How many judgments cite CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma?

264 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma (335 ITR 83), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma come up under?

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

CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma

335 ITR 83High Court2011#312 most cited

What is CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma authority for?

The Commissioner cannot invoke Section 263 for an assessment merely because of an inadequate inquiry by the Assessing Officer, provided there was some inquiry or the record demonstrates application of mind, as this constitutes a mere difference of opinion.

264

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma · 335 ITR 83 · Section 263 · revision under section 263 · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · application of mind · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · difference of opinion · Assessing Officer's record

Also reported as

194 Taxmann 5042010 SCC OnLine DEL 838

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147 Section 143(2)Section 148 Section 144B Section 1961

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 263of inadequate enquiry lack of enquiry section 263(1)prejudicial to interest of revenue malabar industrial revision under section 263 revision u/s 263 erroneous and prejudicial assessment order erroneous kelvinator non-application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma

Sh. Santokh Singh Brar, Moga vs. ITO, Ward - 2, Moga

ITA 206/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

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

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar Before : Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 204 to 205/Asr/2017 Assessment Year2010-11 V.S. ITO, Ward – 2 Smt Surinder Kaur Brar D/o. Sh. Pal Singh Moga C/o. Brar Motors, Moga Road Baghanpurana, Distt. Moga PAN:ACWPB4197M (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 206/Asr/2017 Assessment Year2010-11 V.S. ITO, Ward – 2 Sh. Santokh Singh Brar Prop. M/s. EssEss Filling Station Moga C/o. Brar Motors, Moga Road Baghanpurana, Distt. Moga PAN:ADBPB2312A (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 207/Asr/2017 Assessment Ye…

Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT, -27, Mumbai

ITA 1603/MUM/2020[2016-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2016-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Shri Sanjay Agarwal The Pr.Cit-27 1001/02 Brindavan Terrace, Vs. Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Deonar Farm Road, Deonar, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400088 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Agepa6776B (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel, A.R Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2021

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263o

…were called for and had been furnished by the assessee, the CIT could not revise the order, on the ground, that no enquiry had been conducted. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Anil K. Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Del). It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the Hon‟ble High Court in its aforesaid order had held that there was a distinction between “lack of inquiry” and “inadequate inquiry”. It was submitted by the ld. A.R that the Hon‟ble High Court had observed that even if the enquiry by the A.O was inadequate, the same would not justify revision of his o…

Bharti Airtel Ltd (Formerly Bharti Broadband Ltd), New Delhi vs. Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3899/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Amit Shukla[A.Y 2004-05]

For Appellant: Shri Anil Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 148Section 16Section 263Section 28Section 41(1)

…that the section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous ". 16. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anil Kumar reported in 335 ITR 83 has held that where it was discernible from record that the A.O has applied his mind to the issue in question, the ld. CIT cannot invoke section 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion. We further find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 17. Vikas Polymer reported in 341 ITR 537 has held as under: “63. We are thus of the…

Shri Krishna Mohan Chuorsiya, Rajgarh vs. The Pr. CIT Ujjain, Ujjain

ITA 626/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Krishna Mohan Pr. Cit Choursiya(Prop. Of M/S Laxmi Ujjain Mp बनाम/ Auto Parts) Vs. Ward No.14, Bus Stand, Kurawar Rajgarh(M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aempc3634G

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…s remanded the proceedings, nothing stated in this order would affect either side in considerations of such claim. 7. No question of law arises. Tax Appeals are dismissed." 12. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anil Kumar reported in 335 ITR 83 has held that where it was discernible from record that the A.O has applied his mind to the issue in question, the ld. CIT cannot invoke section 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion. Relevant observation of the High Court reads as under: "63. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas Polymer reported in 341 ITR 5…

Kailashchandra Khandelwal, Sendhwa vs. Pr. CIT -2, Indore

ITA 562/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Kailash Khandelwal Pr. Cit-2, Prop. M/S. Vikash Krishi Indore बनाम/ Seva Kendra, Bus Stand, Vs. Sendhwa, Barwani (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Acmpk2991E Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Vijay Bansal, Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 44A

…s remanded the proceedings, nothing stated in this order would affect either side in considerations of such claim. 7. No question of law arises. Tax Appeals are dismissed." 11. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anil Kumar reported in 335 ITR 83 has held that where it was discernible Shri Kailash Khandelwal from record that the A.O has applied his mind to the issue in question, the ld. CIT cannot invoke section 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion. Relevant observation of the High Court reads as under: "63. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas Pol…

M/S Ruchi J Oil Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT(A)Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 92C

…prejudicial to interest of revenues - Accordingly, Tribunal set aside revisional order - Whether finding recorded by Tribunal being a finding of fact, no substantial question of law arose there from - Held, yes [Para 11]” c)CIT vs.Anil Kumar Sharma - [2011] 335 ITR 83(Delhi) Held "Though the assessment order does not patently indicate that the issue in question had been considered by the Assessing Officer, the record showed that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind. Once such application of mind is discernible from the record, the proceedings under section 263 would fell into the area of the Commissioner…

M/S. Yash Dev Mahajan & Sons (HUF), New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2040/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…remanded the proceedings, nothing stated in this order would affect either side in considerations of such claim. 7. No question of law arises. Tax Appeals are dismissed." 17. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anil Kumar reported in 335 ITR 83 has held that where it was discernible from record that the A.O has applied his mind to the issue in question, the ld. CIT cannot invoke section 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion. Relevant observation of the High Court reads as under: “63. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas Polymer reported in 341 ITR…

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 requirement of the order being erroneous ". 32. The co-ordinate bench in the case of Technip UK Ltd, ITA No. 1116/DEL/2014 vide order dated 17.12.2018 has held as under: “62. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anil Kumar reported in 335 ITR 83 has held that where it was discernible from record that the A.O has applied his mind to the issue in question, the ld. CIT cannot invoke section 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion. Relevant observation of the High Court reads as under: 63. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas Polymer reported in 341 ITR 537…

Eicher Goodearth Investment Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT- IV, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5815/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2007-08] Eicher Motors Ltd. [Erstwhile Vs. The C.I.T Eicher Goodearth Investment Ltd] Delhi Iv Eicher House, 12, Commercial Complex New Delhi Pan: Aaace 0052 D [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263

…remanded the proceedings, nothing stated in this order would affect either side in considerations of such claim. 7. No question of law arises. Tax Appeals are dismissed." 21. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anil Kumar reported in 335 ITR 83 has held that where it was discernible from record that the A.O has applied his mind to the issue in question, the ld. CIT cannot invoke section 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion. Relevant observation of the High Court reads as under: “63. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas Polymer reported in 341 ITR 5…

Essar Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ifferently or more elaborately. The Section does not visualize the substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income-tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decision is not in accordance with law.....," vii) CITvs Anil Kumar Sharma (335 ITR 83) The Delhi High Court held that where there was no "lack of enquiry" by AO even if it could he said to be inadequate, proceedings under section 263 of the Act was not valid since "the AO had applied his mind to complete details filed b\/ the assessee. (viii) Ramakant Sinph vs CIT (140 T7Y41) The Patna Tribunal held, that enquiry was made by the…

Satyanarayan Sharma, Indore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Indore

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

ITA 426/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 154oSection 2Section 263Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year:2013-14 Satyanarayan Sharma, Pr.CIT-I, 11/2, South Tukoganj, Indore बनाम/ Swapnalok Colony, Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AEAPS5126D Appellant by Shri Girish Agrawal & Miss Nisha Lahoti, ARs Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 11.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 28.12.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Pr. Commissione…

Seth Brothers, Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly

ITA 3395/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Sh. C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) I.T.A. No. 3395/DEL/2013 A.Y. : 2008-09 SETH BROTHERS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME SHANTI NIKETAN, VS. TAX, CIVIL LINES, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MEERUT BHAINSALI GROUND, (PAN: AAJFS0123M) MEERUT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. C.S. Anand, Advocate Department by : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The background of the case is that the assessment order in this case was passed on 30.11.2010 by the ACIT, Cirlce-2, Meerut, and the…

Sameer Gupta, Bhopal vs. Pr. C I T (Central), Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 896/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sameer Gupta, Pr.Cit (Central) E-5/95, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aaypg5997L Appellant By S/Shri Asish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit Date Of Hearing 05.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01.06.2020 O R D E R

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Sameer Gupta, Pr.CIT (Central) E-5/95, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) PAN No.AAYPG5997L Appellant by S/Shri Asish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, ARs Revenue by Shri S.S. Mantri, CIT Date of Hearing 05.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement 01.06.2020 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15 is directed again…

Tata Sons Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Cit 2, 24, Bombay House, Room No.552, Homi Mody Street, Vs. 5Th Floor, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Aayakar Bhavan, Pan: Aaact4060A M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.R. Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.04.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 43BSection 57

…tools was to be treated as revenue expenditure or not. It appeared that since the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the assessee's explanation, he accepted the same." In this regard, reliance is further placed on the following decisions: Anil Kumar Sharma (335 ITR 83) (Del HC); RatlarnCoa[AshCo(171 ITR 141) (MP HC); Baljees (127 Taxman 150) (Chd. ITAT); and Amrik Singh (127 Taxman 87) (Chd. ITAT). 8. As mentioned above, in the present case, the AO has made specific enquiry as regards the issue under consideration (taxability of brand subscription income under the head income from Business and Profession or Inc…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The DCIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…outh Ltd, 212 Taxmann 184 (Del.) j. CIT v/s Mehrotra Brothers, 270 ITR 157 (M.P) k. CIT v/s Shri Govindram Seksariya Cahrity Trust, 166 ITR 580 (M.P) l. Hari Iron Trading Co. v/s CIT, 263 ITR 437 (P&H) m. CIT v/s HARI Singh & Associates, 267 CTR 442 (Raj.) n. 335 ITR 83, CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (Delhi), o. 341 ITR 537 (Delhi), CIT vs. Vikas Polymers p. 343 ITR 342, CIT vs. Hero Auto Ltd. (Delhi H.C.), q. 344 ITR 554, CIT vs. International Travel House Ltd. (Delhi H.C.), ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari r. 343 ITR 329, CIT vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (Delhi H.C.), s. 111 ITR 326,…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The ACIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

M/S. Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 355/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 35A

…259 ITR 502 (Guj.) i. CIT v/s Vodafone Essar South Ltd, 212 Taxmann 184 (Del.) j. CIT v/s Shri Govindram Seksariya Cahrity Trust, 166 ITR 580 (M.P) k. Hari Iron Trading Co. v/s CIT, 263 ITR 437 (P&H) l. CIT v/s HARI Singh & Associates, 267 CTR 442 (Raj.) m. 335 ITR 83, CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (Delhi), m. 341 ITR 537 (Delhi), CIT vs. Vikas Polymers o. 343 ITR 342, CIT vs. Hero Auto Ltd. (Delhi H.C.), p. 111 ITR 326, J.P. Srivastava & Sons Vs. CIT, (Allhd. H.C) q. 320 ITR 674, CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (Delhi H.C.). At r. 323 ITR 632, CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) P. Ltd. (Bombay H.C.), of s. 323…

Shri Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 350/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

M/S. Maa Tarini Industries Ltd., Sundargarh vs. Pr. CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 292/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sahu, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-2015 Maa Tarini Industries Ltd., Qr. Vs. Pr. CIT, Sambalpur No.N-4/12, Ground Floor, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 PAN/GIR No.AACCM 6126 E (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri M.R.Sahu, AR Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 20 /02/ 2020 Date of Pronouncement : 17 /03/2020 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg,JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order u/s.263 of the Act of the Pr. CIT(A), Sambalpur da…

Citicorp Services India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT-14, Mumbai

Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3581/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3581/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri L. N. Pant & Ms. PreetiFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimpson

Section 143(3)Section 263

…made inquiry in this aspect and came to the conclusion not to refer the matter to TPO. For 4 I.T.A. No. 3581/Mum/2019 Citicorp Services India Pvt. Ltd that purpose, assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of Anil Kumar Sharma (335 ITR 83) and decision of ITAT in the case of Narain Tatu Rane (70 taxmann.com 227). It was further submitted that the case was pending before Ld. CIT(A), not before DRP against the TP adjustment for AY 2012-13 and it was still pending before Ld. CIT(A) and no other appeal is pending before ITAT with TP adjustment exceeding 10 crores. It was also submitted…