329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd.

323 ITR 632High Court2010#2715 most cited

What is 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd. authority for?

A Commissioner cannot invoke Section 263 to revise an assessment order that allowed a deduction after the assessee provided full details and explanations, unless the order is demonstrably prejudicial to revenue.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd. · 329 ITR 289 · Section 263 · revisionary powers · Commissioner · Assessing Officer · prejudicial to revenue · erroneous assessment · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT · CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers

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 329 ITR 289 (Del) CIT v. DLF Power Ltd.

Paresh Vakharia, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 16, Mumbai

ITA 3262/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Paresh Vakharia-ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Dayasagar-CIT-DR
Section 143Section 24Section 254(1)Section 263

…perty was liable to tax and correspondingly he was entitled to interest deduction u/s.24 (b) of the Act.He referred to the cases of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd.(243 ITR 83)Grasim Industries Ltd.(321 ITR 92) Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd.(323 ITR 632), Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (332 ITR 167). The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the CIT and argued that the AO had not made necessary enquiry. 4.We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the assessee had purchased a residential unit,vide agreement dated 08/09/2011,for Rs. 1.06 corrodes, t…

M/S. Sicgil India Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 877/CHNY/2011[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2015AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pathlavath Peerya, CIT
Section 80

…of the assessee consciously, it is not necessary to discuss the matter in the assessment order. The Ld.counsel placed his reliance on the 4 I.T.A. No.877/Mds/11 judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 632 and also on the judgments of Delhi High Court in CIT v Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 and CIT v. Anil Kuma Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83. The Ld.counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 547. 4. On the contrary, Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, the Ld. Departmental Repre…

Ms. Beena Jain, Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

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

ITA 2080/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263Section 68

…O and furnished by the asseseee. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding that recourse to the powers under section 263 was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. (e) CIT Vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) P. Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 632 (Bom.). Pursuant to filing the return, the assessee, engaged in the business of exporting garments as well as sales in the domestic market, was asked to file the details and to explain the reasons for increase in the expenses. An explanation was filed by the assessee which was accepted by the Assessing Officer and deduction was allowed u/s. 80H…