335 ITR 83, CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma (Delhi)

343 ITR 342High Court2012#7864 most cited

What is 335 ITR 83, CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma (Delhi) authority for?

A revision order under section 263 is valid if the Assessing Officer's enquiry was inadequate and the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The revisional authority must ensure it is not substituting its own view for that of the Assessing Officer.

14

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma · 335 ITR 83 · section 263 · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · erroneous and prejudicial · speaking order · scrutiny assessment · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 37

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquirylack of enquirymalabar industrialerroneous and prejudicialsection 37speaking ordersection 263section 26scrutiny assessmentsection 142section 143(1)previous year

Judgments citing 335 ITR 83, CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma (Delhi)

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)

…ction assumed under section 263 was quashed: -CIT v. DLF Ltd.: 350 ITR 555 (Del.) -CIT v. International Travel House Ltd.: 344 ITR 554 (Del.) -Gulmohar Finance Ltd.: 170 Taxman 483 (Del.) -CIT v. Leisurewear Exports: 341 ITR 166 (Del.) -CIT v. Hero Auto Ltd.: 343 ITR 342 (Del.) -CIT v. Escorts Ltd.: 338 ITR 435 (Del.) 151 For the aforesaid reason, too, it is respectfully submitted that the revisionary proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act is wholly without jurisdiction since the view taken by the assessing officer is, in any case, a plausible view in law, which cannot be regarded as erroneous, much l…

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

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ioner to pass order under section 263 merely because he had a different opinion on the matter. The order of the Commissioner under section 263 was not sustainable. There is a difference between 'lack of enquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry. CIT Vs Hero Auto Ltd. (343 ITR 342) If there was inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass order under section 263 of the Act merely because he has a difference of opinion in the matter. It is only the cases of 'lack of inquiry' that such a course of action would be open. The objective of scrutiny assessment u/s.143(3) is to confi…

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)

…sumed under section 263 was quashed: - CIT v. DLF Ltd.: 350 ITR 555 (Del.) - CIT v. International Travel House Ltd.: 344 ITR 554 (Del.) - Gulmohar Finance Ltd.: 170 Taxman 483 (Del.) 41 - CIT v. Leisurewear Exports: 341 ITR 166 (Del.) - CIT v. Hero Auto Ltd.: 343 ITR 342 (Del.) - CIT v. Escorts Ltd.: 338 ITR 435 (Del.) 151 For the aforesaid reason, too, it is respectfully submitted that the revisionary proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Act is wholly without jurisdiction since the view taken by the assessing officer is, in any case, a plausible view in law, which cannot be regarded as erroneous, much…

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

…oner to pass order under section 263 merely because he had a different opinion on the matter. The order of the Commissioner under section 263 was not sustainable. There is a difference between ‘lack of enquiry’ and ‘inadequate inquiry’. CIT Vs Hero Auto Ltd. (343 ITR 342) If there was inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass order under section 263 of the Act merely because he has a difference of opinion in the matter. It is only the cases of ‘lack of inquiry’ that such a course of action would be open. The objective of scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) is to conf…

The Director of Income Tax vs. India Heritage Foundation

The appeal is disposed of

ITA/382/2012HC Karnataka18 Aug 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 12ASection 13(8)Section 260Section 260ASection 263Section 80I

…ONER OF INCOME-TAX (CENTRAL), DELHI VS. HARPRASAD & CO.P.LTD.’, (1975) 99 ITR 118X (SC), ‘MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF 10 INCOME-TAX’, (2000) 243 ITR 83W (SC) and ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. HERO AUTO LTD.’, (2012) 343 ITR 342 (DEL). 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel on both the sides and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant extract of Section 263 of the Act, which reads as under: 263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue (1) The Commissioner may call for and exami…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The DCIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…Govindram Seksariya Cahrity Trust, 166 ITR 580 (M.P) l. Hari Iron Trading Co. v/s CIT, 263 ITR 437 (P&H) m. CIT v/s HARI Singh & Associates, 267 CTR 442 (Raj.) n. 335 ITR 83, CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (Delhi), o. 341 ITR 537 (Delhi), CIT vs. Vikas Polymers p. 343 ITR 342, CIT vs. Hero Auto Ltd. (Delhi H.C.), q. 344 ITR 554, CIT vs. International Travel House Ltd. (Delhi H.C.), ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari r. 343 ITR 329, CIT vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (Delhi H.C.), s. 111 ITR 326, J.P. Srivastava & Sons Vs. CIT, (Allhd. H.C) t. 320 ITR 674, CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (Delhi H.C.).…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The ACIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…Govindram Seksariya Cahrity Trust, 166 ITR 580 (M.P) l. Hari Iron Trading Co. v/s CIT, 263 ITR 437 (P&H) m. CIT v/s HARI Singh & Associates, 267 CTR 442 (Raj.) n. 335 ITR 83, CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (Delhi), o. 341 ITR 537 (Delhi), CIT vs. Vikas Polymers p. 343 ITR 342, CIT vs. Hero Auto Ltd. (Delhi H.C.), q. 344 ITR 554, CIT vs. International Travel House Ltd. (Delhi H.C.), ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari r. 343 ITR 329, CIT vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (Delhi H.C.), s. 111 ITR 326, J.P. Srivastava & Sons Vs. CIT, (Allhd. H.C) t. 320 ITR 674, CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (Delhi H.C.).…

M/S. Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 355/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 35A

…Govindram Seksariya Cahrity Trust, 166 ITR 580 (M.P) k. Hari Iron Trading Co. v/s CIT, 263 ITR 437 (P&H) l. CIT v/s HARI Singh & Associates, 267 CTR 442 (Raj.) m. 335 ITR 83, CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (Delhi), m. 341 ITR 537 (Delhi), CIT vs. Vikas Polymers o. 343 ITR 342, CIT vs. Hero Auto Ltd. (Delhi H.C.), p. 111 ITR 326, J.P. Srivastava & Sons Vs. CIT, (Allhd. H.C) q. 320 ITR 674, CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (Delhi H.C.). At r. 323 ITR 632, CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) P. Ltd. (Bombay H.C.), of s. 323 ITR 206, CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. t. 243 ITR 83, Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT…

Shri Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 350/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…Govindram Seksariya Cahrity Trust, 166 ITR 580 (M.P) l. Hari Iron Trading Co. v/s CIT, 263 ITR 437 (P&H) m. CIT v/s HARI Singh & Associates, 267 CTR 442 (Raj.) n. 335 ITR 83, CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (Delhi), o. 341 ITR 537 (Delhi), CIT vs. Vikas Polymers p. 343 ITR 342, CIT vs. Hero Auto Ltd. (Delhi H.C.), q. 344 ITR 554, CIT vs. International Travel House Ltd. (Delhi H.C.), ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari r. 343 ITR 329, CIT vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (Delhi H.C.), s. 111 ITR 326, J.P. Srivastava & Sons Vs. CIT, (Allhd. H.C) t. 320 ITR 674, CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (Delhi H.C.).…

Nuwave Esolutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3231/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. D. Agrawal & Ms Suchitra Kamblenuwave Esolutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Cit(A) 3Rd Floor, District Centre, Delhi-V Dda Building, Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi Aabcn5790Q (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 10Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 40Section 92

…TR (P & H) 8 xiii. Double Dot Finance Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT(A) 38 DTR 220 (Mumbai) xiv CIT(A) vs. Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd. 46 DTR 109 (Del.) xv. Raj Shyama Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT 135 TTJ 33 (Del.) xvi. CIT(A) vs. Hero Auto Ltd. 343 ITR 342 (Del.) xvii. 203 ITR 108 (Bom)- xviii. 348 ITR 485 (Del) (FB) The Ld. AR further submitted that when the deduction u/s 10A has been dealt by the Assessing Officer in original assessment u/s 143(3) (PB 30-41) in most extensive manner and ultimately disallowed the claim, then how that order can be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the reven…

Landmark Education India, Mumbai vs. ITO (E) II (1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4871/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year 2008-09 Landmark Education India, Income Tax Officer B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, (Exemption)-Ii(1), बनाम/ Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai 400086 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaatl0059L

Section 11Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,‘ए’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी. मंजूनाथ, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri JOGINDER SINGH, Judicial Member, and Shri G. MANJUNATHA, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2008-09 Landmark Education India, Income Tax Officer B-206, Bhaveshwar Plaza, (Exemption)-II(1), बनाम/ LBS Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Piramal Chambers, Vs. Mumbai 400086 Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAATL0059L "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri J.D. Mistri & Shri S.I. Mogu राज"व क" ओर से / Rev…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3128/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

…be held to be erroneous so as to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. In support of the above, the ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. DLF Ltd., 350 ITR 555 and CIT v Hero Auto Ltd., 343 ITR 342 (Del.). In his written submission, he provided a long list of judgments of various High Courts. Further, the ld. AR submitted that wherein the issue has been examined by the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) cannot set aside the assessment merely because according to the CIT, the inquiry should have been conducted in a particular manner and/or furthe…

Jindal Steel Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3283/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C.M. Garg & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(3)Section 263

…be held to be erroneous so as to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. In support of the above, the ld. AR placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. DLF Ltd., 350 ITR 555 and CIT v Hero Auto Ltd., 343 ITR 342 (Del.). In his written submission, he provided a long list of judgments of various High Courts. Further, the ld. AR submitted that wherein the issue has been examined by the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) cannot set aside the assessment merely because according to the CIT, the inquiry should have been conducted in a particular manner and/or furthe…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar

ITTA/382/2012HC Telangana24 Jul 2013