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

THE J.K. TRUST BOMBAY,MUMBAI vs. CIT (E), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

section, viz., (i) the order is erroneous; (ii) by virtue of the order being erroneous prejudice has been caused to the interests of the Revenue. It has, therefore, to be considered firstly as to when an order can be said to be erroneous. We find that the expressions "erroneous", "erroneous assessment" and "erroneous judgment" have been defined in Black

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2 of section 263 of the act.\n\nx. On 8 issues where the issue is decided in\ncase of some third-party, there is no\nreason that assessee can claim that the\nCIT lacks jurisdiction on these issues. The\nAO needs to examine the same. The claim\nof the learned PCIT is just examination\nverification and decide the issue

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 of Rs. 630,837,420/-. 2

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

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

TDS credit before the ld. AO. The ld. AO after due examination of the same had accepted to the contentions of the assessee in the said search assessment. Even if there is some error in that order, again the section 263 time limit for the ld. PCIT would expire by 31/03/2017 in terms of Section 263(2

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

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

TDS credit before the ld. AO. The ld. AO after due examination of the same had accepted to the contentions of the assessee in the said search assessment. Even if there is some error in that order, again the section 263 time limit for the ld. PCIT would expire by 31/03/2017 in terms of Section 263(2

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

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

TDS credit before the ld. AO. The ld. AO after due examination of the same had accepted to the contentions of the assessee in the said search assessment. Even if there is some error in that order, again the section 263 time limit for the ld. PCIT would expire by 31/03/2017 in terms of Section 263(2

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

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

TDS credit before the ld. AO. The ld. AO after due examination of the same had accepted to the contentions of the assessee in the said search assessment. Even if there is some error in that order, again the section 263 time limit for the ld. PCIT would expire by 31/03/2017 in terms of Section 263(2

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

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

TDS credit before the ld. AO. The ld. AO after due examination of the same had accepted to the contentions of the assessee in the said search assessment. Even if there is some error in that order, again the section 263 time limit for the ld. PCIT would expire by 31/03/2017 in terms of Section 263(2

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

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

TDS credit before the ld. AO. The ld. AO after due examination of the same had accepted to the contentions of the assessee in the said search assessment. Even if there is some error in that order, again the section 263 time limit for the ld. PCIT would expire by 31/03/2017 in terms of Section 263(2

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

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

TDS credit before the ld. AO. The ld. AO after due examination of the same had accepted to the contentions of the assessee in the said search assessment. Even if there is some error in that order, again the section 263 time limit for the ld. PCIT would expire by 31/03/2017 in terms of Section 263(2

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

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

TDS credit before the ld. AO. The ld. AO after due examination of the same had accepted to the contentions of the assessee in the said search assessment. Even if there is some error in that order, again the section 263 time limit for the ld. PCIT would expire by 31/03/2017 in terms of Section 263(2

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

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

TDS credit before the ld. AO. The ld. AO after due examination of the same had accepted to the contentions of the assessee in the said search assessment. Even if there is some error in that order, again the section 263 time limit for the ld. PCIT would expire by 31/03/2017 in terms of Section 263(2

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

2.-For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order\npassed by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may\nbe,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of\nthe revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief\nCommissioner

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

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

2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order\npassed by the Assessing Officer [or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may\nbe,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of\nthe revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief\nCommissioner

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