(1993) 199 ITR 424 (Del) and J.P. Srivastava& Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. v. CIT

111 ITR 326High Court1978#2609 most cited

What is (1993) 199 ITR 424 (Del) and J.P. Srivastava& Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

When exercising revisional powers under Section 263, the Commissioner must examine the merits of the assessee's objections and establish on record how the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Commissioner cannot merely direct a re-examination or delegate this fundamental duty.

44

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

J.P. Srivastava & Sons v. CIT · 111 ITR 326 · Section 263 · revisional powers · order prejudicial to revenue · erroneous assessment order · Commissioner's duty · delegation of revision power · examine assessee objections · no mere re-examination

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 262revision u/s 263section 10(37)

Judgments citing (1993) 199 ITR 424 (Del) and J.P. Srivastava& Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. v. CIT

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)

…. 705/2017 (dated 5.9.2017) CIT v. Modicare Ltd.: 759/2016 (dated 20.9.2017) CIT v. Prithvi Raj And Co.: 199 ITR 424 (Del) CIT v. O. P. Seth: 201 ITR 635 (Del) CIT, Mysore v. T. Narayana Pai : 98 ITR 422 (Kar) J.P.Srivastava And Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. v. CIT, UP: 111 ITR 326 (All) S.B.Sankar v. State of Kerala and Another: 171 ITR 689 (All) CIT v. Kanda Rice Mills: 178 ITR 446 (P&H) CIT, Patiala v. Chawla Trunk House: 139 ITR 182 (P&H) 158 In the facts of the present case, the Pr. CIT, in respect of all the issues, have merely held that further enquiry and examination is required, without even recording as to how the…

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

…IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ORDER OF AO IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE i) 142 ITR 778 (Pat) CIT vs. Shanti Lal Aggarwala ii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT vs. Late Sunder Lal iii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J.P. Srivastava & Sons v. CIT iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co. PROPOSITION V: THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CANNOT SIMPLY ASK THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER, HE CAN DO SO ONLY AFTER FINDING ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO INTERST OF REVENUE i) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. at…

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

…IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ORDER OF AO IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE i) 142 ITR 778 (Pat) CIT vs. Shanti Lal Aggarwala ii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT vs. Late Sunder Lal iii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J.P. Srivastava & Sons v. CIT iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co. PROPOSITION V: THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CANNOT SIMPLY ASK THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER, HE CAN DO SO ONLY AFTER FINDING ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO INTERST OF REVENUE i) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. at…

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

…IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ORDER OF AO IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE i) 142 ITR 778 (Pat) CIT vs. Shanti Lal Aggarwala ii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT vs. Late Sunder Lal iii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J.P. Srivastava & Sons v. CIT iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co. PROPOSITION V: THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CANNOT SIMPLY ASK THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER, HE CAN DO SO ONLY AFTER FINDING ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO INTERST OF REVENUE i) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. at…

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

…IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ORDER OF AO IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE i) 142 ITR 778 (Pat) CIT vs. Shanti Lal Aggarwala ii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT vs. Late Sunder Lal iii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J.P. Srivastava & Sons v. CIT iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co. PROPOSITION V: THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CANNOT SIMPLY ASK THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER, HE CAN DO SO ONLY AFTER FINDING ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO INTERST OF REVENUE i) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. at…

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

…IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ORDER OF AO IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE i) 142 ITR 778 (Pat) CIT vs. Shanti Lal Aggarwala ii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT vs. Late Sunder Lal iii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J.P. Srivastava & Sons v. CIT iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co. PROPOSITION V: THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CANNOT SIMPLY ASK THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER, HE CAN DO SO ONLY AFTER FINDING ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO INTERST OF REVENUE i) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. at…

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

…IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ORDER OF AO IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE i) 142 ITR 778 (Pat) CIT vs. Shanti Lal Aggarwala ii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT vs. Late Sunder Lal iii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J.P. Srivastava & Sons v. CIT iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co. PROPOSITION V: THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CANNOT SIMPLY ASK THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER, HE CAN DO SO ONLY AFTER FINDING ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO INTERST OF REVENUE i) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. at…

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

…IV: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ORDER OF AO IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE i) 142 ITR 778 (Pat) CIT vs. Shanti Lal Aggarwala ii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT vs. Late Sunder Lal iii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J.P. Srivastava & Sons v. CIT iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co. PROPOSITION V: THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CANNOT SIMPLY ASK THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER, HE CAN DO SO ONLY AFTER FINDING ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO INTERST OF REVENUE i) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. at…

Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1357/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…instances of purchase and sale, it is obvious that certain amount of guess work is involved in determining the price of the land." 11. To the same effect is the judgment in the case of J.P. Srivastava and Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, UP, 111 ITR 326, which can be found in the following observations of the Court:- "Section 33B contemplates a notice to the assessee. In response to the notice the assessee may show to the Commissioner that the order sought to be revised is not prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In that event, the Commissioner would have no jurisdiction to take any furt…

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)

…(dated 5.9.2017)  CIT v. Modicare Ltd.: 759/2016 (dated 20.9.2017)  CIT v. Prithvi Raj And Co.: 199 ITR 424 (Del)  CIT v. O. P. Seth: 201 ITR 635 (Del)  CIT, Mysore v. T. Narayana Pai : 98 ITR 422 (Kar)  J.P.Srivastava And Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. v. CIT, UP: 111 ITR 326 (All)  S.B.Sankar v. State of Kerala and Another: 171 ITR 689 (All)  CIT v. Kanda Rice Mills: 178 ITR 446 (P&H)  CIT, Patiala v. Chawla Trunk House: 139 ITR 182 (P&H) 158 In the facts of the present case, the Pr. CIT, in respect of all the issues, have merely held that further enquiry and examination is required, without even recording as to h…

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)

…material on record indicating that the assessment order is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In this regard, reliance has rightly been placed on ; i) 142 ITR 778 (Pat) CIT vs. Shanti Lai Aggarwala ii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT vs. Late Sunder Lal iii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J.P. Srivastava & Sons v. CIT iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co. iv) 394 ITR 758 (Del) PCIT.v. Vinita Chaurasia 16.1 Then, in “CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd.” 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and “CIT Vs Software Consultants” 341 ITR 240 (Del), it has been held that the revisional authority cannot simply ask the AO to re-examine the matter and t…

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)

…material on record indicating that the assessment order is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In this regard, reliance has rightly been placed on ; i) 142 ITR 778 (Pat) CIT vs. Shanti Lai Aggarwala ii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT vs. Late Sunder Lal iii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J.P. Srivastava & Sons v. CIT iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co. iv) 394 ITR 758 (Del) PCIT.v. Vinita Chaurasia 16.1 Then, in “CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd.” 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and “CIT Vs Software Consultants” 341 ITR 240 (Del), it has been held that the revisional authority cannot simply ask the AO to re-examine the matter and t…

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)

…material on record indicating that the assessment order is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In this regard, reliance has rightly been placed on ; i) 142 ITR 778 (Pat) CIT vs. Shanti Lai Aggarwala ii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT vs. Late Sunder Lal iii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J.P. Srivastava & Sons v. CIT iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. Kashi Nath & Co. iv) 394 ITR 758 (Del) PCIT.v. Vinita Chaurasia 16.1 Then, in “CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd.” 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and “CIT Vs Software Consultants” 341 ITR 240 (Del), it has been held that the revisional authority cannot simply ask the AO to re-examine the matter and t…

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 279/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…g Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del.) 6. CIT vs Nirav Modi [2017] 291 CTR 245 (Bom.) 7. Flextronics Software Systems Ltd. vs CIT [2010] 128 TTJ 107 (Delhi) 8. P.C. Puri vs CIT [1984] 18 Taxman 158 (Del) 9. J.P. Srivastava & Sons (Kanpur) Ltd vs CIT [1978] 111 ITR 326 (All.) 10. CIT vs Nirmal Chemicals Works (P) Ltd. [2009] 222 CTR 593 (Guj.) 11. State Bank of India vs ACIT & Ors [2019] 411 ITR 664 (Bom.) 12. Subrata Banik vs CIT, Central-III (2013) 144 ITD 676 (Kol. Trib) 13. Kannur Distt. Co-op Bank Ltd vs ACIT, Circle 2(1), Kannur[2012] 20 Taxmann.com 667 (Coch) 14. CIT vs Industrial Engineering Project Pvt…

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 203/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT
Section 115JSection 263Section 35ASection 36(1)(viia)

…cordance with law, the decision of the ITO cannot be regarded as erroneous merely because in the opinion of the Commissioner it should have been made or written in a different manner.” J.P. SRIVASTAVA & SONS (KANPUR) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [1978] 111 ITR 326 (ALL.) “failure of the ITO to deal with the claim of the assessee in the assessment order might be an error, but an erroneous order by itself was not enough to give jurisdiction to the Commissioner to revise it under section 33B of the 1922 Act. It must further be shown that the order was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. It is not eac…

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

…N I: THAT IT IS NECESSARY FOR COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX TO POINT OUT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ORDER OF AO IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE i) 142 ITR 778 (Pat) CIT vs. Shanti LalAggarwala ii) 96 ITR 310 (All) CIT vs. Late Sunder Lai iii) 111 ITR 326 (All) J.P. Srivastava& Sons v. CIT iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT vs. KashiNath& Co. v) 394 ITR 758 (Del) PCIT v. Vinita Chaurasia PROPOSITION II; THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CANNOT SIMPLY ASK THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER. HE CAN DO SO ONLY AFTER FINDING ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO INTERST OF REVENUE i) 203…

Castamet Works Private Limited, Kharwa vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur

ITA 187/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)

…judicial pronouncement: • NABHA INVESTMENTS (P.) LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA [2000] 112 TAXMAN 465 (DELHI) • Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 71 Taxman 585 (Bom.) • J.P. Srivastava & Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax {1978] 111 ITR 326 (ALL.) • 19. In light of the above, the Appellant humbly submits that during the assessment proceedings, various notices were issued including notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 07.11.2019 was issued by the Ld. AO specifically asking for information in order to verify the disallowance made by the Appellant u/s 14A of the Act and reasons as to why…

Shringar Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-4, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 637/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2015-16
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…. Prithvi Raj & Co. 28(4) Kol. Page 21 490 (Mad), CWT vs. Prithvi Raj & Co. (1991) 98 CTR (Del) 21 (1991) 98 CTR (Del) 216 : (1993) 199 ITR 424 (Del) and J.P. Srivastava& Sons 6 : (1993) 199 ITR 424 (Del) and J.P. Srivastava& Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 326 (All) relied on. (Kanpur) Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 326 (All) relied on. (Paras 6 & 7) In the entire order emphasis laid by the CIT is that in respect of four (Paras 6 & 7) In the entire order emphasis laid by the CIT is that in respect of four (Paras 6 & 7) In the entire order emphasis laid by the CIT is that in respect of four issues mentione…

Ankit Gupta, Kolkata vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15
Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…(1991) 98 CTR (Del) 216 : (1993) 199 ITR 424 (Del) and J.P. Srivastava& Sons (1991) 98 CTR (Del) 216 : (1993) 199 ITR 424 (Del) and J.P. Srivastava& Sons (1991) 98 CTR (Del) 216 : (1993) 199 ITR 424 (Del) and J.P. Srivastava& Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 326 (All) relied on. (Kanpur) Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 326 (All) relied on. (Paras 6 & 7) In the entire order emphasis laid by the CIT is that in respect of four (Paras 6 & 7) In the entire order emphasis laid by the CIT is that in respect of four (Paras 6 & 7) In the entire order emphasis laid by the CIT is that in respect of four issues mentione…

Hill Queen Investment Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 643/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Hill Queen Investment (P) Ltd...……………………....................................……………..…….............Appellant Surobala Apartments Flat No. 202 3Rd Floor Block-B Rekhjuani, Bhatinda Rajarhat Kolkata – 700 135 [Pan : Aaacj 2324 P] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata..................…………...............................…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Devi Sharan Singh, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 6Th, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 21St, 2021 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 20/03/2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 223 (Two Hundred Twenty Three) Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation For Delay, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause In Filing The Appeal In Time. Hence, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.20,40,470/- On 28/09/2015. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny For The Following Reasons:- “(I) Mismatch In Sales Turnover Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Ii) Mismatch In Amount Paid To Related Persons U/S 40A(2)(B) Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Iii) Suspicious Sale Transaction In Shares (Penny Stock Tab In Its)”

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

…) 98 CTR Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad), CWT vs. Prithvi Raj & Co. (1991) 98 CTR (Del) 216 : (1993) 199 (Del) 216 : (1993) 199 ITR 424 (Del) and J.P. Srivastava& Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. vs. ITR 424 (Del) and J.P. Srivastava& Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 326 (All) relied on. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 326 (All) relied on. (Paras 6 & 7) In the entire order emphasis laid by the CIT is that in respect of four (Paras 6 & 7) In the entire order emphasis laid by the CIT is that in respect of four (Paras 6 & 7) In the entire order emphasis laid by the CIT is that in respect of four issues mentioned by him, no queri…