Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.33 seconds)
M/S Ruchi J Oil Pvt Ltd , Mumbai vs Pcit(A)Ujjain, Ujjain on 25 March, 2021 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Trilok Nath Mehrotra And Others. on 1 October, 1997

i) CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers [2004] 270 ITR 157 (MP) Held "Whether if while making assessment, Assessing Officer has made an inadequate enquiry , that would not, by itself, give occasion to Commissioner to pass order under section 263, merely because he has different opinion in matter.It is only in cases of 'lack of inquiry' that such a course of action would be open.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 47 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ratlam Coal Ash Company on 17 August, 1987

ii) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. - [1987] 171 ITR 141 (MP) HELD-"In the instant case, the Tribunal had found that the assessee had furnished all the requisite information and that the ITO considering all the facts had completed the assessment. It was further held that in the 14 M/s Ruchi J Oil Pvt. Ltd ITA No.176/Ind/2020 circumstances of the case,it could not be held that the ITO had made assessment without making proper enquiries. In view of these findings, the Tribunal was justified in reversing the order passed by the Commissioner."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 85 - Full Document

M/S. Flexituff International Ltd., ... vs The Pr.Cit-1, Indore on 14 May, 2019

iv) Flexituff International Ltd vs. Pr. CIT (2019) 3 ITJ online 654 (Indore Bench) (ITA No. 282/Ind/2017 - order pronounced on 14.05.2019 - Para 18) Held "It remains an undisputed fact that the Assessing Officer had made adequate enquires as noted herein above adopting one of permissible view for allowing the assessee's claim for exemption u/s 10A of the Act before the claim of set off of brought forward and current year loss. The Ld. Pr. CIT took a different view of the matter. However that would not be sufficient to permit Ld. Pr. CIT to exercise the power u/s 263 of the Act because when two views are possible and Ld. Pr.CIT does not agree with the view taken by the Assessing Officer, assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer not unacceptable in law"....................."As the Ld. AO; after making detailed enquiry allowed 15 M/s Ruchi J Oil Pvt. Ltd ITA No.176/Ind/2020 assessee's claim of exemption u/s 10A of the Act at Rs.12,51,79,200/-, this action of the Ld. A.O cannot be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue".
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 46 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

C.I.T. -7 vs M/S Reliance Communications ... on 22 August, 2014

b) CIT vs. Reliance Communications Ltd (2017) 396 ITR 217 (Bom.) Held "Tribunal noted that Assessing Officer had made detailed enquiries about aforesaid aspect and mere fact that he did not make any reference to said issue in assessment order, could not make said order erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenues - Accordingly, Tribunal set aside revisional order - Whether finding recorded by Tribunal being a finding of fact, no substantial question of law arose there from - Held, yes [Para 11]"
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 69 - Full Document

M/S Krishna District Co.-Op.Central ... vs Dy. Cit, Circle - 2(1),, Vijayawada on 8 November, 2017

f) CIT vs. Krishna Capbox (P) Ltd - [2015] 372 ITR 310 (All) Tribunal held that "once inquiry was made, a mere non-discussion or non-mention thereof in assessment order could not lead to assumption that Assessing Officer did not apply his mind or that he had not made inquiry on subject and this would not justify interference by Commissioner by issuing notice under section 263".
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 27 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Xiii vs Shri Ashish Rajpal on 14 May, 2009

M/s Ruchi J Oil Pvt. Ltd ITA No.176/Ind/2020 Contrary to this, in aforesaid conclusion, he observed that the track record of promoter group i.e. M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd did not justify the rate of share premium charged by the company, which was not examined by the AO. He ignored the fact that the share valuation was based on DCF Method permitted under Rule 11UA of Income Tax Rules, which was accepted all along including in the notice issued u/s 263 of the Act.Thus, he issued the directions to verify rate of premium on shares issued by the company to M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries as well two non-resident companies. Kind attention is invited to the judgment in the case of CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (2010) 320 ITR 674 (Del.) wherein it was held as under :-
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 110 - R Shakdher - Full Document
1   2 Next