306 ITR 271 (Delhi) DLF Universal Ltd. v. CIT

186 ITR 722Supreme Court of India1990#8258 most cited

What is 306 ITR 271 (Delhi) DLF Universal Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A Division Bench of the same strength cannot take a view contrary to an existing view unless the matter is referred to a Larger Bench. This principle is invoked when assessing whether conditions for invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 are met, requiring positive material for the Commissioner to objectively conclude the Assessing Officer's order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

DLF Universal Ltd. v. CIT · 306 ITR 271 · Section 263 · revisionary powers · CIT jurisdiction · erroneous order · prejudicial to revenue · Division Bench · Larger Bench · binding precedent

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

section 141section 282a(1)section 194lasection 145a(b)section 145bsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 10(37)doctrine of mergerenhanced compensationsection 197

Judgments citing 306 ITR 271 (Delhi) DLF Universal 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

…Division Bench of the same strength could not take a view contrary to an existing view unless the same is referred to a Larger Bench for adjudication. This submission is supported by the following judgments a) 306 ITR 271 (Delhi) DLF Universal Ltd. vs. CIT b) 186 ITR 722 (SC) Union of India and Or. Vs. Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd. c) 212 ITR 395 (SC) Assistant Controller of Estate Duty vs. Smt. V. Devaki Ammal 18 Thus, it is submitted that the conditions or the factors enabling the learned PCIT to invoke his jurisdiction u/s 263 have not been satisfied. It is submitted that there must be positive material for the Co…

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

…Division Bench of the same strength could not take a view contrary to an existing view unless the same is referred to a Larger Bench for adjudication. This submission is supported by the following judgments a) 306 ITR 271 (Delhi) DLF Universal Ltd. vs. CIT b) 186 ITR 722 (SC) Union of India and Or. Vs. Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd. c) 212 ITR 395 (SC) Assistant Controller of Estate Duty vs. Smt. V. Devaki Ammal 18 Thus, it is submitted that the conditions or the factors enabling the learned PCIT to invoke his jurisdiction u/s 263 have not been satisfied. It is submitted that there must be positive material for the Co…

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

…Division Bench of the same strength could not take a view contrary to an existing view unless the same is referred to a Larger Bench for adjudication. This submission is supported by the following judgments a) 306 ITR 271 (Delhi) DLF Universal Ltd. vs. CIT b) 186 ITR 722 (SC) Union of India and Or. Vs. Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd. c) 212 ITR 395 (SC) Assistant Controller of Estate Duty vs. Smt. V. Devaki Ammal 18 Thus, it is submitted that the conditions or the factors enabling the learned PCIT to invoke his jurisdiction u/s 263 have not been satisfied. It is submitted that there must be positive material for the Co…

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

…Division Bench of the same strength could not take a view contrary to an existing view unless the same is referred to a Larger Bench for adjudication. This submission is supported by the following judgments a) 306 ITR 271 (Delhi) DLF Universal Ltd. vs. CIT b) 186 ITR 722 (SC) Union of India and Or. Vs. Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd. c) 212 ITR 395 (SC) Assistant Controller of Estate Duty vs. Smt. V. Devaki Ammal 18 Thus, it is submitted that the conditions or the factors enabling the learned PCIT to invoke his jurisdiction u/s 263 have not been satisfied. It is submitted that there must be positive material for the Co…

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

…Division Bench of the same strength could not take a view contrary to an existing view unless the same is referred to a Larger Bench for adjudication. This submission is supported by the following judgments a) 306 ITR 271 (Delhi) DLF Universal Ltd. vs. CIT b) 186 ITR 722 (SC) Union of India and Or. Vs. Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd. c) 212 ITR 395 (SC) Assistant Controller of Estate Duty vs. Smt. V. Devaki Ammal 18 Thus, it is submitted that the conditions or the factors enabling the learned PCIT to invoke his jurisdiction u/s 263 have not been satisfied. It is submitted that there must be positive material for the Co…

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

…Division Bench of the same strength could not take a view contrary to an existing view unless the same is referred to a Larger Bench for adjudication. This submission is supported by the following judgments a) 306 ITR 271 (Delhi) DLF Universal Ltd. vs. CIT b) 186 ITR 722 (SC) Union of India and Or. Vs. Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd. c) 212 ITR 395 (SC) Assistant Controller of Estate Duty vs. Smt. V. Devaki Ammal 18 Thus, it is submitted that the conditions or the factors enabling the learned PCIT to invoke his jurisdiction u/s 263 have not been satisfied. It is submitted that there must be positive material for the Co…

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

…Division Bench of the same strength could not take a view contrary to an existing view unless the same is referred to a Larger Bench for adjudication. This submission is supported by the following judgments a) 306 ITR 271 (Delhi) DLF Universal Ltd. vs. CIT b) 186 ITR 722 (SC) Union of India and Or. Vs. Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd. c) 212 ITR 395 (SC) Assistant Controller of Estate Duty vs. Smt. V. Devaki Ammal 18 Thus, it is submitted that the conditions or the factors enabling the learned PCIT to invoke his jurisdiction u/s 263 have not been satisfied. It is submitted that there must be positive material for the Co…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8058/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, Pan: Aaadfd2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143Section 4

…onditions of the joint venture agreement as entered between the assessee and CUIH. (vii) In paragraph 15, the Revenue had quoted certain observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd. in [1991] AIR 696 = 186 ITR 722. The case of Paras Laminates relates to the Customs Act, 1962 and not to the Income-tax Act. However, in that case, the issue before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court was whether in the absence of a specific provision, the Division Bench of the Tribunal consisted of two members can make reference to the President for constitution of a larger Bench becaus…

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Gandhinagar vs. Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd., Gandhinagar

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1463/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1462/Ahd/2016 2.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1463/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

For Appellant: Shri O.P.Sharma, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Bhavin Marfatiya, AR
Section 14A

…ve the necessary freedom to doubt the correctness of an earlier decision if and when subsequent proceedings bring to light what is perceived by them as an erroneous decision in the earlier case. In the case of Union of India Vs Paras Laminates Pvt Ltd [(1990) 186 ITR 722 (SC)], Hon’ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, observed as follows: It is true that a Bench of two members must not lightly disregard the decision of another bench of the same Tribunal on an identical question. …………..The rationale of this rule is the need for continuity, certainty and predictability in the administration of justice. Persons affect…

The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Gandhinagar vs. Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd., Gandhinagar

In the result, Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1462/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1462/Ahd/2016 2.आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1463/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

For Appellant: Shri O.P.Sharma, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Bhavin Marfatiya, AR
Section 14A

…ve the necessary freedom to doubt the correctness of an earlier decision if and when subsequent proceedings bring to light what is perceived by them as an erroneous decision in the earlier case. In the case of Union of India Vs Paras Laminates Pvt Ltd [(1990) 186 ITR 722 (SC)], Hon’ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, observed as follows: It is true that a Bench of two members must not lightly disregard the decision of another bench of the same Tribunal on an identical question. …………..The rationale of this rule is the need for continuity, certainty and predictability in the administration of justice. Persons affect…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt Meera Devi

ITA/997/2010HC Delhi23 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 153Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ipline demanded, that the latter Bench should have referred the appeals for consideration by a larger or special Bench. In support of this contention, learned counsel relied upon the decision reported as Union of India Vs. Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd. (1990) 186 ITR 722. 10. It was urged by virtue of several decisions of the various High Courts and the Supreme Court, it is an established rule of law that search proceedings and returns filed pursuant to them to be viewed strictly in accordance with the special provisions connected with it. It was submitted that the presumption which the Revenue can resort…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt Meera Devi

ITA/995/2010HC Delhi23 Aug 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 132Section 153Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ipline demanded, that the latter Bench should have referred the appeals for consideration by a larger or special Bench. In support of this contention, learned counsel relied upon the decision reported as Union of India Vs. Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd. (1990) 186 ITR 722. 10. It was urged by virtue of several decisions of the various High Courts and the Supreme Court, it is an established rule of law that search proceedings and returns filed pursuant to them to be viewed strictly in accordance with the special provisions connected with it. It was submitted that the presumption which the Revenue can resort…

Honda Siel Power Products Ltd vs. Commr.of Income Tax, Delhi

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs

C.A. No.-005412-005412 - 2007Supreme Court26 Nov 2007
For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi
Section 154Section 254(2)Section 43A

…f at all, between two views. Reference in this regard is invited to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija & Others vs. Collector Thane, Maharashtra & Others 183 ITR 130 (SC) and UOI vs. Paras Laminates Pvt. Ltd. 186 ITR 722 (SC). It is, therefore, submitted that the order may be rectified. http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5 3. Disallowance under Rule 6D covered by ground Nos. 3 & 2 for assessment years 1990-91 & 1991-92 respectively were decided against for the reason that requisite details were not furnished before the authorities…