How many judgments cite BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. PCIT?

30 judgments on BharatTax cite BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. PCIT (399 ITR 228), spanning 2018 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. PCIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 144B, Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 194A.

BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. PCIT

399 ITR 228High Court2017#3974 most cited

What is BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. PCIT authority for?

Revision under Section 263 is justified when the Assessing Officer fails to consider a significant portion of a claim, such as depreciation, leading to an erroneous assessment that is prejudicial to the revenue.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. PCIT · section 263 · revision u/s 263 · erroneous and prejudicial · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · Principal Commissioner of Income-tax · Delhi High Court · depreciation claim

Also reported as

88 Taxmann.com 25

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 194A Section 272A(1)(d)Section 57(iii)

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenue inadequate enquiry section 263(1)revision u/s 263 malabar industrial lack of enquiry erroneous and prejudicial principal commissioner of income-tax entry operator section 263 section 26 section 119

Judgments citing BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. PCIT

DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT - 1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘B’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Dabur India Limited, vs. Pr.CIT, Delhi – 1, 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 002. (PAN :AAACD0474C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CITDR Date of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date of Order : 14.11.2025 ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-1[“Ld. PCIT”, for short] dated 29.0…

GAURAV KUMAR ARYA,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT -20, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2000/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Gaurav Kumar Arya, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income 3-P, Pocket-4, Tax, Delhi-20, Kondly Gharoli-Ii, Mayur New Delhi. Vihar, Delhi-1100 96 Pan: Airpa0102C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath & V. RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Gaurav Kumar Arya, Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income 3-P, Pocket-4, Tax, Delhi-20, Kondly Gharoli-II, Mayur New Delhi. Vihar, Delhi-1100 96 PAN: AIRPA0102C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: S/Shri K. Sampath & V. Rajkumar, Advs. Department by: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing: 21.08.2025 Date of pronouncement: 14.11.2025 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by assessee is against order dated 28.03.2024 of…

MANJU RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2280/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi, CA

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 57

…invoking revision under Commissioner was justified in invoking revision under section 263. 3. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs PCIT [2017] 88 3. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs PCIT [2017] 88 3. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs PCIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 25 (Delhi)/[2017] 399 ITR 228 (Delhi) Hon'ble taxmann.com 25 (Delhi)/[2017] 399 ITR 228 (Delhi) Hon'ble taxmann.com 25 (Delhi)/[2017] 399 ITR 228 (Delhi) Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that non elhi High Court held that non- consideration of larger claim consideration of larger claim for Rs. 298.93 crores as depreciation and consideration of for Rs. 298.93 crores as depreciati…

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 vs. NARENDRA AGGARWAL

ITA/740/2023HC Delhi17 Sept 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

Section 111Section 143(2)Section 263

…$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 740/2023, CM APPL. 5205/2024 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-2 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC with Ms. Esha, Adv. versus NARENDRA AGGARWAL DECEASED THROUGH LRS .....Respondent Through: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal, Mr. Dushyant Aggarwal & Mr. S. Maurya, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA % 17.09.2024 O R D E R Bearing in mind the disclosures made, the delay in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM APPL. 63834/20…

ADVERTISING AGENCIES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION ), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

ITA 2370/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: ShriAmol Kirtane (CIT-DR.)

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 2370/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) Advertising Agencies vs Commissioner of Income tax, Association of India Exemption, Mumbai 6TH Floor, Cumballa Hill MTNL, TE B-502, Marathon Futurex, N.M.Joshi Marg, Lower Parel, Building, Pedder Road, Dr. Mumbai, 400013 G.D.Marg, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai. PAN: AAATA5800E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Nishit Gandhi, CA Respondent by : ShriAmol Kirtane (CIT-DR.) Date of hearing : 10/07/2024 Date of pronou…

M/S SUNSMART TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 173/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 173/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Sunsmart Technologies Principal Commissioner Of Pvt Ltd., V. Income Tax-3, 25 Yellow Buildings, Chennai-34. 25 R.K. Salai, V Floor Opp. Hsbc Bank, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004 [Pan: Aajcs-7454-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Ms. Lekha, Ca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ravi Babu, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023

For Respondent: Shri. Ravi Babu, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 263(1)Section 40

…the learned PCIT is well within the jurisdiction and in consonance with clause(c) of Explanation 1 to Sec.263(1) of the Act. In this regard, reliance is placed on the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. reported in 399 ITR 228 (Delhi)(8/11/2017). In the said ruling, vide para 15, it is observed that "with respect to the exercise of power under section 263 is concerned, the issue stands concluded, in the light of the amendment with effect from 1989, by insertion of Explanation (c) to Section 263(1). The non-consideration of the larger claim for Rs. 298. 93 crores as dep…

DCIT, CC-15, DELHI vs. B L KASHYAP & SONS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 877/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Vs B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., Cc-15 B-1 Extn.,/E-23, Delhi. Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044 Pan : Aaacb0205F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.877/Del/2022 For Ay 2014-15 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-28, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Appeal No.349/19-20/1641 Dated 25.02.2022 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3)/263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2018 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Central Circle 15, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Mohit jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : H : DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 DCIT, Vs B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd., CC-15 B-1 Extn.,/E-23, Delhi. Mohan Cooperative Indl. Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi – 110 044 PAN : AAACB0205F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mohit jain, CA Revenue by : Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 09.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023 ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH, AM: This appeal in ITA No.877/Del/2022 for AY 2014-15 arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-28,…

ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF ELURU,ELURU vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), VIJAYAWADA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/VIZ/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R L Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Balakrishnan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C. SubrahmanyamFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 2Section 263

…gible for exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(E) relied on the decision of the ITAT, Chennai Bench in the case of SIFI Software Ltd vs. ACIT and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT reported in 399 ITR 228 (Delhi) in his order and considered the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and thereby set- aside the assessment order with a direction to the AO to re-do the assessment after verification of the issues in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(E), the assessee is…

HUMUZA CONSULTANTS,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT-19, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 726/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Humuza Consultants Vs The Principal Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Wokhardt Towers Income-Tax-19, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex Room No. 228, 2Nd Floor, Bandra East Matru Mandir Mumbai-400 01 Tardeo Road, Pan : Aahfh9240E Mumbai-400 007 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jd Mistry & Hiten Chande Respondent By Shri K.K. Mishra (Cit,Dr) Date Of Hearing 07-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07-01-2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi (Am):

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 68

…1 SA 162/Mum/2021 notice or during the course of revisionary proceedings, the learned PCIT could not have directed the assessing officer to investigate the provisions of section 68 of the Act. He further referred to the decision of Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in 399 ITR 228 (Del) in BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd vs PCIT wherein at paragraph 16, the principles of natural justice of giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee was referred. He, therefore, stated that in absence of any opportunity to the assessee with respect to the applicability of section 68 of the Income-tax Act, the direction of the learned PCIT is n…

MANOJ KUMAR DAS,MAYURBHANJ vs. PRINCIPAL CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITANo

ITA 195/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Bivas Ranjan Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 69

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ, कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI MANISH BORAD, AM आयकर अपीऱ सं./ITA No.195/CTK/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) Mr. Manoj Kumar Das, Vs Pr.CIT, Cuttack Ward No.2, Ichinda, Rairangpur-757043 PAN No. : AHUPD 4012 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Bivas Ranjan Panda, Adv. िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR सुनवाई की तािीख / Date of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date of Pronouncement : /12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per MANISH BORAD…

SMT. MAMTA SHARMA,BARGARH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT (CENTRAL) , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/CTK/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shrichandra Mohan Garg & Manish Boradassessment Year :2012-13 Smt. Mamta Sharma, Ward Vs. Pr. Cit(Central), Visakhapatnam No.10, Near Govt. Bus Stand, Dist: Baragarh Pan/Gir No.Agvps 4382 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement :10/12/2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 153CSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRICHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year :2012-13 Smt. Mamta Sharma, Ward Vs. Pr. CIT(Central), Visakhapatnam No.10, Near Govt. Bus Stand, Dist: Baragarh PAN/GIR No.agvps 4382 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, AR Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 21/10/ 2021 Date of Pronouncement :10/12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order u/s 263 of the Act of the Pr. CIT(A), Visakhapatnam dated 11.3.2019 for the…

NIRMAL GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 9, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 108/Del/2018 (A.Y. 2015-16) (Through Video Conferencing) Nirmal Gupta Vs Pr. Cit-9 5/5, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aagpg0462J (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Ms. Rano Jain, Adv Respondent By Sh. Parmita M. Biswas, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 22.06.2021

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…verification was done related to long term capital gain. The Ld. DR also relied upon the following decisions: a) Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 23976/2017 order dated 29.11.2017 (SC) b) BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs. PCIT 399 ITR 228 (Del) c) Surya Financial Services Ltd. vs. PCIT (ITA No. 2158/Del/2017) ITAT Delhi 5 d) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 (SC) e) Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT 386 ITR 162 (Cal) f) Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC) g) CIT vs. Amitabh Bachhan Civil Appeal 5009 of 2016 dated 11.05.2016 (SC). 8. We hav…

RAJANI VENKATA NAGA ANAVARAPU NARAYNA,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT-20, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1817/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambledr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1817/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Rajani Venkata Naga Annavarapu Vs Pcit-20, Narayana, A-14, Mangal Co-Operative New Delhi Group Housing Society Ltd., Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi-110096 (Appellantt (Respondent) Pan No. Agbpn4766D

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 48Section 54Section 68

…at basis the Commissioner of Income Tax had, after setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer, simply directed the Assessing Officer to carry out thorough and detailed inquiry. 2. BSES Raidhani Power Ltd. Vs PCIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 25 (Delhi)/[2017] 399 ITR 228 (Delhi) 6 Rajani Venkata Naga Anavarapu Narayna Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that non-consideration of larger claim for Rs. 298.93 crores as depreciation and consideration of only a part of it being Rs. 6.45 crore by Assessing Officer, who did not go into issue with respect to whole amount, was an error, that could be corrected under section 263…

M/S. KALINGA CONDUITS ELECTRICABLES (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 9, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3287/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Kalinga Conduits Electricables (P) Vs Pr. Cit-9, Ltd., New Delhi. 81/41, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi. Pan : Aacck5784H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate; Shri Rajiv Sabharwal, Ca; & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca. Revenue By : Mrs. Aashna Paul, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23Rd March, 2017 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act, 1961 By The Pcit, New Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2010 Declaring An Income Of Rs.5,940/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Cit-Ii, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No. File 148/2012-13/2817 Dated 15Th March, 2013, Forwarded The Letter Of Investigation Ii, Delhi, Vide F. No.Dit (Inv.)-Ii/U/S 148/2012-13/197 Dated 12Th March, 2013 Giving Information About An Accommodation Entry Of Rs.40 Lakhs Received By The Assessee From M/S Victory Software Pvt. Ltd., Zenith Automotive Pvt. Ltd. & Humtum Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Based On The Above, The Ao Issued Notice U/S 148 After Recording The Reasons.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Aashna Paul, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax 99 ITR 375 12 5. CIT Vs. Nagesh Knitwear ITA No.591/2008 order dated 01.06.2012. 6. PCIT vs. Shri Braham Dev Gupta, ITA No.907 of 2017, Judgment dated 20.07.2018 (Delhi HC); 7. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 399 ITR 228 (Del); 8. Surya Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT, ITA No.2158/Del/2017 (ITAT Delhi); 9. Surya Financial Services Ltd. vs. PCIT, ITA No.2158/Del/2017 (ITAT Delhi) 15. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his rejoinder submitted that in the case of Deniel Merchants Private Limited (supra) no enquiry was conducted by the AO whereas in the instant…

MR. ABHISAR SHARMA,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3285/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 17(2)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…e case of Braham Dev Gupta 907 of 2017. We find that the facts of the case in hand are not even remotely related to the facts of this case. 35. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of BSES Rajadhani Power Ltd 399 ITR 228 is again 43 distinguishable on facts as in that case, the Assessing Officer did not go into the issue with respect to whole claim of deprecation and that was considered as an error justifying the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Whereas the facts of the case, as discussed hereinabove, clearly show that the reasons on which the PCIT…

KLAXON TRADING (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, CENTRAL- 3, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7265/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 7265/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14) M/S Klaxon Trading (P.) Ltd., Vs Pcit, Warehouse A-97B, Khasra Central – 3, No.50/4, New Delhi Behind Friends Dharam Kanta Shahbad Daulatpur, New Delhi – 110 042 (Pan : Aaack 3487 E) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 263

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 7265/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2013-14) M/s Klaxon Trading (P.) Ltd., Vs PCIT, Warehouse A-97B, Khasra Central – 3, No.50/4, New Delhi Behind Friends Dharam Kanta Shahbad Daulatpur, New Delhi – 110 042 (PAN : AAACK 3487 E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. Respondent by Shri G. Johnson, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 09.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement 27.01.2020 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed…

M/S. DELHI AVIATION SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT, NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2989/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2011-12 M/s. Delhi Aviation Services Pvt. Vs. Pr. CIT Ltd. Delhi-3, New Udaan Bhawan, Room No. 394-A, Opp. Terminal-3, C.R. Building, Indira Gandhi International I.P. Estate Airport, New Delhi – 110 002 New Delhi – 110 037 PAN AACCD6349L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Ankit Agarwal, CA Department by : Shri S.S. Rana, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing 09/12/2019 Date of 30/12/2019 pronouncement O R D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM: This app…

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3284/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR

Section 263

…case of Braham Dev Gupta 907 of 2017. We find that the facts of the case in hand are not even remotely related to the facts of this case. 35. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of BSES Rajadhani Power Ltd 399 ITR 228 is again distinguishable on facts as in that case, the Assessing Officer did not go into the issue with respect to whole claim of deprecation and that was considered as an error justifying the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Whereas the facts of the case, as discussed hereinabove, clearly show that the reasons on which the PCIT as…

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3281/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR

Section 263

MRS. SHUMANA SEN,NOIDA vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 3283/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Shumana Sen, AssesseeFor Respondent: Smt. Deepika Mittal, CIT- DR

Section 263

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2