What is Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct a proper and adequate inquiry, making it subject to revision under Section 263, unless the revision is a mere change of opinion.

How many judgments cite Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. DCIT?

125 judgments on BharatTax cite Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. DCIT (362 ITR 403), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. DCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 263, Section 142(1), Section 143(2).

Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. DCIT (362 ITR 403)

OMPRAKASH RAMSURAT YADAV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 4870/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav: A.Y. : 2015-16 Omprakash Ramsurat Yadav Vs. Dcit-Circle 24(1) 1403-A, Rna Heights, Mumbai J.V.L.R. Road (Respondent) Andheri East Mumbai- 400 093 Pan : Aalpy7169F (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Aamod PrabhudesaiFor Respondent: Shri Kiran K Chhatrapati Sr.DR

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 21(3)Section 23Section 23(1)(b)

…ical, principle of consistency required that the same relief was given to the appellant. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gopal Purohit (2011) 336 ITR 287 and Aroni Commercial Ltd., vs. DCIT (2014) 362 ITR 403 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (1992) 60 taxman 248. It is submitted that even in respect of Mr. C.L. Dubey who is the another lessor, who had rented out three office premises of equal area, the Assessing Officer has accepted the rent of Rs.21,00,000/- for A.Y.2015-16. 7. The ld. DR has submitted that the…

M/S. CITY UNION BANK LTD.,,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1126/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., CIT

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…iving a finding or discussing the same would mean that the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. :-8-: ITA. No:1126/Chny/2024 11. In Aroni Commercials Limited v. Dy.CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 304 / 224 Taxman 13 (Mag.)/ 362 ITR 403 (Bom.), a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, while dealing with the provisions of Section 148 of the Act, held that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query was subject matter of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment and the same is de…

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD vs. ARUN KUMAR, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1035/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal & C.O 118/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Arun Kumar Income Tax 201-202, 2Nd Ii-F-3 Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad Floor Cgo Complex 201001 Uttar Pradesh Hapur Chungi Ghaziabad -201002 Pan No. Aeapk1314B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr.Dr Respondent By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal Adv

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 67Section 68

…in law. He placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Asian paints ltd, Vs. DCIT (2008) 296 ITR 90 High Court of Bombay. (ii) Bharat Jayantilal Patel vs. Union of India (2015) 378 ITR 596 High Court of Bombay (iii) Aroni Commercial Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2014) 362 ITR 403 High Court of Bombay (iv) Hirachand Kanuga vs. DCIT (2015) 68SOT 205 ITAT Mumbai Bench 14. In the case in hand notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 14- 12-2021 & 20-01-2021and the assessee was filed his reply on 22-01- 2022. The Ld. AO had decided the objection by order dated 20-03- 2022 and the impugned re-assessment order was passed on 3…

UCAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI-3,, CHENNAI

ITA 1018/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. C.N. Bipin, C.I.T

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 37

…nd assessee has complied, not giving a finding or discussing the same would mean that the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. 11. In Aroni Commercials Limited v. Dy.CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 304 / 224 Taxman 13 (Mag.)/ 362 ITR 403 (Bom.), a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, while dealing with the provisions of Section 148 of the Act, held that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query was subject matter of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment and the same is de…

AVON CONTAINNERS PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as above

ITA 5161/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…e objections without provide "FOUR WEEKS" time period to assessee to seek its legal remedies from the date of receipt/service of said order on objections as well settled by Bombay High Court in cases of M/s Aslan Paints (296 ITR 90) and M/s Aroni Commercials (362 ITR 403). 10. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT- A erred in sustaining the order passed by the AO u/s 147/143(3) without appreciating that on basis of surfeit and inundated evidences on records, burden u/s 68 of the Act lying on assessee has been fully discharged and met. So addition made by Ld. AO of Rs.55,00,000/…

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1479/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…nd assessee has complied, not giving a finding or discussing the same would mean that the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. 11. In Aroni Commercials Limited v. Dy.CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 304 / 224 Taxman 13 (Mag.)/ 362 ITR 403 (Bom.), a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, while dealing with the provisions of Section 148 of the Act, held that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query was subject matter of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing :-8-: ITA. Nos:1478 & 1479/Chny/…

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1478/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

…nd assessee has complied, not giving a finding or discussing the same would mean that the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. 11. In Aroni Commercials Limited v. Dy.CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 304 / 224 Taxman 13 (Mag.)/ 362 ITR 403 (Bom.), a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, while dealing with the provisions of Section 148 of the Act, held that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query was subject matter of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing :-8-: ITA. Nos:1478 & 1479/Chny/…

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IT 3.1.2, KAUTILYA BHAWAN, MUMBAI vs. KUWAIT INVESTMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4207/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Farookh V. Irani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115ASection 143(3)

…ision taken after due application of mind should be followed consistently as this lead to certainty, unless there are valid and good reasons for deviating and not accepting earlier decision The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Aroni Commercials Ltd.(362 ITR 403) has dealt the issue of consistency as follows: Though the principle of res judicata is not applicable to tax matters as each year is separate and distinct, nevertheless where facts are 9 Kuwait Investment Authority Assessment Year 2020-21 identical from year to year, there has to be uniformity and in treatment. Principles of natural justice dem…

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 958/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…and assessee has complied, not giving a finding or discussing the same would mean that the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. 11. In Aroni Commercials Limited v. Dy.CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 304 / 224 Taxman 13 (Mag.)/ 362 ITR 403 (Bom.), a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, while dealing with the provisions of Section 148 of the Act, held that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query was subject matter of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment and the same is de…

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 957/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…and assessee has complied, not giving a finding or discussing the same would mean that the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. 11. In Aroni Commercials Limited v. Dy.CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 304 / 224 Taxman 13 (Mag.)/ 362 ITR 403 (Bom.), a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, while dealing with the provisions of Section 148 of the Act, held that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query was subject matter of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment and the same is de…

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 956/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…and assessee has complied, not giving a finding or discussing the same would mean that the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. 11. In Aroni Commercials Limited v. Dy.CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 304 / 224 Taxman 13 (Mag.)/ 362 ITR 403 (Bom.), a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, while dealing with the provisions of Section 148 of the Act, held that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query was subject matter of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment and the same is de…

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 953/CHNY/2025[953]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…and assessee has complied, not giving a finding or discussing the same would mean that the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. 11. In Aroni Commercials Limited v. Dy.CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 304 / 224 Taxman 13 (Mag.)/ 362 ITR 403 (Bom.), a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, while dealing with the provisions of Section 148 of the Act, held that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query was subject matter of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment and the same is de…

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL),, CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 952/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…and assessee has complied, not giving a finding or discussing the same would mean that the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. 11. In Aroni Commercials Limited v. Dy.CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 304 / 224 Taxman 13 (Mag.)/ 362 ITR 403 (Bom.), a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, while dealing with the provisions of Section 148 of the Act, held that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query was subject matter of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment and the same is de…

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), , CHENNAI

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 951/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…and assessee has complied, not giving a finding or discussing the same would mean that the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. 11. In Aroni Commercials Limited v. Dy.CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 304 / 224 Taxman 13 (Mag.)/ 362 ITR 403 (Bom.), a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, while dealing with the provisions of Section 148 of the Act, held that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query was subject matter of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment and the same is de…

ITO, WARD-18(), NEW DELHI vs. NIVIA AGENCIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1009/DEL/2021[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 68

…2004] 268ITR 332 (Bom.) (HC) Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election AIR 1978 SC 851 Mrs. Usha A Kaltwani vs. S.N. Soni [2004] 272 ITR 67 (Bom) (HC) Godrej Industries Ltd. v. B.S. Singh, Dy. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 1 (Bom.) (HC) Aroni Commercial Ltd t/s DCIT (2014) 362 ITR 403 (Bom) (HC). Northern Exim Pvt Ltd t/s Dy.CIT (2013) 362 ITR 586 (Del) (HC). Best Cybercity (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (2019) 414 ITR 385 (Delhi) (HC) - Deficiency in reasons recorded cannot be rectified in affidavit Capri Global Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. v DCIT-1(1)(1), ITA No. 170/Mum/2017, DOH: 10/04/2019 (Mum)(Trib) e) It is not open to the AO…

VIJAYA LAKSHMI RAVULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 218/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Satyasai Rath, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(47)Section 263Section 53A

…ore, it is clear that the issue as to whether there was a transfer of land or otherwise was the subject of consideration before the AO during the assessment proceedings. As seen in Aroni Commercials Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 304/224 Taxman 13 (Mag)/362 ITR 403 (Bom.) once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was the subject of consideration of the AO while computing the assessment. It is not necessary that an assessment order should contain reference and/or discussion to disclose its satisfaction in respect of the query…

SWARAJYAM DONTIREDDY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 217/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Satyasai Rath, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(47)Section 263Section 53A

…ore, it is clear that the issue as to whether there was a transfer of land or otherwise was the subject of consideration before the AO during the assessment proceedings. As seen in Aroni Commercials Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 304/224 Taxman 13 (Mag)/362 ITR 403 (Bom.) once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was the subject of consideration of the AO while computing the assessment. It is not necessary that an assessment order should contain reference and/or discussion to disclose its satisfaction in respect of the query…

VEERAREDDY GOGULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 216/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Satyasai Rath, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(47)Section 263Section 53A

…ore, it is clear that the issue as to whether there was a transfer of land or otherwise was the subject of consideration before the AO during the assessment proceedings. As seen in Aroni Commercials Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 304/224 Taxman 13 (Mag)/362 ITR 403 (Bom.) once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was the subject of consideration of the AO while computing the assessment. It is not necessary that an assessment order should contain reference and/or discussion to disclose its satisfaction in respect of the query…

KONDA SRINIVASA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

In the result, all the 4 appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 209/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri S. Balakrishnanappeal No. Assessee Respondent A.Y 209/Viz/2024 Konda Srinivasa Income Tax Officer 2016-17 Reddy, Guntur, Ward 2(1) Pan:Aafhk9821E Guntur 216/Viz/2024 Veerareddy Gogula - Do - -Do- Guntur Pan:Byapg6481J - Do - 217/Viz/2024 Swarajyam -Do- Dontireddy Guntur Pan:Cmmpd3393K - Do - 218/Viz/2024 Vijaya Lakshmi -Do- Ravula, Guntur Pan:Baopr0163G

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Satyasai Rath, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(47)Section 263Section 53A

…ore, it is clear that the issue as to whether there was a transfer of land or otherwise was the subject of consideration before the AO during the assessment proceedings. As seen in Aroni Commercials Ltd. v Dy. CIT [2014] 44 taxmann.com 304/224 Taxman 13 (Mag)/362 ITR 403 (Bom.) once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was the subject of consideration of the AO while computing the assessment. It is not necessary that an assessment order should contain reference and/or discussion to disclose its satisfaction in respect of the query…

DAKSHAYANI HORTICULTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, ITA.No.1333/Hyd

ITA 1333/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.1331/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2019-2020 Adrija Farms Private The ACIT, Limited, Hyderabad vs. Central Circle-2(4)), PAN AAQCA0197D Hyderabad. Telangana. PIN – 500 038. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.1333/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2019-2020 Dakshyani Horticulture The ACIT, Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Central Circle-2(4)), PAN AAGCD3611D Hyderabad. Telangana. PIN – 500 038. (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.1328/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2019-2020 M/s. Prayaga Gree…

Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. DCIT

What is Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Aroni Commercials Ltd. v. DCIT

OMPRAKASH RAMSURAT YADAV,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CIRCLE 24(1), MUMBAI

M/S. CITY UNION BANK LTD.,,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD vs. ARUN KUMAR, GHAZIABAD

UCAL LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI-3,, CHENNAI

AVON CONTAINNERS PVT. LTD.,FARIDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IT 3.1.2, KAUTILYA BHAWAN, MUMBAI vs. KUWAIT INVESTMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), CHENNAI

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL),, CHENNAI

SUBRAMANIAM MOHAN SUNDARAM,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), , CHENNAI

ITO, WARD-18(), NEW DELHI vs. NIVIA AGENCIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

VIJAYA LAKSHMI RAVULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

SWARAJYAM DONTIREDDY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

VEERAREDDY GOGULA,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

KONDA SRINIVASA REDDY,GUNTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), GUNTUR

DAKSHAYANI HORTICULTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD