BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. PCIT

399 ITR 228High Court2017#3969 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.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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 263Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 194ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 57(iii)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenueinadequate enquirysection 263(1)revision u/s 263malabar industriallack of enquiryerroneous and prejudicialprincipal commissioner of income-taxentry operatorsection 263section 26section 119

Judgments citing BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. v. PCIT

Mrs. Shumana Sen, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3282/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

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…

Ashok Kumar Sinha, Ghaziabad vs. Prcit, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3615/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 263

…lowing decision be considered with regard to validity of proceedings u/s 263 of Income Tax Act. 1. Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (Appeal No. 2396/2017) dated 6 29.11.2017 (SC). 2. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs PCIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 25 (Delhi)/(2017) 399 ITR 228 (Delhi) 3. Surya Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (I.T.A. No.2158/DEL/2017) ITAT Delhi 4. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC)/[2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC)/ [2000] 159 CTR 1 (SC) 6. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT [70 taxmann.com 124 (Calcutta)/[2016] 240 Taxman 306 (Calcutta)/[2016] 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta)/[2016] 287 CTR 512…

Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co.Ltd., Lucknow vs. ACIT, Central Circle - I, Lucknow, Kanpur

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 607/ALLD/2000[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2019AY 1995-96

Bench: Smt. Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishiay: 1995-96 Sahara India Commercial Vs. Acit, Cc-1 Corporation Ltd. Lucknow (Erstwhile Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co.Ltd.) Sahara India Sadan 2A, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata 700 071 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Percy Pardiwala, Sr.Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. J.K.Mishra, CIT, D.R
Section 263

…bmitted that all the aforestated decisions has applied the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs Arbuda Mills Ltd (supra), and a recent decision by Hon’able Delhi High Court in case of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd vs Pr.CIT, reported in (2017) 88 Taxmann.com 25 is squarely on the issue under consideration. He also submitted that decision of Coordinate Bench of Allahabad Tribunal, in assessee’s own case, for assessment year 1994-95, has considered decisions, which were passed prior to insertion of Explanation (c) to section 263 of the Act. He also placed heavy reliance upon decision of Coordinate B…

Mohd. Momineen Qureshi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 46(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee dismissed

ITA 1987/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kakkar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “E” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.1987/Del./2018 AND Stay Application No.261/Del./2018 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Mohd. Momineen Qureshi, The ACIT, 401, 4th Floor, Vardhman vs City-2, Plaza Asaf Ali Road, Circle-46(1), New Delhi – 110 002. Delhi. PAN AAGPQ2968R (Appellant (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Anil Kakkar, C.A. For Revenue : Ms. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 26.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 02.04.2019 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. ITA.No.1987/Del./2018 by Assessee has…

Bagrrys India Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 2, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3785/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, Adv. & Ms. SweetyFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goel, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…e Assessing Officer, simply directed the Assessing Officer to carry thorough and detailed inquiry. The relevant judgement of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in this case is also enclosed. 2. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs PCIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 25 (Delhi)/[2017] 399 ITR 228 (Delhi) (copy enclosed) 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. Commissioner has power…

Smt. Dolly Batra, Dehradun vs. Pr. CIT, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1214/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

…so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In support of this proposition, Ld. DR relied upon the following decisions: 1. Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (Appeal No. 2396/2017) dated 29.11.2017 (SC); 2. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 399 ITR 228 (Del.); 3. Surya Financial Services Ltd. vs. PCIT (ITA No. 2158/Del/2017); 4. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) 5. Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT 240 Taxman 306 (Calcutta); 6. Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 7. Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai vs. Amitabh Bachan Civil Appeal 5009 of 2016 date…

Smt. Dolly Batra, Dehradun vs. Pr. CIT, Dehradun

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1213/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

…so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In support of this proposition, Ld. DR relied upon the following decisions: 1. Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (Appeal No. 2396/2017) dated 29.11.2017 (SC); 2. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs. PCIT (2017) 399 ITR 228 (Del.); 3. Surya Financial Services Ltd. vs. PCIT (ITA No. 2158/Del/2017); 4. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) 5. Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT 240 Taxman 306 (Calcutta); 6. Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 7. Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai vs. Amitabh Bachan Civil Appeal 5009 of 2016 date…

Nkg Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, C- 3, New Delhi

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3827/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 263(1)

…ed Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is not justified in correcting the error committed by the learned AO in exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 32. Ld. DR placed reliance on a decision reported in BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd vs. PCIT (2017) 399 ITR 228 (Delhi) and Rajmandir Estates Private Limited vs. PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta) for the principle that the non- consideration of larger claim of depreciation and consideration of only part of it by the Learned Assessing Officer, who did not go into the question with respect to the whole amount, was an error that could be corrected under sect…

Nkg Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, C- 3, New Delhi

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3826/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 263(1)

…ed Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is not justified in correcting the error committed by the learned AO in exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 32. Ld. DR placed reliance on a decision reported in BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd vs. PCIT (2017) 399 ITR 228 (Delhi) and Rajmandir Estates Private Limited vs. PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta) for the principle that the non- consideration of larger claim of depreciation and consideration of only part of it by the Learned Assessing Officer, who did not go into the question with respect to the whole amount, was an error that could be corrected under sect…

Nkg Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, C- 3, New Delhi

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3825/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 263(1)

…ed Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is not justified in correcting the error committed by the learned AO in exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 32. Ld. DR placed reliance on a decision reported in BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd vs. PCIT (2017) 399 ITR 228 (Delhi) and Rajmandir Estates Private Limited vs. PCIT (2016) 386 ITR 162 (Calcutta) for the principle that the non- consideration of larger claim of depreciation and consideration of only part of it by the Learned Assessing Officer, who did not go into the question with respect to the whole amount, was an error that could be corrected under sect…