MANJU RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

263 has been incorrectly invoked by the Ld. PCIT. The Ld. Counsel referred to assessee’s invoked by the Ld. PCIT. The Ld. Counsel referred invoked by the Ld. PCIT. The Ld. Counsel referred paper book page 60, which is a copy of notice u/s 143 143(2) of the Act dated 29.06.2021, wherein wherein the assessee was asked

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 143(2) of the Act\nand sample notice produced clearly shows how the\ndepartment selected the case.\n\n016. Accordingly, the learned Departmental\nRepresentative supported the order under Section\n263 of the Act whereas the learned Authorized\nRepresentative vehemently contested that the\nimpugned order is not sustainable.\n\n017. We have carefully considered rival contentions and\nperused the orders

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

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