (S.C) " Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (S.C) 7. The Ld. CIT further observed that the A.O accepted the version of th…

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2725/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblesanjay Kumar Vs Cit Prop. Tyagi Associates Meerut H-45, Gandhi Nagar, Garh Road, (Respondent) Meerut Aczpk2030M (Applicant) Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Acit H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Circle-2, Gali No. 3, Garh Road Bhansali Ground Meerut Meerut Acapk2030M (Respondent) (Applicant) Acit Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Circle-2, H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Bhansali Ground Gali No. 3, Garh Road Meerut Meerut (Applicant) Acapk2030M (Respondent)

For Appellant: “1. That the impugned
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ils and examined them. Reliance was placed on the following case laws:- " Malabar Ind. Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT(A) (2000) 243 ITR 83 (S.C) " CIT Vs. V. N. M.A Rathinasabapathy Nadar, (1995) 215 ITR 309 (Mad) " Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1991) 187 ITR 412 (All.) " Umashankar Rice Mill Vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 638-39 (Ori) " Jadgish Kumar Gulati Vs. CIT, 269 ITR 71 (All) " Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375 (Del) " Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (S.C) " Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (S.C) 7. The Ld. CIT further observed that the A.O accepted the version of th…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3752/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…ainst the assessee. However, these cases can be applied to the peculiar facts of each case. The decision in Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT 67 ITR 83 (SC), Malabar Industrial Company vs CIT (243 ITR 83 (SC), Swaroop Vegetables Products Industries Ltd. vs CIT 187 ITR 412 (All.), Raj laxmi Mills Ltd. 121 ITD 343 (SB)(ITAT)(Chennai) and SRM Systems and Software Pvt. Ltd. 2010-TIOL-646-HC-MAD-IT throws light on the issue. Similarly, CIT vs Infosys Technologies Ltd. 341 ITR 293 and CIT vs Jawahar Bhattacharya Ji 341 ITR 434 (Gauh.-FB) was decided, considering the particular facts. It is also noted that in Kapil…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3748/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…ainst the assessee. However, these cases can be applied to the peculiar facts of each case. The decision in Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT 67 ITR 83 (SC), Malabar Industrial Company vs CIT (243 ITR 83 (SC), Swaroop Vegetables Products Industries Ltd. vs CIT 187 ITR 412 (All.), Raj laxmi Mills Ltd. 121 ITD 343 (SB)(ITAT)(Chennai) and SRM Systems and Software Pvt. Ltd. 2010-TIOL-646-HC-MAD-IT throws light on the issue. Similarly, CIT vs Infosys Technologies Ltd. 341 ITR 293 and CIT vs Jawahar Bhattacharya Ji 341 ITR 434 (Gauh.-FB) was decided, considering the particular facts. It is also noted that in Kapil…

Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3747/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…ainst the assessee. However, these cases can be applied to the peculiar facts of each case. The decision in Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs CIT 67 ITR 83 (SC), Malabar Industrial Company vs CIT (243 ITR 83 (SC), Swaroop Vegetables Products Industries Ltd. vs CIT 187 ITR 412 (All.), Raj laxmi Mills Ltd. 121 ITD 343 (SB)(ITAT)(Chennai) and SRM Systems and Software Pvt. Ltd. 2010-TIOL-646-HC-MAD-IT throws light on the issue. Similarly, CIT vs Infosys Technologies Ltd. 341 ITR 293 and CIT vs Jawahar Bhattacharya Ji 341 ITR 434 (Gauh.-FB) was decided, considering the particular facts. It is also noted that in Kapil…

M/S. Aspinwall & Co. Ltd, Cochin vs. The DCIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 277/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.Assessment Year:2011- 12

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 263

…erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The Revenue has not to prove that its order is erroneous and CIT can revise it u/s 263. Even the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. (No. 1) vs. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 412 has also taken the similar view by observing as under: “It is beyond dispute that, under section 263 of the I.T. Act, the Commissioner has power to set aside the assessment order and send the matter for fresh assessment if he is satisfied that further enquiry is necessary and that the order of Income Tax Officer is prejudicial to the interest of…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-Cir-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3494/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Procter & Gamble Cit-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp6332M

Section 263Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, सी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/s Procter & Gamble CIT-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AAACP6332M "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Yogesh Thar and Ms. Moksha Mehta Shri Subachan Ram CIT-DR राज…

Embassy Brindavan Developers, Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 42/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Sitaraman, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.R.Reddy, CIT –DR-I
Section 143(3)Section 263

…Lacs being brokerage to Sadhawani International. 5. He also placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements:- a) Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs CIT 67 ITR 84(SC) b) CIT Vs Infosys Technologies Ltd. 341 ITR 293(Kar.) c) Swarup Vegetable Products Vs CIT 187 ITR 412(Alld.) d) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that there is no dispute on this aspect that the property in question was always shown by the assessee in the previous years as stock-in trade and this is not the case of the assessee that at any point of time before the sale of…

Ayyazuddin J, Khan, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT- 22

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2881/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2881/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ayyazuddin J. Khan Ito-22(3)-1, Block No. 103, Aggarwal Upavan, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway बनाम/ Plot No. 11, Sector – 19, Nerul, Station, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 706 Navi Mumbai-400 073 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Atxpk 4365 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kishore K. Poddar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri H. N. Singh

For Appellant: Shri Kishore K. PoddarFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 263

…evenue, liable for revision u/s. 263, is legion, and for which we make reference to the following decisions: Thalibai F. Jain v. ITO [1975] 101 ITR 1 (Kar); CIT (Addl.) vs. Mukur Corporation [1978] 111 ITR 312 (Guj.); Swarup Vegetable Products vs. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 412 (All); Tarajan Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT [1994] 205 ITR 45 (Gau); CIT vs. Active Traders (P.) Ltd. [1995] 214 ITR 583 (Cal); CIT vs. Mahavar Traders[1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); K.A. Ramaswamy Chettiar vs. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 657 (Mad); Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 867 (Mad.); CIT vs. Export House, Amritsar [2002] 256 IT…

M/S Fazal Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2837/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36

…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(All.)]. In that case, refund of excise duty was received by the assessee and the same was placed in the suspense account and not in the P&L A/c. Such amount of refund was claimed not to be included in the income of the assessee because, apart from the above fact, a large part of that amount was claimed by a third party by filing a suit…

Sarah Faisal Hawa, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4752/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, एवं "ी संदीप गोसा", "या"यक सद"य, के सम" । {Appeals Against Order U/S. 271(1)(C)} आयकर अपील सं.I.T.A. No. 4749/Mum/2013 "नधा"रण वष"(Assessment Year 2005-06)

Section 120Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44A

…the interest of revenue and CIT was justified to revise the same by Invoking provisions of section 263: 1. CIT Vs. Pushpa Dew' (Patna) 173177? 495 2. Addl. CIT Vs. Mukur Corporation (Guj) 111 ITR 312 3. Swamp Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT (All) 187 ITR 412 4. Thallbal Jain & Others Vs. ITO & Anr (Kar) 101 ITR 1 5. Tejinder Singh Makker Vs. ACTT (174 T, Mum-TM) 61 ITD 57 6. Rampyari Devi Saroogi Vs. CIT (SC) 67 ITR 84 CIT Vs. McMillan& Co. (SC) 33 ITR 182. 8. LaSa Vat/ SInghal Vs. C1T (All) 226 ITR 527 9. Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. C1T & Ors(Del) 99 ITR 375 10. D&H Secheron Electonles Ltd. Vs. DO…