What is ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain authority for?

An assessment order is not considered erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue under Section 263 solely because the Assessing Officer failed to initiate penalty proceedings. The Commissioner cannot direct the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 263, as they are distinct from assessment proceedings.

How many judgments cite ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain?

48 judgments on BharatTax cite ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain (242 ITR 45), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 271(1)(a), Section 271(1)(c), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 273(b).

ACIT v. Achal Kumar Jain (242 ITR 45)

Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 230/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Sri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” , HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.230 and 231/Hyd/2023 Assessment Years: 2016-17 and 2017-18 Sri Adithya Homes Private Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2(2), PAN : AAFCS7209B. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri A.V. Raghuram Revenue by: Sri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 12/07/2023 Date of pronouncement: 21/07/2023 O R D E R PER BENCH : These appeals of the assessee for A.Ys. 2016…

Dhankot Filling Station, Gurgaon vs. Pr.CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshdhankot Filling Station, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sultanpur Road, Village Faridabad Dhankot, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122505 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaefd7291A Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 275Section 69A

…in (2011) 335 ITR 364 agreeing with the view of High Courts of Delhi in Additional CIT v. J.K.D.'Costa (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sudershan Talkies (1993) 201 ITR 289 (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nihal Chand Rekyan (2000) 242 ITR 45 (Del), Rajasthan in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Keshrimal Parasmal (1986) 157 ITR 484 (Raj), Calcutta in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Linotype & Machinery Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 337 (Cal) and Gauhati in Surendra Prasad Singh and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1988) 173 ITR 510 (Gau.) whereas dissenting with the diametrically opposite approa…

Anjis Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT-5, Mumbai

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

ITA 959/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anjis Developers Private Limited, Pcit-5, 2Nd Floor, Soham Apartments, Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, 208, Walkeshwar Road, Teen Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mk. Batti, Road, Mumbai-400006. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaaca 6022 H Appellant Respondent : Assessee By S. Sriram/Dinesh Kukreja/Ssnyaknavedie Revenue By : Shri Chetan Kacha, Dr : Date Of Hearing 25/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

For Respondent: Assessee by S. Sriram/Dinesh

Section 270A

…ed upon the following decisions: 1. Adell. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa (19821 133 ITR 7& (Delhi) 1. Adell. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa (19821 133 ITR 7& (Delhi) 1. Adell. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa (19821 133 ITR 7& (Delhi) 2. Addl. CIT v. Achal Addl. CIT v. Achal Kumar Jain [1983] 142 ITR 606 (Delhi) 142 ITR 606 (Delhi) 3. CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan (20001 242 ITTR 45 (Delhi). 3. CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan (20001 242 ITTR 45 (Delhi). 3. CIT v. Nihal Chand Rekyan (20001 242 ITTR 45 (Delhi). 8. Having heard the leamed counsel for the parties we find that 8. Having heard the leamed counsel for the parties we find that 8. Having heard the l…

Prateek Gupta, Ghaziabad vs. Pr, CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 785/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Prateek Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan Atbpg8602J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…nvalid and without jurisdiction.” 13. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. Pr. CIT is not justified in giving direction to the Ld. AO to initiate penalty proceedings and relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Nihal Chand Rekyan (2002) 242 ITR 45 (Delhi). Regarding direction for recomputation of income tax and interest as per section 115BBE of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that no show cause notice relating thereto was issued by the Ld. Pr. CIT and therefore the assessee was denied the opportunity to present his case on this aspect of the matter. Reference was made to the decision of Hon’b…

Sandeep Gupta, Ghaziabad vs. Pr, CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 784/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Sandeep Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201009 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…or any of the grounds of appeal.” 9. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. Pr. CIT is not justified in giving direction to the Ld. AO to initiate penalty proceedings and relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Nihal Chand Rekyan (2002) 242 ITR 45 (Delhi). Regarding direction for recomputation of income tax and interest as per section 115BBE of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted that no show cause notice relating thereto was issued by the Ld. Pr. CIT and therefore the assessee was denied the opportunity to present his case on this aspect of the matter. Reference was made to the decision of Hon’b…