1) Balvinder Kumar v. PCIT

187 ITD 454Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2021#19629 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,487 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 10(2A)Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

Issues it is cited on

limited scrutinycomplete scrutinyerroneous and prejudicialescapement of incomesection 142scrutiny assessmentsection 263section 142(1)section 143(2)section 143prescribedcompany

Judgments citing 1) Balvinder Kumar v. PCIT

Abil Realty Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 446/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Abil Realty Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 1(1), Pune Abil House, 2 Ganesh Khind Road, Vs. Range Hill Corner, Pune – 411007 Pan: Aaica8531I (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi & Mandar Joshi Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-03-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M Joshi & Mandar JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)

…2 10. Manoj Kumar Poddar v. PCIT [ITA No.132/Ranchi/2018] dated 09.12.2020 11. M.M. Engineers and Consultants v. PCIT [36 NYPTTJ 602 (Cuttack)] dated 09.05.2022 12. Meena Choudhary v. PCIT [35 NYPTTJ 896 (Raipur)] dated 12.10.2021 13. Balvinder Kumar v. PCIT [187 ITD 454 (Delhi)] dated 10.12.2020 14. Suraj Diamond Dealers (P) Ltd. v. PCIT (203 TTJ 137 (Mumbai)] dated 27.11.2019 16. He accordingly submitted that since the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act is outside the scope of limited scrutiny, therefore, the same should be deleted. 17. So far as the ground…

Smt. Bridget Anthony(Legal Heir of Late Mr. Elevathingal Joseph Anthony), Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 509/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69

…. The assessment proceedings are not made as per the issues which have to be examined under limited scrutiny. Therefore, the entire assessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in Balvinder Kumar v. PCIT 187 ITD 454 wherein it was held that the assessing officer cannot go beyond the reason for which the matter was selected for scrutiny. The facts of this case are that the assessee filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal challenging the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act wherein it was held that the assessing officer has accepted the computatio…

Tata Nyk Shipping Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. CIT International Taxation-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1067/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tata Nyk Shipping Pte. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., International Taxation-3, 6, Shenton Way, #18-08B, New Delhi Oue Downtown 2, Singapore Pan :Aadct9945P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 263Section 92C

…ng decisions: 1. Paul John, Delicious Cashew Co. Vs. ITO, 1 SOT 889 (Cochine Trib.) 2. CIT Vs. Shri Paul John Delicious Cashew Co., 200 Taxman 154 3. Antariksh Realtors Private Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITA No.1626/Mum/2020, dated 22.10.2021 4. Balvinder Kumar Vs. PCIT, 187 ITD 454 (Del. Trib.) 5. Rajani Venkata Naga Annavarapu Vs. PCIT, ITA No.1817/Del/2020, dated 16.06.2021 (Del.- Trib.) 6. Gift Land Handicraft Vs. CIT, 108 TTJ 312 (Del.) 15 AY: 2016-17 7. Aryadeep Complex (P.) Ltd. Vs. PCIT, [2022] 219 TTJ 735 (Raipur) 8. CIT Vs. Software Consultants, 341 ITR 240 (Delhi) 9. Simbhaoli Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 78 ITD 16…

Duckwoo Autoind Pvt. Ltd., Thiruvallur vs. PCIT-1, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 232/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.232/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Respondent: Mr.S.Maruthu Pandian, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(b)

…given in Para Nos.6-8, which is reproduced above in this order. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee stated that this issue is clearly settled by the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the following cases: :: 6 :: 1) Balvinder Kumar v. PCIT reported in [2021] 187 ITD 454. 2) Rajani Venkata Nagar Annavarapu Narayana v. PCIT in ITA No.1817/Del/2020. 3) Sonali Hemant Bhavaskar v. PCIT in ITA No.742/M/2019. 9. On the other hand, the CIT-DR filed copy of Tribunal order in the case of M/s. Sahayamatha Salterns Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.1498/Chny/2019 dated 11.12.2019, wherein, the Tribunal has considered exactly identica…

1) Balvinder Kumar v. PCIT (187 ITD 454) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax