Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Assessment order upheld under Section 143(3); Section 263 power clarified</h1> <h3>M/s. Kothi Steel Ltd. Versus CIT-III, Baroda</h3> M/s. Kothi Steel Ltd. Versus CIT-III, Baroda - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.2. Verification of unsecured loans.3. Verification of increase in share capital and share premium.4. Verification of advance to suppliers.5. Verification of expenses debited.6. Verification of gross loss incurred in manufacturing activity.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act:The assessee challenged the validity of the order dated 29.11.2013 made under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Baroda. The appellant contended that the assessment order dated 23.11.2011 made under Section 143(3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The CIT initiated proceedings under Section 263 on the grounds that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.2. Verification of unsecured loans:The CIT noted that the assessment order did not verify the genuineness of unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 42,16,500/- received from directors who were not assessed to tax and had agricultural income as their only source. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided confirmations and documentary evidence supporting the agricultural income and bank statements of the directors. The Tribunal cited the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., which held that an order cannot be deemed erroneous simply because it lacks elaborate discussion.3. Verification of increase in share capital and share premium:The CIT observed that the increase in share capital by Rs. 60.5 lakhs and share premium by Rs. 5.445 crores was not adequately verified during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided detailed documentary evidence, including board resolutions, PAN card copies, certificates of incorporation, bank statements, and IT returns of the shareholders. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had responded to the queries raised by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) and that the view taken by the A.O. was one of the possible views.4. Verification of advance to suppliers:The CIT noted that no enquiry was made regarding the advance of Rs. 55.31 lakhs to a related party, Kothi Traders. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided the ledger account of Kothi Traders during the assessment proceedings, indicating that the necessary verification was done.5. Verification of expenses debited:The CIT observed that expenses related to interest on service tax and electricity bills were not verified for their penal nature. The Tribunal found that the A.O. had made disallowances of Rs. 9,04,853/- for these expenses, indicating that the verification was done. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT's observation showed non-application of mind.6. Verification of gross loss incurred in manufacturing activity:The CIT noted that the explanation for the gross loss incurred due to a rise in raw material costs required further verification. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided detailed submissions and documentary evidence explaining the reasons for the loss, including the impact of international recession and the fall in steel prices. The Tribunal concluded that the A.O. had made adequate enquiries and that the view taken was one of the possible views.Conclusion:The Tribunal held that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It set aside the order passed by the CIT under Section 263 and restored the assessment order passed under Section 143(3). The Tribunal emphasized that the power under Section 263 can only be exercised when there is no enquiry, not for inadequate enquiry, and cited relevant judicial decisions to support its conclusion. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in open court on 10-01-2017.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found