Umashankar Rice Mill v. CIT

187 ITR 638High Court1991#7030 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Umashankar Rice Mill v. CIT

SHRI BUDHRAJ AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-43(6) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the legal issue as well as on merit

ITA 431/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 263

…of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court was confirmed on merit by the Apex Court in Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 77 taxman.com 285 (SC)/ (2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC). Similarly, the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Umashankar Rice Mill v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 638 (Ori.) has observed that where the Commissioner felt that proper enquiry was not made by the AO during the assessment proceeding, he was justified in invoking the provisions of section 263 in respect of the order passed by the AO. Page 10 of 12 I.T.A. No.: 431/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Budhraj Agarwal. 10.2. In this context, refere…

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

…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 Umashankar Rice Mill vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 638-39 (Ori), the Tribunal was held justified in upholding the revision order of the Commissioner which was passed by the Commissioner who felt that there should be a further enquiry. Reliance is further placed on the following judgments: i. Jagdish Kumar Gulati vs. CIT, 269 ITR 71 (AH.) in which it is held that while framing the assessment under sec…

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

…d that the order of the AC is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue - Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. V:; LIT (1991) 187 ITR 412, 415-16 (All) 5 Assessment Year : 2005-2006 M/s. Kinnor Kinnoree In the facts of Umashankar Rice Mill v. CIT(1991) 187 ITR 638, 639 (Orissa), the Tribunal was held justified in upholding the prowsional order of the Commissioner who felt the there should be a further enquiry. The Commissioner is fully empowered to adopt any one of the three courses indicated by the provisions of Sec. 263 and the Commissioner’s power cannot be faulted because he cancelled the assessment a…

KESHAV SARAF,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-15, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 156/KOL/2021[2015-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2022AY 2015-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 108Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court was confirmed on merit by the Apex Court in Rajmandir Estates Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 77 taxman.com 285 (SC)/ (2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC). Similarly, the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Umashankar Rice Mill v. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 638 (Ori.) has observed that where the Commissioner felt that proper enquiry was not made by the AO during the assessment proceeding, he was justified in invoking the provisions of section 263 in respect of the order passed by the AO. 10.2. In this context, reference can also be made to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ramapyar…

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)

…or verification at the relevant time by the Assessing Officer would constitute prejudice to the interest of revenue and would involve error of facts and law. It was held by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Umashankar Rice Mills Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 638(Ori)that, where the Commissioner felt that proper enquiry was not made by the AO during assessment proceedings, he was justified in invoking provisions of Section 263 in respect of the order passed by the AO. Similarly, in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT report in 99 ITR 375(Del), the Hon'ble Court has held that the Commissioner can…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND 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 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: 01. This appeal is filed by ICICI Bank Ltd (The appellant/ ass…

SRI LALIT MURARKA,CUTTACK vs. ITO, CUTTACK

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

ITA 409/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.188 & 409/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sri Lalit Murarka, Vs. Cit, Cuttack Prop- M/S Subham, Kanika Chhak, Cuttack Pan No. : Apmpm 9441 C (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, Advs िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee Has Filed These Two Appeals I.E.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 263(1)

…C) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vrs. CIT reported in 88 ITR 323 (SC) (1973) in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that lack of enquiry or of facts and law. It was held by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Umashankar Rice Mills Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 638(Ori)that, where the Commissioner felt that proper enquiry was not made by the AO during assessment proceedings, he was justified in invoking provisions of Section 263 in respect of the order passed by the AO. Similarly, in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Add!. CIT report in 99 ITR 375(Del), the Hon'ble Court has held that the Commissioner can…

LALIT MURARKA,CUTTACK vs. CIT, CUTTACK

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

ITA 188/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.188 & 409/Ctk/2015 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Sri Lalit Murarka, Vs. Cit, Cuttack Prop- M/S Subham, Kanika Chhak, Cuttack Pan No. : Apmpm 9441 C (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, Advs िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Assessee Has Filed These Two Appeals I.E.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.Sahu/Somnath Sahoo, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 263(1)

…C) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vrs. CIT reported in 88 ITR 323 (SC) (1973) in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that lack of enquiry or of facts and law. It was held by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Umashankar Rice Mills Vs. CIT reported in 187 ITR 638(Ori)that, where the Commissioner felt that proper enquiry was not made by the AO during assessment proceedings, he was justified in invoking provisions of Section 263 in respect of the order passed by the AO. Similarly, in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Add!. CIT report in 99 ITR 375(Del), the Hon'ble Court has held that the Commissioner can…

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

…assed 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 CIT in ITA No. 2595/Del/2009, order dated 21.01.2011 15…

ANAND PRASAD JAISWAL,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 343/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri K.K.Bal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CITDR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…that lack of enquiry or verification at the relevant time by the AO would constitute prejudice to the interest of revenue and would involve error of fact and law. Similarly, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Uma Shankar Rice Mills Vs. CIT (187 ITR 638) have observed that where the Commissioner felt that proper enquiry 'was not made by the AO during the assessment proceeding, he was justified in invoking the provision of section 263 in respect of tire order passed by the AO. Even Income tax Act has been amended and explanation 2 has been inserted u/s 263(1) wherein it is clarified that an order…

M/S. NATIONAL TRANSPORT,KEONJHAR vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK CHARGE, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 179/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Aug 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CITDR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 40

…that lack of enquiry or verification at the relevant time by the AO would constitute prejudice to the interest of revenue and would involve error of fact and law. Similarly, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Uma Shankar Rice Mills Vs. CIT ( 187 ITR 638) have observed that where the Commissioner felt that proper enquiry was not made by the AO during the assessment proceeding, he was justified in invoking the provision of section 263 in respect of the order passed by the AO. Even Income tax Act has been amended and explanation 2 has been inserted u/s 263(1) wherein it is clarified that an order p…

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

…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 Rice Mill vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 638-39 (Ori), the Tribunal was held justified in upholding the revision order of the Commissioner which was passed by the Commissioner who felt that there should be a further enquiry. Reliance is further placed on the following judgments: i. Jagdish Kumar Gulati vs. CIT, 269 ITR 71 (AH.) in which it is held that while framing the assessment under sec…

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

…ng 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 the assessee without making any enquiry or verification whe…

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

…ng 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 the assessee without making any enquiry or verification whe…

M/S. NARESH PHARMACEUTICAL AGENCIES,CUTTACK vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

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

ITA 180/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…that lack of enquiry or verification at the relevant time by the AO would constitute prejudice to the interest of revenue and would involve error of fact and law. Similarly, the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Uma Shankar Rice Mills Vs. CIT ( 187 ITR 638) have observed that where the Commissioner felt that proper enquiry was not made by Asse ssment Year : 20 11- 12 the AO during the assessment proceeding, he was justified in invoking the provision of section 263 in respect of the order passed by the AO. Even Income tax Act has been amended and explanation 2 has been inserted u/s 263(1) wherein i…

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

…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 Umashankar Rice Mill vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 638-39 (Ori), the Tribunal was held justified in upholding the revisional order of the Commissioner which was passed by the Commissioner who felt that there should be a further enquiry. Reliance is further placed on the following: i. Jagdish Kumar Gulati vs. CIT, 269 ITR 71 (All.) in which it is held that while framing the assessment under section 1…