130 TTJ 669 (Del) Regency Park Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

131 ITD 58Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2011#6517 most cited

What is 130 TTJ 669 (Del) Regency Park Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act is not valid if all particulars were furnished to the Assessing Officer and the officer applied their mind to the issue.

17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Regency Park Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · 130 TTJ 669 (Del) · section 263 · revision · Assessing Officer · application of mind · furnished particulars

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 10(37)Section 145A(b)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(viii)

Issues it is cited on

section 141section 282a(1)section 194lasection 145a(b)section 145bsection 44afsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 262section 10(37)doctrine of merger

Judgments citing 130 TTJ 669 (Del) Regency Park Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Sh. Randhir Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT Rohtak, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…RS ARE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS APPLIED HIS MIND THEN REVISION IS NOT VALID U/S 263 OF THE ACT i) 130 TTJ 669 (Del) Regency Park Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 125 TTJ 428 (Del) Rajiv Agnihotri vs. CIT iii) 131 ITD 58 (Jai) Rajiv Arora vs. CIT iv) 137 TTJ 67 (Pat) Ramakant Singh vs. CIT v) ITA No. 771/Chd/2017 dated 9.4.2018 Shri Abhimanyu Gupta v. PCIT vi) ITA No. 574/Del/2018 dated 19.6.2018 Vidya Prakashan Mandir (P) Ltd. PCIT PROPOSITION X: MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS NO ELABORATES DISCUSSION, ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS i) 162 Taxman 39 (Mum) (MAG) A…

Surjeet Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…RS ARE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS APPLIED HIS MIND THEN REVISION IS NOT VALID U/S 263 OF THE ACT i) 130 TTJ 669 (Del) Regency Park Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 125 TTJ 428 (Del) Rajiv Agnihotri vs. CIT iii) 131 ITD 58 (Jai) Rajiv Arora vs. CIT iv) 137 TTJ 67 (Pat) Ramakant Singh vs. CIT v) ITA No. 771/Chd/2017 dated 9.4.2018 Shri Abhimanyu Gupta v. PCIT vi) ITA No. 574/Del/2018 dated 19.6.2018 Vidya Prakashan Mandir (P) Ltd. PCIT PROPOSITION X: MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS NO ELABORATES DISCUSSION, ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS i) 162 Taxman 39 (Mum) (MAG) A…

Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…RS ARE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS APPLIED HIS MIND THEN REVISION IS NOT VALID U/S 263 OF THE ACT i) 130 TTJ 669 (Del) Regency Park Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 125 TTJ 428 (Del) Rajiv Agnihotri vs. CIT iii) 131 ITD 58 (Jai) Rajiv Arora vs. CIT iv) 137 TTJ 67 (Pat) Ramakant Singh vs. CIT v) ITA No. 771/Chd/2017 dated 9.4.2018 Shri Abhimanyu Gupta v. PCIT vi) ITA No. 574/Del/2018 dated 19.6.2018 Vidya Prakashan Mandir (P) Ltd. PCIT PROPOSITION X: MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS NO ELABORATES DISCUSSION, ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS i) 162 Taxman 39 (Mum) (MAG) A…

Dhuni Chand HUF, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…RS ARE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS APPLIED HIS MIND THEN REVISION IS NOT VALID U/S 263 OF THE ACT i) 130 TTJ 669 (Del) Regency Park Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 125 TTJ 428 (Del) Rajiv Agnihotri vs. CIT iii) 131 ITD 58 (Jai) Rajiv Arora vs. CIT iv) 137 TTJ 67 (Pat) Ramakant Singh vs. CIT v) ITA No. 771/Chd/2017 dated 9.4.2018 Shri Abhimanyu Gupta v. PCIT vi) ITA No. 574/Del/2018 dated 19.6.2018 Vidya Prakashan Mandir (P) Ltd. PCIT PROPOSITION X: MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS NO ELABORATES DISCUSSION, ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS i) 162 Taxman 39 (Mum) (MAG) A…

Sh. Kashmir Singh Sandha, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…RS ARE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS APPLIED HIS MIND THEN REVISION IS NOT VALID U/S 263 OF THE ACT i) 130 TTJ 669 (Del) Regency Park Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 125 TTJ 428 (Del) Rajiv Agnihotri vs. CIT iii) 131 ITD 58 (Jai) Rajiv Arora vs. CIT iv) 137 TTJ 67 (Pat) Ramakant Singh vs. CIT v) ITA No. 771/Chd/2017 dated 9.4.2018 Shri Abhimanyu Gupta v. PCIT vi) ITA No. 574/Del/2018 dated 19.6.2018 Vidya Prakashan Mandir (P) Ltd. PCIT PROPOSITION X: MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS NO ELABORATES DISCUSSION, ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS i) 162 Taxman 39 (Mum) (MAG) A…

M/S Ganesh Dass HUF, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…RS ARE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS APPLIED HIS MIND THEN REVISION IS NOT VALID U/S 263 OF THE ACT i) 130 TTJ 669 (Del) Regency Park Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 125 TTJ 428 (Del) Rajiv Agnihotri vs. CIT iii) 131 ITD 58 (Jai) Rajiv Arora vs. CIT iv) 137 TTJ 67 (Pat) Ramakant Singh vs. CIT v) ITA No. 771/Chd/2017 dated 9.4.2018 Shri Abhimanyu Gupta v. PCIT vi) ITA No. 574/Del/2018 dated 19.6.2018 Vidya Prakashan Mandir (P) Ltd. PCIT PROPOSITION X: MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS NO ELABORATES DISCUSSION, ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS i) 162 Taxman 39 (Mum) (MAG) A…

Sh. Arvail Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…RS ARE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS APPLIED HIS MIND THEN REVISION IS NOT VALID U/S 263 OF THE ACT i) 130 TTJ 669 (Del) Regency Park Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 125 TTJ 428 (Del) Rajiv Agnihotri vs. CIT iii) 131 ITD 58 (Jai) Rajiv Arora vs. CIT iv) 137 TTJ 67 (Pat) Ramakant Singh vs. CIT v) ITA No. 771/Chd/2017 dated 9.4.2018 Shri Abhimanyu Gupta v. PCIT vi) ITA No. 574/Del/2018 dated 19.6.2018 Vidya Prakashan Mandir (P) Ltd. PCIT PROPOSITION X: MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS NO ELABORATES DISCUSSION, ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS i) 162 Taxman 39 (Mum) (MAG) A…

Studds Accessories Limited, Faridabad vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3570/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Kalkra, Adv &For Respondent: Sh. Avikal Manu, CIT DR
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 80J

…PCIT: [2024] 167 taxmann.com 297/ITA No. 1379&936/2024 (Bang. - Trib.) - Apna Punjab Resorts Ltd. vs PCIT: [2023] 200 ITD 75 (Chandigarh - Trib.) - ETT Ltd. vs. CIT: [2019] 112 taxmann.com 321/ITA No. 3341 of 2018 (Delhi - Trib.) - Rajiv Arora vs CIT: [2011] 131 ITD 58 (Jaipur - Trib.) - Narayan Tatu Rane vs ITO: (2016) 70 taxmann.com 227/ITA No. 2690, 2691 of 2016 (Mumbai-Trib.) - Eaton Industries Private Limited vs CIT: [2017] ITA No. 1148/PUN/2012 (Pune - Trib.) e) It is pertinent to note that the AO had initiated a complete scrutiny on the issues relating, inter alia, to 'Claim of Any Other Amount Allowable…

Pratap Singh Rathi, Ghaziabad vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Kanpur

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 502/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Sh. Pratap Singh Rathi, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of C-143, Surya Nagar, Income Tax , Ghaziabad Knp At Meerut Pin 201 001 Pan No. Ahkpr0582M (Appellant)M (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shrey Jain &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sh. Pratap Singh Rathi, Vs. Principal Commissioner of C-143, Surya Nagar, Income Tax , Ghaziabad KNP at Meerut PIN 201 001 PAN No. AHKPR0582M (Appellant)m (Respondent) Assessee by: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shrey Jain & Deepesh Garg,Advs. Department by: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 03.06.2025 Date of pronouncement: 22.07.2025 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The assessee’s appeal is against order dated 26.03.2021 of Learn…

Anshit Builders & Home Fin Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT Delhi-1, New Delhi

ITA 1168/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…e has applied his mind then revision is not valid u/s 263 of the Act. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 130 TTJ 669 (Del) Regency Park Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 125 TTJ 428 (Del) Rajiv Agnihotri vs. CIT iii) 131 ITD 58 (Jai) Rajiv Arora vs. CIT iv) 137 TTJ 67 (Pat) Ramakant Singh vs. CIT 5. The Ld. DR has however, relied the order of PCIT and submitted that AO has not taken queries to reasonable end. 5 6. After taking into consideration the material on record and the submissions made it comes up that on 30.10.2017 the return of income was filed. Thereafter on 21…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…d he has applied his mind thereto, revision of the assessment order is not valid. The following decisions are on the issue : i) 130 TTJ 669 (Del) Regency Park Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 125 TT.I 428 (Del) Rajiv Agnihotri vs. CIT iii) 131 ITD 58 (Jai) Rajiv Arora vs. CIT v) 137 TTJ 67 (Pat) Ramakant Singh vs. CIT ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 59 16.6 Courts have also on to hold that proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have to be confined to the findings recorded by the AO, as follows : i) 140 ITR 490 (P&H) Jagadhri Electric and Supply Co. vs. CIT ii) 192 ITR 54…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…d he has applied his mind thereto, revision of the assessment order is not valid. The following decisions are on the issue : i) 130 TTJ 669 (Del) Regency Park Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 125 TT.I 428 (Del) Rajiv Agnihotri vs. CIT iii) 131 ITD 58 (Jai) Rajiv Arora vs. CIT v) 137 TTJ 67 (Pat) Ramakant Singh vs. CIT ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 59 16.6 Courts have also on to hold that proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have to be confined to the findings recorded by the AO, as follows : i) 140 ITR 490 (P&H) Jagadhri Electric and Supply Co. vs. CIT ii) 192 ITR 54…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…d he has applied his mind thereto, revision of the assessment order is not valid. The following decisions are on the issue : i) 130 TTJ 669 (Del) Regency Park Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 125 TT.I 428 (Del) Rajiv Agnihotri vs. CIT iii) 131 ITD 58 (Jai) Rajiv Arora vs. CIT v) 137 TTJ 67 (Pat) Ramakant Singh vs. CIT ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 59 16.6 Courts have also on to hold that proceedings u/s 263 of the Act have to be confined to the findings recorded by the AO, as follows : i) 140 ITR 490 (P&H) Jagadhri Electric and Supply Co. vs. CIT ii) 192 ITR 54…

Kaur Kookies (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-4, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1119/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263Section 36

…RE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE HAS APPLIED HIS MIND THEN REVISION IS NOT VALID U/S 263 OF THE ACT 26 i) 130 TTJ 669 (Del) Regency Park Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 125 TTJ 428 (Del) Rajiv Agnihotri vs. CIT iii) 131 ITD 58 (Jai) Rajiv Arora vs. CIT iv) 137 TTJ 67 (Pat) Ramakant Singh vs. CIT PROPOSITION VII: THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 HAVE TO BE CONFINED TO FINDINGS RECORDED BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND NOT BEYOND i) 140 ITR 490 (P&H) Jagadhri Electric and Supply Co. vs. CIT ii) 192 ITR 547 (Kar) CIT vs. L.F.D. Silva iii) 192 ITR 50 (Mad) CIT vs. Late T.S. Sriniva…

Ajay Grover, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- I(1), Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 532/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaajay Grover, Vs. Ito, Prop. Of M/S. R.R. Enterprises, Ward-1(1), Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Faridabad Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Agxpg6032B Ajay Grover, Vs. Pr. Cit, Prop. Of M/S. R.R. Enterprises, Faridabad Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Agxpg6032B

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveeen Sidhrath, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ajay Grover, Vs. ITO, Prop. Of M/s. R.R. Enterprises, Ward-1(1), RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Faridabad Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AGXPG6032B Ajay Grover, Vs. Pr. CIT, Prop. Of M/s. R.R. Enterprises, Faridabad RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AGXPG6032B Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv Revenue by: Shri P. Praveeen Sidhrath, CIT DR Date of Hearing 17/11/2022 Date of pr…

Sh. Ajay Grover, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4113/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaajay Grover, Vs. Ito, Prop. Of M/S. R.R. Enterprises, Ward-1(1), Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Faridabad Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Agxpg6032B Ajay Grover, Vs. Pr. Cit, Prop. Of M/S. R.R. Enterprises, Faridabad Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Agxpg6032B

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveeen Sidhrath, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ajay Grover, Vs. ITO, Prop. Of M/s. R.R. Enterprises, Ward-1(1), RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Faridabad Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AGXPG6032B Ajay Grover, Vs. Pr. CIT, Prop. Of M/s. R.R. Enterprises, Faridabad RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AGXPG6032B Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv Revenue by: Shri P. Praveeen Sidhrath, CIT DR Date of Hearing 17/11/2022 Date of pr…

Kabir Sudhir Mulji, Mumbai vs. DIT (It) II, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3301/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Kabir Sudhir Mulji, Director Of Income Tax Anand Bhavan, 501, (International Taxation)Ii, 2Nd Babulnath X Lane, Scindia House, Vs. Chowpatty, Gr. Flr., Mumbai-7 R/No.007, N.M. Marg, Pan: Aahpm1375M Ballard Pier, Mumbai - 38 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Aasifa Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)(vi)

…pan Overseas Ltd. v/s. CIT (ITA No. 1223/PN/2013 dtd. 2 1/02/2015) (Pune Trib.), Vinay Pratap Thacker v/s. CIT (ITA No. 2939/M/2011 dtd. 27/02/2013) (Mum Tib.), Dharmendra Kumar Bansal v/s. CIT (2014) 48 taxmann.com 53, Jaipur) and Rajiv Arora v/s. CIT (2011) 131 ITD 58, Jaipur. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that when two views are possible one view is permissible in law then invoking the provisions of section 263 is not valid. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee has filed the details and documents pertaining to liquidated damages. The AO has not verified the details but AO was satisfied with the explanatio…

130 TTJ 669 (Del) Regency Park Property Management Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (131 ITD 58) — Cited in 17 Judgments | BharatTax