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

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

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

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 ,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,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 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,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,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,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

M/S THE MAHARASHTRA STATE CO. OP BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO-1(3)(3), 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

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

PERFECT FILAMENTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid decision

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailperfect Filaments Limited, E-23/24/25/26, Commerce Centre, Tardeo Road Tulsi Wadi, S.O., ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400034 Pan : Aaacp4215F V/S Principal Commissiioner Of Income Tax-4 ……………… Respondent 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Assessee By : Shri Dharan Gandhi Revenue By : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr

section 263 of the Act was issued pertains to the disallowance of interest on delayed payment of TDS to the tune

SUDHIR VRUNDAVANDAS VALIA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CIR-20(1), MUMBAI

263(1) 8. of the Act, we find that the Appellant was confronted by the PCIT with the issue of (a) ownership of the windmill undertaking, (b) it commissioning, and (c) commencement of production in the following manner by way of the aforesaid notice: “3. On verification of the assessment record, it has been found that during the year consideration

BE HEALTHY PHARMACY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 41(3)(1), KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Be Healthy Pharmacy Pcit-41 Shop No. 04, Gala Residency Room No. 541 Chsl, Gala Compound, Haji Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Bapu Road, Malad East C-41 To 43 Mumbai-400 097. Bandra-E, Mumbai-51. Pan : Aatfb6476A Appellant Respondent

TDS on payment of Rs. 6,57,21,415/- towards listing fees under the correct section 194-O which the Ld. AO ought to have. Finally, the Ld. PCIT concluded that as Ld. AO did not conduct enquiries into all these, an order under section 263