Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (0.73 seconds)
Arun Kumar Palawat, Jaipur vs Pr Cit, Jaipur-1, Jaipur, Jaipur on 11 April, 2023 cites

Commr.Of Income Tax,Simla vs M/S Green World Corporation on 6 May, 2009

The Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Green World Corporation (2009) 314 ITR 81 (Supreme Court) held that 'The jurisdiction under section 263 can be exercised only when both the following conditions are satisfied (i) the order of the assessing officer should be erroneous and (ii) it should be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. These conditions are conjunctive. An order of assessment passed by the Assessing officer should not be interfered with only because another view is possible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 81 - Cited by 131 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Kelvinator Of India Ltd on 18 January, 2010

CIT does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. The Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 231 (Delhi) it has held that Assessing officer taking one of two possible views with which commissioner not agreeing the assessment order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1696 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M/S. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. (Now, ... on 27 January, 2020

In the case of CIT Vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. (2013) 2012 Taxman 184 Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that assessing officer before passing assessment order made an enquiry and directed his mind on all aspects. View adopted by him was clearly one among two plausible views that could have been taken. The Commissioner did not specifically furnish any reasons to say why original order was unsupportable in law.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 47 - Full Document

M/S. The Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala ... on 10 February, 2000

In the case of Malabar Industrial Co Ltd Vs CIT [(2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when an ITO adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law." The test for what is the least expected of a prudent, judicious and responsible Assessing Officer in the normal course of his assessment work, or what constitutes a permissible course of action for the Assessing Officer, is not what he should have done in the ideal circumstances, but what an Assessing Officer, in the course of his performance of his duties as an Assessing Officer should, as a prudent, judicious or reasonable public servant, reasonably do bonafide in a real-life situation. It is also important to bear in mind the fact that lack of bonafides or unreasonableness in conduct cannot be inferred on mere suspicion; there have to be some strong indicators in direction, or there has to be a specific failure in doing what a prudent, judicious and responsible officer would have done in the normal course of his work in the similar circumstances.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 2080 - S S Quadri - Full Document

Tej Paul Bhardwaj, Sunam vs Pr. Cit, Patiala on 13 May, 2021

In the case of Paul Bharwaj vs. Pr.CIT in ITA No. 463/Chd/2019 May 13, 2021 [(2021) 62 CCH 0120 Chd Trib.] Revision--Order erroneous or prejudicial to revenue--Over exercise of power--Assessee an individual filed his return declaring income and agricultural income--Case was selected for limited scrutiny for reason that there was a substantial increase in capital during year relevant to assessment year under consideration--AO accepted return filed by assessee--Pr. CIT issued notice to assessee u/s 263 and directed AO to make assessment afresh on issues mentioned in notice--Held, Tribunal in case of M/s Su-Raj Diamond Dealers Pvt. Ltd. CIT ITA No 3098/ Mum has quashed order passed u/s 263 in case of limited scrutiny assessment, holding that Pr. CIT under garb of section 263, cannot exceed his jurisdiction holding that when case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny for reasons viz. (i) Large other expenses claimed in P&L A/c; and (ii) Low income in comparison to High Loans/advance /Investment in shares, therefore, no infirmity could be attributed to assessment framed by A.O on ground that he had failed to deal with other issues which though did not fall within realm of limited reasons for which case was selected for scrutiny assessment--In other words, Pr. CIT in garb of his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 cannot be permitted to traverse beyond jurisdiction that was vested with A.O while 31 ITA NO. 144/JP/2022 Shri Arun Kumar Palawat, Jaipur.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 23 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

The Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd.,, Pune vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax - Iv,, on 10 October, 2017

D) In the Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT in ITA 1013 AND 1635/PUN/2015, Pune Bench of the Tribunal held, that, "40. Now, coming to the aspect of book profits which was considered by the Commissioner and the order of the Assessing Officer was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this regard, it may be pointed out that the case of assessee was picked up for scrutiny under CASS for the limited purpose of verifying the Chapter VI-A deduction. Once the case is picked up for specific purpose under CASS, then it is outside the 32 ITA NO. 144/JP/2022 Shri Arun Kumar Palawat, Jaipur.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 20 - Cited by 18 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next