Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.56 seconds)C.I.T-I Mumbai vs L.I.C. Of India Limited on 26 April, 2017
Reliance is also placed on CIT Vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd 367 ITR 458
[Bom]; CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd 332 ITR 231 [Del]; CIT Vs. DLF
Power Ltd 329 ITR 289 [Del] which hold that an order cannot be said to
be erroneous and prejudicial if Assessing Officer takes a possible view
and Assessing Officer taking one of the two possible views, assessment
order cannot be treated as erroneous. In this case, as mentioned
above, Assessing Officer after considering the submissions of the
assessee and considering the evidence reached to the conclusion that
capital gain was exempt.
Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Kelvinator Of India Ltd on 18 January, 2010
Reliance is also placed on CIT Vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd 367 ITR 458
[Bom]; CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd 332 ITR 231 [Del]; CIT Vs. DLF
Power Ltd 329 ITR 289 [Del] which hold that an order cannot be said to
be erroneous and prejudicial if Assessing Officer takes a possible view
and Assessing Officer taking one of the two possible views, assessment
order cannot be treated as erroneous. In this case, as mentioned
above, Assessing Officer after considering the submissions of the
assessee and considering the evidence reached to the conclusion that
capital gain was exempt.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi-Iv vs Dlf Power Ltd. on 9 October, 2009
Reliance is also placed on CIT Vs. LIC Housing Finance Ltd 367 ITR 458
[Bom]; CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd 332 ITR 231 [Del]; CIT Vs. DLF
Power Ltd 329 ITR 289 [Del] which hold that an order cannot be said to
be erroneous and prejudicial if Assessing Officer takes a possible view
and Assessing Officer taking one of the two possible views, assessment
order cannot be treated as erroneous. In this case, as mentioned
above, Assessing Officer after considering the submissions of the
assessee and considering the evidence reached to the conclusion that
capital gain was exempt.
M/S. The Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala ... on 10 February, 2000
Therefore, in view of the above decisions,
and in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of
7
ITA No. 7296/DEL/2017
Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs CIT reported in 243 ITR 83, the action of
the ld. CIT in passing the order u/s 263 of the Act cannot be said to be
in accordance with law and the order passed u/s 263, thus is bad.
Moreover, it is seen that the ld. CIT in first 15 pages of the order has
mentioned about the show cause notices, replies given on behalf of
the assessee and then in paras 18 to 20 of the order u/s 263, CIT held
that the objections raised by the assessee as regards the invocation of
section 263 of the Act are not tenable. There is no finding recorded
by the ld. CIT(A) after the receipt of the replies from the assessee that
the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of
the revenue.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central ... vs Nirav Modi on 14 December, 2016
Paper book page 108 to 110 also copy of Jamabandi
which show the subject land as Chahi [irrigated]. Thus, it is evident
that during the course of assessment proceedings issue about the
taxability of capital gain was considered in assessment and a view was
6
ITA No. 7296/DEL/2017
taken by the Assessing Officer as to the non taxability of such gain.
Therefore, when the claim of the assessee was accepted in assessment
order after due consideration of the facts, it cannot be said that the
assessment order was erroneous as assessment was passed after
application of mind. It has been held in the case of CIT Vs. Nirav Modi
390 ITR 292 [Bom] that the Assessing Officer having raised queries and
perused evidences and having been satisfied with the claim a revision
by the CIT was not justified.
Jewel Of India vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 16 September, 2002
Therefore, absence of such finding is also fatal to the
validity of the order u/s 263 and we are fortified by Guwahati High
Court decision in the case of Smt. Lila Choudhary Vs. CIT 289 ITR 226,
Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jewel of India Vs. CIT 325
ITR 92, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. International Travel House
Ltd reported in 344 ITR 554, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Bharat
Aluminum Co. Ltd 303m ITR 256, therefore, from this stand point also,
order passed u/s 263 is not sustainable and is therefore, quashed.
Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi-Iv vs International Travel House Ltd. on 13 September, 2010
Therefore, absence of such finding is also fatal to the
validity of the order u/s 263 and we are fortified by Guwahati High
Court decision in the case of Smt. Lila Choudhary Vs. CIT 289 ITR 226,
Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jewel of India Vs. CIT 325
ITR 92, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. International Travel House
Ltd reported in 344 ITR 554, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Bharat
Aluminum Co. Ltd 303m ITR 256, therefore, from this stand point also,
order passed u/s 263 is not sustainable and is therefore, quashed.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. on 11 May, 2011
Therefore, absence of such finding is also fatal to the
validity of the order u/s 263 and we are fortified by Guwahati High
Court decision in the case of Smt. Lila Choudhary Vs. CIT 289 ITR 226,
Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jewel of India Vs. CIT 325
ITR 92, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. International Travel House
Ltd reported in 344 ITR 554, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Bharat
Aluminum Co. Ltd 303m ITR 256, therefore, from this stand point also,
order passed u/s 263 is not sustainable and is therefore, quashed.
Lila Choudhury vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Ors. on 13 March, 2006
Therefore, absence of such finding is also fatal to the
validity of the order u/s 263 and we are fortified by Guwahati High
Court decision in the case of Smt. Lila Choudhary Vs. CIT 289 ITR 226,
Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jewel of India Vs. CIT 325
ITR 92, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. International Travel House
Ltd reported in 344 ITR 554, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Bharat
Aluminum Co. Ltd 303m ITR 256, therefore, from this stand point also,
order passed u/s 263 is not sustainable and is therefore, quashed.
1