Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 1 May, 1967
A.Y.06-07
details of expenses after calling the details from the assessee and assessee has also supplied
bills and vouchers of these expenses. Even the case law cited by Ld.CIT-DR of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Ram Payari Saraogi(supra) wherein it is held that the Commissioner may
consider an order of the AO to be erroneous not only if it contains some apparent error of
reasoning or of law or of fact on the face of it, but also because it is a stereo typed order which
simply accepts, what the assessee has stated in his return and failed to make enquiries, which
are called for in the circumstance of the case.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gabriel India Ltd. on 15 April, 1993
A similar view
has been taken by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd(1993)
203 ITR 108 (Bom). The power of revision is not meant to be exercised for the purpose of
directing the AO to hold another investigation, particularly when the order of the AO is found
neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Mulchand Bagri. on 5 March, 1990
But the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case
of CIT Vs. Mulchand Bagri(1992) 108 CTR 206(Cal) stated that where the AO has made
enquiries, it cannot be said that the order passed is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In the
present case the AO has made enquiries and the assessee replied to the enquiries, the order
passed by the AO in the present case cannot be said to be either erroneous or prejudicial to the
interest of revenue. Accordingly, we quash the revision order passed u/s.263 of the Act by CIT.
Sai University Act, 2018
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) vs Mukesh Bhansali Charities Trust ... on 1 September, 2023
Hon'ble Madras High Court in
the case of CIT Vs. Shakti Charities (2000) 244 ITR 226(Mad) held the similar view. Making a
valid order u/s.263 of the Act the essential condition that the Commissioner has to record an
express finding to the fact that the order sought to be revised is erroneous as well as prejudicial
to the interest of the revenue and in the absence of any such finding, the order u/s.263 of the
Act is liable to be set aside. We find that, in the present case before us, the AO has verified the
5 ITA 696/K/2011 M/s. Palco Distributors.
1