AO. 21. In 'Surendra Enterprises v. ITO

18 ITR 325Reported decision2012#19585 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 56(i)(ccv)section 80p(2)(i)assessment order erroneouslack of enquirysection 80p(4)section 80p(2)(a)section 80p(2)(d)section 80p(2)(a)(i)section 80p(2)limited scrutinyerroneous and prejudicialsection 56

Judgments citing AO. 21. In 'Surendra Enterprises v. ITO

The Mullanpur Garibdas Co-Op Multipurpose Society, Mohali vs. DCIT, C-6(1), Mohali

ITA 645/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT, DR
Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…iction under section 263 of the Act could not be held to be sustainable in law. In the present case also, as seen, jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act has been exercised wrongly despite due enquiry by the AO. 21. In 'Surendra Enterprises Versus ITO', 18 ITR 325(AT-Chd.)(2012), the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal has held that where the Assessing Officer allowed discount paid to sub-dealer after making due enquiry and verification, invocation of the provisions of section 263 was not justified. In the case before us, it was after due enquiry, that the AO accepted the returned income of the assessee soc…

The Mullanpur Garibdas Co-Op Multipurpose Society, Mullanpur vs. Pr. CIT-II, Chandigarh

ITA 569/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT, DR
Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…iction under section 263 of the Act could not be held to be sustainable in law. In the present case also, as seen, jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act has been exercised wrongly despite due enquiry by the AO. 21. In 'Surendra Enterprises Versus ITO', 18 ITR 325(AT-Chd.)(2012), the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal has held that where the Assessing Officer allowed discount paid to sub-dealer after making due enquiry and verification, invocation of the provisions of section 263 was not justified. In the case before us, it was after due enquiry, that the AO accepted the returned income of the assessee soc…

The Mullanpur Garibdas Co-Op Multipurpose Society, Mohali vs. Pr. CIT-II, Chandigarh

ITA 515/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT, DR
Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…iction under section 263 of the Act could not be held to be sustainable in law. In the present case also, as seen, jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act has been exercised wrongly despite due enquiry by the AO. 21. In 'Surendra Enterprises Versus ITO', 18 ITR 325(AT-Chd.)(2012), the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal has held that where the Assessing Officer allowed discount paid to sub-dealer after making due enquiry and verification, invocation of the provisions of section 263 was not justified. In the case before us, it was after due enquiry, that the AO accepted the returned income of the assessee soc…

Sh. Surinder Pal Singh, Ludhiana vs. Pr.CIT-1, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jan 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…• R.S.WarehousingVs ITO in ITA No. 310/Chd/10-11 Chandigarh Bench of the ITAT • Smt. SavitaGoyalvs ITO, Khanna in ITA No. 438/Chd/2007 Chandigarh Bench of the ITAT • Hari Trading co. vs. CIT 263 ITR 437 • Surindra Enterprises vs. ITO (Chandigarh Bench) (2012) 18 ITR 325 (2012) • Mahadev Rice & General Mills vs. CIT in ITA NO. 472/CHD/2012 (ITAT CHD Bench) • CIT Vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. [2010] 46 DTR (Del) 97 • CIT Vs. Indo German Fabs ITA No. 248/ 2012 order dt. 24/12/2014 (P&H) • Amarjeet Kaur Vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 40 & 41/Chd/2019 order dt. 14/06/2019 (ITAT Chandigarh) • CIT Vs. Deepak Mittal as reported in…

AO. 21. In 'Surendra Enterprises v. ITO (18 ITR 325) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax