Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9917 (ITAT-PUNE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
6 month(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
19-10-2012
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
18-09-2012
Assessment Year
2006-2007
Appeal Filed On
16-04-2012
Judgement Text
9 ITA NO.792/PN/12 M/S. SEMCO ELECTRIC PVT. LTD. A.Y.2006-07 APPLICATION. MOREOVER, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS IN DETAILED DISCUSSION ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 10A. THE A. O HAS MADE THE DETAILED CALCULATIONS ALSO. MERELY BECAUSE LD CIT IS NOT AGREEING TO THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE A.O, WHICH IS OTHERWISE JUST AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, WE ARE AFRAID THAT WE CANNOT SUPPORT THE AC TION OF THE LD CIT TO SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 263. THE LAW I S WELL SETTLED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS WELL AS THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES : I) MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC ) II) CIT VS. MAX INDIA LIMITED, 295 ITR 282 (SC) III) CIT VS. GABRIEL (I) LTD, 203 ITR 108(BOM) TWO CONDITIONS MUST BE FULFILLED FOR EVOKING THE PR OVISIONS OF SEC. 263 THAT THE ORDER MUST BE ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS IT SHOU LD BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. MERELY BECAUSE THE LD CIT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE A.O. THAT ITSELF CANNOT BE JU STIFICATION TO EVOKE SEC. 263. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE OPINION OF THE LD C IT IS FORMED NOT ON ANY OTHER MATERIAL BUT ON THE BASIS OF ORDER OF THE TPO PASSED U/S. 92CA(3) WITHOUT MAKING ANY ADJUSTMENT. IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT ERRONEOUS, NOR IS IT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERES T OF THE REVENUE. WE, THEREFORE, CANCEL AND VACATE THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E LD CIT U/S. 263 AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19TH OCTOBER 2012. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (R.S.PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED THE 19TH OCTOBER, 2012 US COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT, RANGE 10, PUNE 4. THE CIT(A)- V, PUNE 5. THE D.R. A BENCH, PUNE 6. GUARD FILE
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
360 Brand Audit (30 mins)
₹299
1:1 Consultation on Tax Litigation
₹1
1:1 Consultation on SME Listing
₹0
Sales Forecasting Sheet
₹100
Initial LLP Agreement
₹0
Residency Rules: Income Tax Act, 1961 vs Income Tax Bill, 2025 — A Subtle Yet Significant Shift!
Team Counselvise - February 18, 2026
SEBI Resets Mutual Fund Rules: A Structural Shift for Investors
Team Counselvise - March 13, 2026
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026