Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.31 seconds)Income Tax Officer vs Dg Housing Projects Ltd on 1 March, 2012
Regarding enquiry in respect of TDS, we note that the details of
TDS, section-wise and date-wise, were filed before the Assessing Officer
along with the relevant challans, copy of which are placed at pages 10 to 25
of the paper book shows that there was no lack of enquiry on this count also.
Considering totality of the facts and circumstances, we find that there were
enquiries by Assessing Officer on the issues raised by the CIT in the show
cause notice prior to passing the order u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act.
Assessing Officer has taken one of the plausible views, therefore, the CIT
cannot invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263 to replace the view taken by the
Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the latest case of
8 ITA No.972/Del./2010
ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. - ITA No.179 / 2011 dated 1st March, 2012
has held as under :-
M/S. The Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala ... on 10 February, 2000
18. It is in this context that the Supreme Court in Malabar
Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000)
243 ITR 83 (SC), had observed that the phrase 'prejudicial to the
interest of Revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an
erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of
Revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer
cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Thus,
when the Assessing Officer had adopted one of the courses
permissible and available to him, and this has resulted in loss to
9 ITA No.972/Del./2010
Revenue; or two views were possible and the Assessing Officer
has taken one view with which the CIT may not agree; the said
orders cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the
interest of Revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing
Officer is unsustainable in law. In such matters, the CIT must
give a finding that the view taken by the Assessing Officer is
unsustainable in law and, therefore, the order is erroneous. He
must also show that prejudice is caused to the interest of the
Revenue.
Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Cit Alcatel on 20 September, 1993
Learned AR also relied on the decision of
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. of CIT vs. Hindustan Coca
Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. - 2011-TIOL-33-HC-DEL-IT (ITA Nos.1391/
2010, 1394/2010 & 1396/2010) for the proposition that when full details have
been given in the notes to the accounts, balance sheet and tax audit report
with regard to claim of depreciation on goodwill, then the proceedings u/s 263
cannot be sustained.
The Institute Of Chartered Accountants ... vs The Director General Of Income Tax ... on 3 October, 2017
Ld.
AR further relied on the case of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of
India vs. DIT (Exemptions) - 2011-TIOL-69-ITAT-DEL where the
proceedings u/s 263 were held to be invalid.
Cit vs M/S Vikas Polymers on 16 August, 2010
Learned AR also relied on the
decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers
Sunbeam Auto Ltd., New Delhi vs Addl. Cit, New Delhi on 6 April, 2023
The Assessing Officer satisfied with the explanation of assessee and accepted
the same. Further, Ld. AR submitted that in the just preceding year, such
claim was allowed. The order of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 143(3) for
the Assessment Year 2003-04 (placed at pages 4 & 5 of the paper book). Ld.
AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view and there
was no lack of proper enquiry. Wherever two views are possible the
Assessing Officer can adopt one plausible view. In that situation, CIT cannot
have jurisdiction u/s 263 of Income-tax Act. For this proposition, Ld. AR
relied on the decision of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited reported in 227 CTR
(Del) 133 wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that when there was an
enquiry and even if it was inadequate that would not by itself give occasions
to CIT to make order u/s 263, merely because the CIT has different opinion in
the matter. CIT can invoke the provisions of section 263 only in the case of
4 ITA No.972/Del./2010
lack of enquiry.
Cit vs Max India Ltd. on 1 November, 2007
Ld. AR further relied on the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Max India Limited
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Shree Man Junathesware, Packing ... on 2 December, 1997
An order will not become erroneous
because on remit, the Assessing Officer may decide that the
order is erroneous. Therefore CIT must after recording reasons
hold that the order is erroneous. The jurisdictional precondition
stipulated is that the CIT must come to the conclusion that the
order is erroneous and is unsustainable in law. We may notice
that the material which the CIT can rely includes not only the
record as it stands at the time when the order in question was
passed by the Assessing Officer but also the record as it stands
at the time of examination by the CIT [see CIT vs. Shree
Manjunathesware Packing Products, 231 ITR 53 (SC)].
Nothing bars/prohibits the CIT from collecting and relying upon
new/additional material/evidence to show and state that the order
of the Assessing Officer is erroneous.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Arvind Jewellers on 19 July, 2002
and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case CIT
vs. Arvind Jewellers - 259 ITR 502 (Guj.).