341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v. Vikas Polymers

332 ITR 16High Court#8994 most cited

What is 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v. Vikas Polymers authority for?

Where the Assessing Officer (AO) has conducted an inquiry and is satisfied about the genuineness and creditworthiness of creditors, the revisional power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be exercised merely because the Commissioner believes a different view could have been taken. The assessment order cannot be termed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue unless the AO's view is unsustainable in law.

12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v Vikas Polymers · 341 ITR 537 · section 263 · revision u/s 263 · inadequate inquiry · lack of enquiry · non application of mind · trade creditors · CIT (Appeals) · Commissioner of Income Tax

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 142(1)Section 148Section 44AASection 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 44afsection 262trade creditorsinadequate enquirysection 263(1)revision u/s 263malabar industrialnon application of mindlack of enquirysection 194asection 44asection 40a(3)

Judgments citing 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v. Vikas Polymers

Davinder Kumar Mago, Punjabi Bagh vs. DCIT/ACIT Central Circle, Ddn, Dehradun

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 17/DDN/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Davinder Kumar Mago Vs Dcit/Acit 12/1, Punjabi Bagh, Central Circle, External Punjabi Bagh, Dehradun New Delhi-110026 Uttarakhand Pan-Ajhpm9802A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. (Vc) Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order By Pr.Cit (Central), Kanpur At Meerut Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1861 (“The Act”) Dated 08.01.2026 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…nce the AO has made the inquiry and reached to the satisfaction about the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors, it cannot be said that no inquiry was made by the AO. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in 332 ITR 16 (Delhi) held as under:- 6. “We do not think that any substantial question of law on this aspect/issue arises from the decision of the Tribunal. It has been factually found and that too concurrently by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal that the purchase of dies and moulds did not bring into existence any permanent or enduring advantage to the ass…

Jarnail Singh, Bilaspur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 395/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 263

…) • Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H) • CTT vs. Gabriel (India) Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR-108 (Bom) • Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243-ITR-83 (SC) • CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282(SC) • CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in 332 ITR 16(Del) • Sh. Narian Singla vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana 62 Taxman.com 255(Chd) • Ganpati International Vs PCIT (ITA 932/Chandi/2019) 27. It was further submitted that on perusal of the order passed under section 263, the PCIT mentions in para 4.6 that the assessee had sold the penny stock of M/s Global Capital Market…

Jarnail Singh, Bilaspur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 394/CHANDI/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 263

…) • Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H) • CTT vs. Gabriel (India) Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR-108 (Bom) • Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243-ITR-83 (SC) • CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282(SC) • CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in 332 ITR 16(Del) • Sh. Narian Singla vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana 62 Taxman.com 255(Chd) • Ganpati International Vs PCIT (ITA 932/Chandi/2019) 27. It was further submitted that on perusal of the order passed under section 263, the PCIT mentions in para 4.6 that the assessee had sold the penny stock of M/s Global Capital Market…

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)

…f enquiry that revisional power ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 49 can be exercised. This proposition stands settled, inter-alia in the following decisions : i) CIT V Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del) ii) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 16 (Del) iii) ITO V D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del); and iv) PCIT V Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. 398 ITR 8 (Del) 13.10 Moreover, as noted, where two views are possible and the AO has taken a view with which the CIT/PCIT does not agree, the assessment order cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the R…

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)

…f enquiry that revisional power ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 49 can be exercised. This proposition stands settled, inter-alia in the following decisions : i) CIT V Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del) ii) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 16 (Del) iii) ITO V D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del); and iv) PCIT V Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. 398 ITR 8 (Del) 13.10 Moreover, as noted, where two views are possible and the AO has taken a view with which the CIT/PCIT does not agree, the assessment order cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the R…

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)

…f enquiry that revisional power ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 49 can be exercised. This proposition stands settled, inter-alia in the following decisions : i) CIT V Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del) ii) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 16 (Del) iii) ITO V D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del); and iv) PCIT V Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. 398 ITR 8 (Del) 13.10 Moreover, as noted, where two views are possible and the AO has taken a view with which the CIT/PCIT does not agree, the assessment order cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the R…

Shri. Tarsem Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 157/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…roper perspective and had ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 32 taken a plausible view while passing the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v. Vikas Polymers ii) 332 ITR 16 (Del) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iii) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 5.7 It was submitted that section 263 does not permit revision of an order on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 296 IR 238 (P&H) CIT v. Sohana Woolen Mills ii) ITA No. 690/Ch…

Sh. Parshotam Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…roper perspective and had ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 32 taken a plausible view while passing the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v. Vikas Polymers ii) 332 ITR 16 (Del) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iii) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 5.7 It was submitted that section 263 does not permit revision of an order on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 296 IR 238 (P&H) CIT v. Sohana Woolen Mills ii) ITA No. 690/Ch…

Priyanka, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 152/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…roper perspective and had ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 32 taken a plausible view while passing the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v. Vikas Polymers ii) 332 ITR 16 (Del) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iii) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 5.7 It was submitted that section 263 does not permit revision of an order on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 296 IR 238 (P&H) CIT v. Sohana Woolen Mills ii) ITA No. 690/Ch…

Priya Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…roper perspective and had ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 32 taken a plausible view while passing the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v. Vikas Polymers ii) 332 ITR 16 (Del) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iii) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 5.7 It was submitted that section 263 does not permit revision of an order on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 296 IR 238 (P&H) CIT v. Sohana Woolen Mills ii) ITA No. 690/Ch…

M/S Pardeep Ispat(P) Ltd., Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…roper perspective and had ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 32 taken a plausible view while passing the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v. Vikas Polymers ii) 332 ITR 16 (Del) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iii) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 5.7 It was submitted that section 263 does not permit revision of an order on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 296 IR 238 (P&H) CIT v. Sohana Woolen Mills ii) ITA No. 690/Ch…

Shri Rajeev Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…roper perspective and had ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 32 taken a plausible view while passing the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v. Vikas Polymers ii) 332 ITR 16 (Del) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iii) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 5.7 It was submitted that section 263 does not permit revision of an order on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 296 IR 238 (P&H) CIT v. Sohana Woolen Mills ii) ITA No. 690/Ch…

341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v. Vikas Polymers (332 ITR 16) — Cited in 12 Judgments | BharatTax