Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.21 seconds)
Vanishree Holabsu Shettar, Guledgudd vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 25 July, 2022
cites
The Advocates Act, 1961
Finance Act, 2015
Section 69A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi on 8 August, 2005
), CIT
Mehrotra Brothem -270 ITR 0157 (MP,CIT v. Ganpet Ram
Bishnoi - 296 ITR 0292 (Raj.), Cadila healthcare Ltd. v. Cl
7, Ahmedabadh-1 [ITA no. 1096/Ahd/2013 &
910/Ahd/2014], Sri Saí Contractors v. ITO [ITO no.
109Nizag/2002] and Pyare lal Jaiswal v. CIT, Vamnesi
[(2014) 41 taxmann.com 27 & (AII Trib.)]. It was
contended by the Learned Counsel that clause -(a) & (b) of
Explanation 2 of Section 263 are not applicable as the
Assessing Officer has made enquiry and verification which
should have been made. Further, in the show cause notice,
the Explanation-2 of section 263 was not invoked by the
PCIT and it was referred in the order u/s.263 of the Act.
Therefore, in the light of decision of the Co-ordinate
Bench of Mumbai ga in the case of Narayan Tatu Rane -
70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum. Trt.) [PB 153-1561 wherein
ITA No.270/Bang/2022
Page 13 of 17
held that explanation cannot laid to have over ridden the
law as interpreted/the various High Courts where the
High Courts have held that before reaching the conclusion
that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous
prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The CIT himself has
to undertake some enquiry to establish that the
assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the
interest of Revenue.
Indian Oil Corp. Ltd vs Cl Bajaj & Anr on 18 December, 2019
), CIT
Mehrotra Brothem -270 ITR 0157 (MP,CIT v. Ganpet Ram
Bishnoi - 296 ITR 0292 (Raj.), Cadila healthcare Ltd. v. Cl
7, Ahmedabadh-1 [ITA no. 1096/Ahd/2013 &
910/Ahd/2014], Sri Saí Contractors v. ITO [ITO no.
109Nizag/2002] and Pyare lal Jaiswal v. CIT, Vamnesi
[(2014) 41 taxmann.com 27 & (AII Trib.)]. It was
contended by the Learned Counsel that clause -(a) & (b) of
Explanation 2 of Section 263 are not applicable as the
Assessing Officer has made enquiry and verification which
should have been made. Further, in the show cause notice,
the Explanation-2 of section 263 was not invoked by the
PCIT and it was referred in the order u/s.263 of the Act.
Therefore, in the light of decision of the Co-ordinate
Bench of Mumbai ga in the case of Narayan Tatu Rane -
70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum. Trt.) [PB 153-1561 wherein
ITA No.270/Bang/2022
Page 13 of 17
held that explanation cannot laid to have over ridden the
law as interpreted/the various High Courts where the
High Courts have held that before reaching the conclusion
that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous
prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The CIT himself has
to undertake some enquiry to establish that the
assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the
interest of Revenue.
Biharilal Jaiswal Etc vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax Etc on 16 November, 1995
), CIT
Mehrotra Brothem -270 ITR 0157 (MP,CIT v. Ganpet Ram
Bishnoi - 296 ITR 0292 (Raj.), Cadila healthcare Ltd. v. Cl
7, Ahmedabadh-1 [ITA no. 1096/Ahd/2013 &
910/Ahd/2014], Sri Saí Contractors v. ITO [ITO no.
109Nizag/2002] and Pyare lal Jaiswal v. CIT, Vamnesi
[(2014) 41 taxmann.com 27 & (AII Trib.)]. It was
contended by the Learned Counsel that clause -(a) & (b) of
Explanation 2 of Section 263 are not applicable as the
Assessing Officer has made enquiry and verification which
should have been made. Further, in the show cause notice,
the Explanation-2 of section 263 was not invoked by the
PCIT and it was referred in the order u/s.263 of the Act.
Therefore, in the light of decision of the Co-ordinate
Bench of Mumbai ga in the case of Narayan Tatu Rane -
70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum. Trt.) [PB 153-1561 wherein
ITA No.270/Bang/2022
Page 13 of 17
held that explanation cannot laid to have over ridden the
law as interpreted/the various High Courts where the
High Courts have held that before reaching the conclusion
that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous
prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The CIT himself has
to undertake some enquiry to establish that the
assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the
interest of Revenue.
Torrent Pharmaceutical Ltd.,, ... vs Dcit, Circle-4(1)(2),, Ahmedabad on 8 August, 2018
The ld. Counsel relied on the decision
of M/s. Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd., v. PCIT in ITA
No.3205/Del/2017 and Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case
of Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. DCIT [2018] 97
taxmann.com 671 (Ahd. - Trib.). it is clear from the
enquiries made by the Assessing Officer and submissions
made by the assessee that the Assessing Officer has taken
the plausible view which is valid in the eyes of law.
The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M/S. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. (Now, ... on 27 January, 2020
The
Assessing Officer was satisfied consequent to making
enquiry and after examining the evidences produced by
the assessee, he accepted the assessee's claim of loan
similar view were also expressed by the Hon'ble Delhi
High Court in the case of CIT v. Vodafone Essar South
Ltd. [2013] 212 taxman 0184. We observe the Pr.CIT has
drawn support from newly inserted Explanation 2 below
section 263(1) of the Act introduced by Finance Act, 2015
w.e.f. 1-6-2015 for his action. The Explanation 2 inter alia
provides that the order passed without making inquiries
or verification 'which should have been made' will be
deemed to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the
interest of the Revenue. It is on this basis, the assessment
order passed by the AO under section 143(3) of the Act
has been set aside with a direction to the AO to pass a
fresh assessment order. It will be therefore imperative to
dwell upon the impact of Explanation 2 for the purposes
of section 263 of the Act. The aim and object of
introduction of aforesaid Explanation by Finance Act,
2015 was explained in CBDT Circular No. 19/2015
[F.NO.142I14/2015T PL], Dated 27-11-2015 which is
reproduced hereunder:
The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Sunbeam Auto Pvt. Ltd. on 16 July, 2018
CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Del)
Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC)
ITA No.270/Bang/2022
Page 6 of 17
CIT v. Cyber Park Development & Construction Ltd.
[2021] 276 Taxman 460 (Kar)
CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma [2011] 335 ITR 83 (Del)
PCIT, Surat v. Shreeji Paints (P) Ltd. [2021] 282 Taxman
464 (SC)
Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO [2016] 70 taxmann.com 227
(Mum Trib)