How many judgments cite 171 ITR 698, CIT v. Mahendra Kumar Bansal?

26 judgments on BharatTax cite 171 ITR 698, CIT v. Mahendra Kumar Bansal (297 ITR 99), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does 171 ITR 698, CIT v. Mahendra Kumar Bansal come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10(38), Section 131, Section 133(6), Section 144B, Section 147, Section 148.

171 ITR 698, CIT v. Mahendra Kumar Bansal

297 ITR 99High Court2008#4498 most cited

What is 171 ITR 698, CIT v. Mahendra Kumar Bansal authority for?

An assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue if the Assessing Officer conducted an adequate inquiry, preventing the initiation of revision proceedings under Section 263.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Mahendra Kumar Bansal · 171 ITR 698 · 297 ITR 99 · Section 263 · revisionary powers · erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue · adequate inquiry · lack of inquiry · mere change of opinion · assessment order

Sections most often in play

Section 10(38)Section 131 Section 133(6)Section 144B Section 147 Section 148 Section 148A Section 149(1)

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenue inadequate enquiry assessment order erroneous lack of enquiry malabar industrial mere change of opinion erroneous and prejudicial child limited scrutiny change of opinion income-tax officer section 263

Judgments citing 171 ITR 698, CIT v. Mahendra Kumar Bansal

INNOVATE DERIVATIVES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 31/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250

…e The above proposition has been upheld in the case of CIT v. Reliance Communication 69 taxmann.com 109 (Bombay), Smt. Anupama Bharat Gupta 1. ΠO in ITA 1685/Ahd/2018, Goyal Private Family Specific Trust (1988) 171 ITR 698, CIT 12 Mahendra Kumar Bansal (2008) 297 ITR 99 (All) (para 10) etc. We thus find no error in the order of Ld. AO so as to justify initiation of 263 proceedings by the Ld Pr. CIT. The Ground of appeal raised by the assessee is thus allowed. 8. Similarly, in the case of Varun Nagainbhai Patel (supra), the Co- ordinate Bench deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as follows: "12. We hav…

RACHNA SANJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT, AHMEDABAD -1, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 626/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri/St.R. Senthil Kumar & Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst.Year :2014-2015 Rachana Sanjay Shah The Pr.Cit-1 72, Tapovan Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Manekbaug Hall Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380015. Pan : Amdps 6571 P

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, AR and Shri Samir Vora, AFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…above proposition has been upheld in the case of CIT v. Reliance Communication 69 taxmann.com 109 (Bombay), Smt. Anupama Bharat Gupta v. ITO in ITA 1685/Ahd/ 2018, Goyal Private Family Specific Trust [1988] 171 ITR 698, CIT v. 12 Mahendra Kumar Bansal [2008] 297 ITR 99 (All.) (para 10) etc. We thus find no error in the order of Ld. AO so as to justify initiation of 263 proceedings by the Ld. Pr. CIT. The Ground of appeal raised by the assessee is thus allowed. 8. Similarly, in the case of VarunNagainbhai Patel (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench deleted the addition made by the AO by observing as follows: “12. We h…

PATCHIRAJAN LAKSHMANAN,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 597/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 597/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Principal Commissioner Of Patchirajan Lakshmanan, V. Income Tax, No. 102F,/16Z/3, Maduari -1, Dhanasekaran Nagar, Madurai – 625 002. Polepettai (West) – 628 002. [Pan:Aazpl-1396-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…ITR 167 4. Idea Cellular Ltd vs DCIT &Ors. [2008] 301 ITR 407 (Bom) 5. CIT vs Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd [2015] 372 ITR 303/230 :-7-: ITA. No:597/Chny/2020 6. CIT vs Goyal Private Family Specific Trust [1988] 171 ITR 698 7. CIT vsMahendra Kumar Bansal [2008] 297 ITR 99 7. Further, the assessee also stated that the claim of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act is as per the provisions of the Act on merits and stated as under: “Notwithstanding the alleged lack of proper enquiry and application of mind, albeit rebutted (supra), I submit that there was no irregularity, ineligibility, illegality and infirmity in my claim f…

SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH KAPUR,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 68/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

SHRI SUKHJIT SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 67/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

SMT HARNEET KAUR JUNEJA,JALANDHAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 66/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

SHRI MUKESH CHAND MAL PITTI,GANDHIDHAM-KUTCH vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot21 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal. Total Tax Effect (See Note Below)

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…The above proposition has been upheld in the case of CIT v. Reliance Communication 69 taxmann.com 109 (Bombay), Smt. Anupama Bharat Gupta v. ITO in ITA 1685/Ahd/ 2018, Goyal Private Family Specific Trust [1988] 171 ITR 698, CIT v. Mahendra Kumar Bansal [2008] 297 ITR 99 (All.) (para 10) etc. We thus find no error in the order of Ld. AO so as to justify initiation of 263 proceedings by the Ld. Pr. CIT. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus allowed. I.T.A No. 124/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 16 Shri Mukesh Chand Mal Pitti vs. Pr. CIT 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order…

SHRI HARI KISHAN GOYAL,INDORE vs. PR CIT-2, INDORE

In the result, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 157/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEBER, SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTNT MEMBER Shri Hari Kishan Goyal, Indore

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…The above proposition has been upheld in the case of CIT v. Reliance Communication 69 taxmann.com 109 (Bombay), Smt. Anupama Bharat Gupta v. ITO in ITA 1685/Ahd/ 2018, Goyal Private Family Specific Trust [1988] 171 ITR 698, CIT v. Mahendra Kumar Bansal [2008] 297 ITR 99 (All.) (para 10) etc. 8.2 In view of the above observations, we are of the considered view that ld. Pr. CIT has erred in facts and in law in holding that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the result, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. I.T.A No. 157/Ind/2020 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 1…

ZAHURAHMED ABDULPAZZAK VALJIWALA,HIMMATNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40Section 43B

…The above proposition has been upheld in the case of CIT v. Reliance Communication 69 taxmann.com 109 (Bombay), Smt. Anupama Bharat Gupta v. ITO in ITA 1685/Ahd/ 2018, Goyal Private Family Specific Trust [1988] 171 ITR 698, CIT v. Mahendra Kumar Bansal [2008] 297 ITR 99 (All.) (para 10) etc. We thus find no error in the order of Ld. AO so as to justify initiation of 263 proceedings by the Ld. Pr. CIT. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus allowed. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10-11-2022 (P.M. JAGTAP) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE P…

SURESH CHAND GUPTA,GANDHIDHAM vs. PR. CIT, RAJKOT-1, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 43/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT-D.R

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 57

…The above proposition has been upheld in the case of CIT v. Reliance Communication 69 taxmann.com 109 (Bombay), Smt. Anupama Bharat Gupta v. ITO in ITA 1685/Ahd/ 2018, Goyal Private Family Specific Trust [1988] 171 ITR 698, CIT v. Mahendra Kumar Bansal [2008] 297 ITR 99 (All.) (para 10) etc. We, thus, find no error in the order of Ld. AO so as to justify initiation of 263 proceedings by the Ld. Pr. CIT. The Ground of appeal raised by the assessee is thus allowed. 17. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28-09-2022 (WASEEM AHMED) (SIDHHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUN…

SHRI MANOJ B. MANSUKHANI,,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, , RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…taxmann.com 109 (Bombay), I.T.A No. 50/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 15 Shri Manoj B. Mansukhani vs. Pr. CIT Smt. Anupama Bharat Gupta v. ITO in ITA 1685/Ahd/ 2018, Goyal Private Family Specific Trust [1988] 171 ITR 698, CIT v. Mahendra Kumar Bansal [2008] 297 ITR 99 (All.) (para 10) etc. 5.8 We thus find no error in the order of Ld. AO so as to justify initiation of 263 proceedings by the Ld. Pr. CIT. The Ground of appeal raised by the assessee is thus allowed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21-09-2022 (WASEEM AHMED) (SIDHHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCO…

KAVITA JAYESHKUMAR KOTAK,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/AHD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Nupur Shah, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Madhu, CIT-D.R

Section 10(38)Section 114Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 263

…The above proposition has been upheld in the case of CIT v. Reliance Communication 69 taxmann.com 109 (Bombay), Smt. Anupama Bharat Gupta v. ITO in ITA 1685/Ahd/ 2018, Goyal Private Family Specific Trust [1988] 171 ITR 698, CIT v. Mahendra Kumar Bansal [2008] 297 ITR 99 (All.) (para 10) etc. We thus find no error in the order of Ld. AO so as to justify initiation of 263 proceedings by the Ld. Pr. CIT. The Ground of appeal raised by the assessee is thus allowed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28-04-2022 (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCO…

SHRIMATI RAVINDER BAWA,JALANDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 703/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 703/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Ravinder Bawa Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/s Ramco Auto Ward-2(3), Industries, Preet Nagar, Jalandhar Jalandhar [PAN: AAMPB 2811N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Surinder Mahajan, Sh. Kuldeep Bhagat, C.A. & Sh. Vikas Bhagat, Adv. Respondent by Sh Anupam Kant Garg CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 09.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 14.07.2021 ORDER Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This appeal of the assessee is direct…

HI-ROCK CONSTRUCTION CO.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 32 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4327/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Hi Rock Construction Co. Pr. Cit -32 C-11, 2Nd Floor, 903, A, Gurukul Tower, Cst No. 890, J. S. Road, Dahisar (W), Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pan: Aaffh6403B Mumbai. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi with Shri Shubham Rathi (AR)For Respondent: Shri B. Srinivas (CIT-DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Hi Rock Construction Co. Pr. CIT -32 C-11, 2nd Floor, 903, A, Gurukul Tower, CST No. 890, J. S. Road, Dahisar (W), Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Bandra Kurla Complex, PAN: AAFFH6403B Mumbai. Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Vipul Joshi with Shri Shubham Rathi (AR) Respondent by : Shri B. Srinivas (CIT-DR) Date of Hearing : 13.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 18.12.2019 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appe…

DEVANG GANDHI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3746/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms Sunita Billa

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Judicial Member ITA No.3745 & 3746/Mum/2016 Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2009-10 Shri Devang Gandhi Principal CIT Central 4, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Mumbai Vs. Sector 11, Koparkhairne, Navi Mumbai 400 709 PAN ABHPG0909N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rakesh Joshi Respondent By : Ms Sunita Billa Date of Hearing :12.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 27.11.2017 O R D E R Per P K Bansal, Vice-President: These appeals have been filed by the assessee against two separate orders o…

DEVANG GANDHI,NAVI MUMBAI vs. PR CIT CEN 4, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3745/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms Sunita Billa

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

NATVAR PARIKH & CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT CEN IV, MUMBAI

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

ITA 444/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri P K Bansal, Vice President and Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member ITA No.444 /Mum/2014 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. Natvar Parikh & Co. P. Ltd. C I T, Central - IV (Now Apurva Natvar Parikh & Co. P. Ltd.) Room No. 660/663 Vs. 96, Chembur Mankhurd Link Rd. 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Shiv aji Nagar, Mumbai 400043 M.K. Road , Mumbai 400020 PAN – AAACN2937Q Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Madhur Agarwal Respondent by: Shri Anand Mohan Date of Hearing: 13.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 24.10.2017 O R D E R Per P.K. Bansal, Vice Preside…

SHREE D.K. ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 32, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5659/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 263

…I.T.A. No.5659/Mum/2016 1 Assessment year:2011-12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.5659/Mum/2016 Assessment year:2011-12 Shree D. K. Associates, Vs. Principal C.I.T.-32, Unit No. 1 & 2, Gala Mansion, Mumbai. Jambali Gully, Borivli (W), Mumbai. PAN:ABKFS 6335 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, A. R. Respondent by Shri E. Sankaran, CIT, D.R. Date of hearing 22/12/2016 Date of pronouncement 16/01/2017 O R D E R PER P. K. BANSAL: This appeal is filed by the asse…

SURYA MERCHANTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, KANPUR

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3136/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)

Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

…Bombay) (P) Ltd. ITA NOS. 3132-3136/Del/2014 (2010) 323 ITR 632 e. CIT vs. Munjal Castings (2008) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) f. CIT vs. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) g. Ranka Jewellers vs. Add CIT (2010) 328 ITR 148 h. CIT vs. Mahendra umar Bansal (2008) 297 ITR 99 (All) 6.5 It was further stated by the Ld. AR that stand of the Ld. CIT for AY 2004-05 and next five years is contradictory and is against principles of consistency and for this contention he placed reliance on the following case laws:- a Radha Soami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) b. Berger Paints India Ltd. vs. CIT (2004) 266 ITR 99 (…

SURYA MERCHANTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. CIT, KANPUR

In the result, all the five Appeals filed by the Assessee stand

ITA 3135/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT(DR)

Section 153ASection 263Section 40A(3)Section 80I

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2