171 ITR 698 (All) CIT v. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust

171 ITR 141High Court1988#1567 most cited
73

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Goyal Private Family Specific Trust · CIT v Goyal Private Family Specific Trust · 171 ITR 698 · Section 263 · revisionary jurisdiction · erroneous assessment · prejudicial to revenue · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · power of revision

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

section 141section 282a(1)section 194lasection 145a(b)section 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 145binadequate enquiryrevision u/s 263section 10(37)lack of enquiry

Judgments citing 171 ITR 698 (All) CIT v. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust

AMAZON SMART COMMERCE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

ITA 3533/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

…R 554 (Del) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del) Gulmohar Finances Limited: 170 Taxman 483 (Del.) Fab India Overseas vs. CIT: 244 CTR 380 (Del.) CIT vs. Vodafone Essar: 212 Taxman 184 (Del.) -CIT v. DLF Ltd.: 350 ITR 555 (Del) -CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co: 171 ITR 141 (MP) -CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishonoi: 152 Taxman 242 (Raj.) -CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers: 270 ITR 157 (MP) -CIT vs. Associated Food Profits (P) Ltd.: 280 ITR 377 (MP) -CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Bom.) -Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. PCIT: [2025] 171 taxmann.com 754 (Delhi – Trib.) 156 It is respectfully submitted that, in the aforesaid c…

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

…urisdiction to issue notice, and proceed to make appropriate orders." 11.6 Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 171 ITR 698 (All) CIT vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust ii) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT V. Kashi Nath & Company iii) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT V. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. iv) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v Vikas Polymers (pages 277-285 of JPB) “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" me…

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, 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

…urisdiction to issue notice, and proceed to make appropriate orders." 11.6 Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 171 ITR 698 (All) CIT vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust ii) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT V. Kashi Nath & Company iii) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT V. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. iv) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v Vikas Polymers (pages 277-285 of JPB) “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" me…

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

…urisdiction to issue notice, and proceed to make appropriate orders." 11.6 Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 171 ITR 698 (All) CIT vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust ii) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT V. Kashi Nath & Company iii) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT V. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. iv) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v Vikas Polymers (pages 277-285 of JPB) “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" me…

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

…urisdiction to issue notice, and proceed to make appropriate orders." 11.6 Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 171 ITR 698 (All) CIT vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust ii) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT V. Kashi Nath & Company iii) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT V. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. iv) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v Vikas Polymers (pages 277-285 of JPB) “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" me…

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

…urisdiction to issue notice, and proceed to make appropriate orders." 11.6 Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 171 ITR 698 (All) CIT vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust ii) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT V. Kashi Nath & Company iii) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT V. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. iv) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v Vikas Polymers (pages 277-285 of JPB) “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" me…

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

…urisdiction to issue notice, and proceed to make appropriate orders." 11.6 Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 171 ITR 698 (All) CIT vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust ii) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT V. Kashi Nath & Company iii) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT V. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. iv) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v Vikas Polymers (pages 277-285 of JPB) “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" me…

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

…urisdiction to issue notice, and proceed to make appropriate orders." 11.6 Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 171 ITR 698 (All) CIT vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust ii) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT V. Kashi Nath & Company iii) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT V. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. iv) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v Vikas Polymers (pages 277-285 of JPB) “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" me…

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

ITA 100/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 263

…27 Taxman (Mag.) (Chd.) (Tribunal)\nIn these cases, it was held that assessment framed under section 143(3)\ncannot be revised on that desired inquiry was not made.\nBaljees v. ACIT (2003) 127 Taxman 150 (Mag.) (Chd.) (Tribunal)\n22 Ratlam Coal Ash Co. v. CIT 171 ITR 141 (MP)\nAssessing Officer was prima facie correct and, therefore, there was no\nreason to hold that such an order was erroneous or prejudicial to the\ninterests of the Revenue. Thus the order of the Commissioner was to be\ncancelled.\nIn these cases, it was held that assessment 87 framed under section\n143(3) cannot be revised on n that desired inq…

SH. SUKHVINDER SINGH,KANPUR vs. PR CIT, CENTRAL, KANPUR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 190/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…Page 28 of 30 form the basis for an action under section 263 of the Act. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd (supra). In the case of Ratlam Coal Ash co. v CIT 171 ITR 141 (MP): it was held that the order under section 263 of the Act could not be made when the assessee had furnished requisite information and Assessing Officer completed the assessment after considering the facts. In the case of CIT vs Associated Food Products P. Ltd 280 ITR 377 (MP): it was held by Hon'ble High Court that jurisdiction under sectio…

ALLIANCE NIRMAAN LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 263

…x Officer,\nAppeal No. 6(ASR) of 2010, assessment year 2006-07\n18. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. vs. ACIT [2012] 19 ITR (Trib.) 746\n(Mumbai)\n19. Amrit Singh vs. Income Tax Officer [2003] 127 Taxman 87\n(Mag.)(Chd.)(Tribunal)\n20.\nRatlam Coal Ash Co. vs. CIT 171 ITR 141 (MP)\n21.\nBagaria Vegetable Products Ltd. vs. JCIT [2008] 303 ITR (AT)\n278 (Pune)]\n22.\nSaw Pipes Ltd. vs. CIT [2005] 3 SOT 327 (Delhi)\n23.\nBrij Bhushan Agarwal vs. CIT (Agra) 2 SOT 811 (2005)\n24.\nCIT vs. Associated Food Products P. Ltd. 280 ITR 377 (MP)\n25.\nGoyal Family Trust vs. CIT 171 ITR 698 (All)\n26.\nHari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT…

VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3533/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

…CIT vs. Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del) - Gulmohar Finances Limited: 170 Taxman 483 (Del.) - Fab India Overseas vs. CIT: 244 CTR 380 (Del.) - CIT vs. Vodafone Essar: 212 Taxman 184 (Del.) 42 - CIT vs. DLF Ltd.: 350 ITR 555 (Del) - CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co: 171 ITR 141 (MP) - CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishonoi: 152 Taxman 242 (Raj.) - CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers: 270 ITR 157 (MP) - CIT vs. Associated Food Profits (P) Ltd.: 280 ITR 377 (MP) - CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Bom.) - Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. PCIT: [2025] 171 taxmann.com 754 (Delhi – Trib.) 156 It is respectfully submitted that, in the afores…

ASHOKKUMAR PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,PORBANDAR vs. THE PR. CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appear of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.83/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Ashokkumar Projects India P. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Manek Centre, P.N. Cholera Arcade, M.G. Road Opposite, Bhaveshwar Mahadev Marg, Jamnagar - 361008 Temple, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamca5891Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194CSection 263Section 40

…final order is made-CIT v. G.K. Kabra (1995) 211 ITR 336(AP). Where ld. PCIT has not applied his mind to relevant material on record and has not given reasons for his orders u/s 263, his order is not valid – CIT v. Kashi Nath & Co. (1987) 33 Taxman 577.(1988) 170 ITR 28 (All).Therefore, the ld PCIT has to pass a speaking order. It is necessary for the Commissioner to state in what manner he considered that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and what the basis was for such a conclusion – CIT v. R.K. Metal Works (1978) 112 ITR 445 (Punj.& Har.). Therefor…

LEADER ELECTRIC CO.,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed

ITA 377/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.376 & 377/Rjt/ 2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15& 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Leader Electric Co. The Pcit – 1, Vs. Dindayal Industries Estates, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Aji Vasahat, Opp. Gamara Hostel, Road, Rajkot - 360003 Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfl6072C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ShriD. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: ShriSanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT (DR)
Section 147Section 2Section 263

…as plausible view therefore, the assessment order cannot be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, which was required to be taken in revision by the Commissioner u/s. 263 of the IT Act. 1. CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 2. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v. ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1(Cal) 3. CIT v. Mahrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 4. CIT v. Parmeshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj.) 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) 7. CIT v. Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v. Goal (JP)…

LEADER ELECTRIC CO.,RAJKOT vs. THE PCIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

ITA 376/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: ShriD. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: ShriSanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT (DR)
Section 147Section 2Section 263

…was plausible view therefore, the assessment order cannot be considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, which was required to be taken in revision by the Commissioner u/s. 263 of the IT Act. 1. CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. (1988) 171 ITR 141 (MP) 2. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v. ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1(Cal) 3. CIT v. Mahrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 4. CIT v. Parmeshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj.) 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v. Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) 7. CIT v. Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v. Goal (JP)…

HORIZON DWELLINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

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

ITA 77/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ot agree cannot form the basis for an action under section 263 of the Act. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd (supra). In the case of Ratlam Coal Ash co. v CIT 171 ITR 141 (MP): it was held that the order under section 263 of the Act could not be made when the assessee had furnished requisite information and Assessing Officer completed the assessment after considering the facts. In the case of CIT vs Associated Food Products P. Ltd 280 ITR 377 (MP): it was held by Hon'ble High Court that jurisdiction under sectio…

SHRI CHETAN SHARMA,KANPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, both appeals are allowed

ITA 343/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 153DSection 263

…under section 263 of the Act. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court applied the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd (supra). ITA Nos. 343 & 344/LKW/2019 Page 18 of 20 In the case of Ratlam Coal Ash co. v CIT 171 ITR 141 (MP): it was held that the order under section 263 of the Act could not be made when the assessee had furnished requisite information and Assessing Officer completed the assessment after considering the facts. In the case of CIT vs Associated Food Products P. Ltd 280 ITR 377 (MP): it was held by Hon'ble High Court that jurisdiction under sectio…

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 360/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…of the revenue. We draw support from the following judicial pronouncements: i. 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii. 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for holding the order was erroneous he has not made any enquiry whatsoever but proceeded on the basis of his own opinion. Where more than one view is possible, the order cannot be said…

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 359/PAT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…of the revenue. We draw support from the following judicial pronouncements: i. 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii. 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for holding the order was erroneous he has not made any enquiry whatsoever but proceeded on the basis of his own opinion. Where more than one view is possible, the order cannot be said…

GANADHIPATI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 358/PAT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…of the revenue. We draw support from the following judicial pronouncements: i. 100 ITD 173 (Mum) Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy vs. ITO ii. 100 ITD 441 (Kol) Al-Haz Amir Hasan Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT iii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd iv. 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co 31.1. We also find that learned CIT has erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous, a condition precedent and that the fact for holding the order was erroneous he has not made any enquiry whatsoever but proceeded on the basis of his own opinion. Where more than one view is possible, the order cannot be said…

Showing 1–20 of 73 · Page 1 of 4