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 366,464 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 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 143(2)Section 148Section 144BSection 1961
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 263ofinadequate enquirylack of enquirysection 263(1)prejudicial to interest of revenuemalabar industrialrevision under section 263revision u/s 263erroneous and prejudicialassessment order erroneouskelvinatornon-application of mind

Judgments citing CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma

Shri Darshan Shivlal Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-5(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1139/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT/DR
Section 143(2)Section 263

…e deleted. 6. Ld. Counsel also cited an order of Jurisdictional High Court in the matter of CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502. And in the following case matter has been decided in favour of assessee. Assessee also cited a case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Del.): “There is a distinction between “lack of inquiry” and “inadequate inquiry”. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter.” 7. On the other hand, ld.CIT/DR stated tha…

Jitinder Singh Chadha, New Delhi vs. Prcit-18, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. Cit-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpc6181D Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit-18, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble Vice President and Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Judicial Member ITA No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. CIT-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABPC6181D Assessee by : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CA Revenue by : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31.03.2018 of ld. Pr. CIT-18, New De…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Technip Uk Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection is allowed

ITA 1116/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Dhall, CIT-DR
Section 44BSection 44DSection 9

…tice, followed for number of years, had the approval of the IT authorities. Interestingly, even for future assessment years, the same very accounting practice is accepted. 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 53…

M/S Rajesh Exports Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1059/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Bhavna C. Yashoy, CIT DR
Section 263

…the rivisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act can only be exercised where the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Besides, reliance was also placed upon the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 and the order of the Tribunal in the case of Modern Minerals Vs. ACIT reported at 59 TTJ 733 and the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd., Vs. ACIT 108 ITR 407 in support of this contention that on the basis of the audit objection, revision under section 263 is not possible. The learned counsel for the asses…

M/S Rajesh Exports Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1058/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Bhavna C. Yashoy, CIT DR
Section 263

…the rivisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act can only be exercised where the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Besides, reliance was also placed upon the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 and the order of the Tribunal in the case of Modern Minerals Vs. ACIT reported at 59 TTJ 733 and the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd., Vs. ACIT 108 ITR 407 in support of this contention that on the basis of the audit objection, revision under section 263 is not possible. The learned counsel for the asses…

M/S Rajesh Exports, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1056/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Bhavna C. Yashoy, CIT DR
Section 263

…the rivisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act can only be exercised where the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Besides, reliance was also placed upon the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 and the order of the Tribunal in the case of Modern Minerals Vs. ACIT reported at 59 TTJ 733 and the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd., Vs. ACIT 108 ITR 407 in support of this contention that on the basis of the audit objection, revision under section 263 is not possible. The learned counsel for the asses…

M/S Rajesh Exports Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1034/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Bhavna C. Yashoy, CIT DR
Section 263

…the rivisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act can only be exercised where the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Besides, reliance was also placed upon the judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 and the order of the Tribunal in the case of Modern Minerals Vs. ACIT reported at 59 TTJ 733 and the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd., Vs. ACIT 108 ITR 407 in support of this contention that on the basis of the audit objection, revision under section 263 is not possible. The learned counsel for the asses…

The J.K. Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘जे’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s The J. K. Trust CIT (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No. AAATT0611L "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Rakesh Mohan राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri…

Ge Capital Services India, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for the A

ITA 231/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…inion of the AO in treating the expenditure as revenue expenditure was plausible and thus there was no material before the Ld.CIT to vary that opinion and ask for fresh enquiry. 8.5. The Hon’ble High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma reported in 335 ITR 83 (Del) has held as follows. “ Held, dismissing the appeal, that the present case would not be one of ‘lack of inquiry’ even if the inquiry was termed inadequate. The Tribunal found that complete details were filed before the AO and that he applied his mind to the relevant material and facts, although such application of mind was not discernible fr…

M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2521/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A. T VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.PAN/GIR No. : AAACG 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkat…

M/S. Cliff Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2520/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A. T VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.PAN/GIR No. : AAACG 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkat…

M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2519/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A. T VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.PAN/GIR No. : AAACG 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. Cliff TreximPvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkat…

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1(1), Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3198/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

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

…cannot result in order being revised u/s 263 for 3 The Mumbai District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. which reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd., (2011} 332 ITR 167, CIT v/s Vikas Polymers, 341 ITR 537 (Del.), CIT v/s Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Del.) and various other decisions mentioned in the written submissions. It was submitted that a well reasoned assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer considering the details filed by the assessee, thus, the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It was pleaded that…

Noble Medicals Bcjc Hospitals, Mumbai vs. CIT City-16, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3207/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Noble Medicals Bcjc Cit, City-16, Hospitals, S.V. Road, Santacruz, Mumbai. Mumbai-400054. Versus Pan No.Aagfn4356A Applicant Respondent

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

…iance is made in case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom)], CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) 77 taxmann.com 15(SC)], CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) taxmann.com 78 (SC)], CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del)], CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma [(2011) 335 ITR 83 (Del)], CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. [(2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del)]. In further alternative submission it was argued that the order of assessment cannot be held erroneous only because no elaborate discussion was made by AO while passing assessment order. Reliance is made on case law of CIT vs. Reliance Communication Ltd. [2016) 76 taxmann.com 226(…

Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (HUF), Mumbai vs. Jt CIT RG 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1435/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhbibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Cit-19, Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Piramal Chambers, Parel, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Jt.Cit-Range-19(1), Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi (Ar Revenue By : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 .02.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi (ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263

…nce is made in case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom)], CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) 77 taxmann.com 15(SC)], CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) taxmann.com 78 (SC)], CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del)], CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma [(2011) 335 ITR 83 (Del)], CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. [(2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del)]. 7. In other alternative submission, it was argued that against the addition made in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT was precluded from revising the assessment order on the issues which were subject matter of appeal pending be…

Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (HUF), Mumbai vs. CIT 19, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5129/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhbibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Cit-19, Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Piramal Chambers, Parel, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Bibhuti B. Dasgupta (Huf), Jt.Cit-Range-19(1), Plot No. 285-286, Nileema, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 12Th Road, Khar (W), Vs. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaahg1175J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipul Joshi (Ar Revenue By : Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 .02.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi (ARFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Kumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263

…nce is made in case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom)], CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) 77 taxmann.com 15(SC)], CIT vs. Nirav Modi [(2017) taxmann.com 78 (SC)], CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [(2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del)], CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma [(2011) 335 ITR 83 (Del)], CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. [(2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del)]. 7. In other alternative submission, it was argued that against the addition made in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT was precluded from revising the assessment order on the issues which were subject matter of appeal pending be…

Satnam Transport Company, Indore vs. The ACIT Circle-5(1), Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 514/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…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: 2008-09 M/s. Satnam Transport Company CIT-II 137, Transport Nagar, Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No.AARFS4063L Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Satnam Transport Company DCIT-5(1) 137, Transport Nagar, Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No.AARFS4063L Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT-5(1) M/s. Satnam Transport Company Indore 137, Transport Nagar, Indore बनाम/ (Revenue) (Respondent) V…

The DCIT, 5(1), Indore vs. M/S. Satnam Transport Company, Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 285/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…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: 2008-09 M/s. Satnam Transport Company CIT-II 137, Transport Nagar, Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No.AARFS4063L Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Satnam Transport Company DCIT-5(1) 137, Transport Nagar, Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No.AARFS4063L Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT-5(1) M/s. Satnam Transport Company Indore 137, Transport Nagar, Indore बनाम/ (Revenue) (Respondent) V…

M/S Satnam Transport Company, Indore vs. The CIT- II, Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee and Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 248/IND/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…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: 2008-09 M/s. Satnam Transport Company CIT-II 137, Transport Nagar, Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No.AARFS4063L Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Satnam Transport Company DCIT-5(1) 137, Transport Nagar, Indore Indore बनाम/ (Appellant) (Revenue ) Vs. P.A. No.AARFS4063L Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT-5(1) M/s. Satnam Transport Company Indore 137, Transport Nagar, Indore बनाम/ (Revenue) (Respondent) V…

M/S. Kamakhaya Oil Company, New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3030/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Kamakhaya Oil Company, Vs. Cit, Delhi-X, New Delhi C/O- M/S. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi. Pan : Aahfk3040R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. R.S. Singhvi, Ca Respondent By Sh. Vijay Verma, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…justification for invoking provision of section 263 of the Act as it is not a case of lack of enquiry. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of 7 Income Tax Vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83(DEL) and CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167(Delhi). 4.4 The Ld. CIT(DR), on the other hand, submitted that in the original assessment, no inquiry was carried out by the Assessing Officer on the issue of allowability of deduction under section 80IB of the Act on the other income including interest earned on fixed deposits. He referred to…