SH KELKAR & CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh Kelkar & Company Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax-4, Devkaran Mansion, 36, Vs. Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Mangaldas Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs 9778 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate & Shri Harsh Kothari Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 13/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

263 and therefore, there was no requirement of separately specifying separately specifying or invoking of Explanation or invoking of Explanation-2 in the show cause notice proposing cause notice proposing for revision of the assessment order. revision of the assessment order. He submitted that once the main section is quoted and such section is submitted that once the main section

JYOTI HARSHAD MEHTA (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE HARSHAD S. MEHTA),MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT (C)- 2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

263 Income Tax Act, 1961, the PCIT illegally withhold the refund which has arisen in consequence of the PCIT (Appeal) order as well as Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s Order. This is a clear cut case of judicial indiscipline for which I request your honours that the cost be awarded under Section 254 (2B) to the asseseee and revenue

LIVLONG INSURANCE BROKERS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT -4 , MUMBAI

263 vis-à-vis enquiries conducted. We observe\nthe ld.PCIT has drawn support from Explanation 2 below section\n263(1) of the Act introduced by Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 for\nhis action. The Explanation 2 inter alia provides that the order passed\nwithout making inquiries or verification 'which should have been made'\nwill be deemed to be erroneous insofar

BARCLAYS BANK PLC,MUMBAI vs. CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

263 of the revision: “1. The return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14 was electronically filed by the assessee on 29 November 2013 declaring total income of Rs. 539,949,260/ . The return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14 was revised by assesses on 26 March 2015 declaring a total income

APURVA NATVAR PARIKH & CO. PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI-6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is\ndismissed

section 263 includes the failure to make\nsuch an inquiry. The order becomes erroneous because such an inquiry has not been\nmade and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated\ntherein are assumed to be correct.\"\n7.3 Reference may also made to decisions of the Supreme Court\nin Rampyari Devi Saraogi versus

INDIABULLS COMMERCIAL CREDIT LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

263 of\nthe Act and in cancelling the same for de novo assessment, i.e CIT vs\nNirav Modi(2016) 71 Taxmann.com 272(Bom),PCIT vs Shivshahi\nP.Prakalp Ltd(2023) 155 Taxmann.com 408(Bom),Malabar Industrial\nCo. Ltd vs CIT(2000) 109 Taxman 66(SC),CIT vs Gabriel India\nLtd(1993) 71 Taxman 585(Bom) and Hariom Iron Trading Co.vs\nCIT

AFCONS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT -(1), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

section 263(1), Explanation 2 qua both the issues flagged by the Ld. PCIT. 14. So far as issue flagged by the Ld. PCIT as to the alleged bogus sub-contract expenses claimed by the assessee from M/s. Kumar Enterprises and M/s. Shivam Enterprises for an amount of Rs.7,93,68,000/- are concerned, we have perused the assessment order

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS, any error, if at all, could be attributable only in that first scrutiny assessment order dated 27/12/2011. Hence, time limit to invoke revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT should have been done on or before 31/03/2014 in terms of Section 263

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS, any error, if at all, could be attributable only in that first scrutiny assessment order dated 27/12/2011. Hence, time limit to invoke revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT should have been done on or before 31/03/2014 in terms of Section 263

SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS, any error, if at all, could be attributable only in that first scrutiny assessment order dated 27/12/2011. Hence, time limit to invoke revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT should have been done on or before 31/03/2014 in terms of Section 263

SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS, any error, if at all, could be attributable only in that first scrutiny assessment order dated 27/12/2011. Hence, time limit to invoke revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT should have been done on or before 31/03/2014 in terms of Section 263

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS, any error, if at all, could be attributable only in that first scrutiny assessment order dated 27/12/2011. Hence, time limit to invoke revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT should have been done on or before 31/03/2014 in terms of Section 263

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,TELAGANA vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS, any error, if at all, could be attributable only in that first scrutiny assessment order dated 27/12/2011. Hence, time limit to invoke revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT should have been done on or before 31/03/2014 in terms of Section 263

SOMA ENTERPRISE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS, any error, if at all, could be attributable only in that first scrutiny assessment order dated 27/12/2011. Hence, time limit to invoke revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT should have been done on or before 31/03/2014 in terms of Section 263

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT,(CENTRAL)-MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS, any error, if at all, could be attributable only in that first scrutiny assessment order dated 27/12/2011. Hence, time limit to invoke revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT should have been done on or before 31/03/2014 in terms of Section 263

SOMA ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL),MUMBAI-1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

TDS, any error, if at all, could be attributable only in that first scrutiny assessment order dated 27/12/2011. Hence, time limit to invoke revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT should have been done on or before 31/03/2014 in terms of Section 263

SAIGAL SEA TRADE,MUMBAI vs. CIT -18, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

263 of the Act as the assessment order was passed on due application of mind and considering the reply of the assessee. It was contended that notice u/s 142(1) was issued which was replied by the Assessing Officer. Plea was also raised that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) accepted the version of the assessee on one item

DY CIT-1(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly assessee is allowed partly whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2013-14

TDS of Rs. 12,23,608/- has been allowed by the has been allowed by the Income-tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or tax Department in the hands of Shri Kapil Ahluwalia or not. If it has been not allowed, then the credit of this amount