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 366,444 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

Powerica Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3747/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Powerica Limited Cit (Ltu), 9Th Floor, Bakhtawar, 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre I, Nariman Point, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aaacp3812E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh (CIT-DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 43A

…ITA No.3747/M/2017 Powerica Ltd IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “C”,MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Powerica Limited CIT (LTU), 9th Floor, Bakhtawar, 29th Floor, World Trade Centre I, Nariman Point, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400005. PAN: AAACP3812E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Vijay Mehta with : Govind Javeri (AR) Revenue by : Shri H.N. Singh (CIT-DR) Date of hearing : 07.08.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 11.10.2017 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by a…

M/S. Aspinwall & Co. Ltd, Cochin vs. The DCIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 277/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.Assessment Year:2011- 12

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 263

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year:2011- 12 Vs M/s Aspinwall and Company Ltd. D.C.I.T., 50-926/A1-A5, Total Towers, Circle-1(1), Devankulangra, Edappally P.O., Kochi. Ernakulam. PAN:AACCA 2655 G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Raja Kannal Respondent by Shri Shanthom Bose, CIT, D.R. Date of hearing 04/10/2017 Date of pronouncement 05/10/2017 ORDER PER P. K. BANSAL, V.P. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT dated 18/01/2016 passed under sec…

Atc Telecom Tower Corporation P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 9, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2706/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2706/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Atc Telecom Tower Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit-9 (Earlier Known As Essar Telecom Aayakar Bhavan, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) बिधम/ Mumbai-400 020 403, 4Th Floor, Skyline Icon Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Near Mittal Industrial Estate Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaeca9823E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Senior Counsel &For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

…) 372 ITR 303 (Bom) (iii). Small Wonder Industries Vs. CIT-24, Mumbai P a g e | 29 ITA No. 2706/Mum/2015 AY: 2008-09 ATC Telecom Tower Vs. Pr. CIT (ITA No. 2464/Mum/2013; dated. 24.02.2017)(Mum) (iv). Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Delhi). 21. That it was further submitted by the ld. A.R that for invoking of the jurisdiction for revision under Sec. 263, the CIT must be satisfied of the existence of the twin conditions contemplated in the said statutory provision, viz. the assessment order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. It was further av…

Nilkant Tech Park P Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3511/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Nilkanth Tech Park Pvt. Ltd. C.I.T.-8, Citimall, New Link Road, Mumbai. Vs. Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053 Pan: Aaccn0341G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 45Section 45(2)Section 73

…oneous simply because the Commissioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusion as ITA No.4511/M/2014- M/s Nilkanth Tech Park Pvt. Ltd. held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Versus Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167(Delhi) and in CIT versus Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83(Delhi). 7. We have seen that the facts of the case relied by learned DR for the revenue in CIT Versus Ashok Logoni (supra) is at variance. In the said case the assessee had offered additional income during the search for taxation, but the same was not offered in the return of income and the assessing officer had not examined the such aspect during…

Technip Uk Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4284/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2008-09] Technip Uk Limited Vs. The D.I.T. C/O Bmr & Associates Llp International - Ii 22Nd Floor, Building No. 5 New Delhi Tower ‘A’, Dlf Cyber City, Dlf Phase Iii, Gurgaon Haryana Pan : Aacct 8268 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora, Sr- DR

Section 263Section 4Section 44BSection 44D

…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…

Sh. Gaurav Bhatia, Kotdwar vs. CIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 1730/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Miss S. Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Gaurav Bhatia Vs. The Cit Bhatia Bhawan, Sitapur Devi Road Dehradun Kotdwar (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Afypb 4513 J)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…uiry: a) CIT Vs. Leisure Wear Export Ltd 341 ITR 166 [Del] b) CIT Vs. Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd 341 ITR 180 [DEL] c) Fab India Overseas P. Ltd Vs. CIT 60 DTR 240 [DEL] d) Dy. CIT Vs. Insilco Ltd 59 DTR 364 [DEL] e) CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 [DEL] f) Vashti Management Services Vs. ITO 137 TTJ 35 [DEL] g) Raj Shyama Construction P. Ltd Vs. ACIT 135 TTJ 33 [DEL] h) CIT Vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd 332 ITR 231 [DEL] i) CIT Vs. Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages P. Ltd 331 ITR 192 [DEL] 12. He submitted that when two views are possible and the A.O has taken one of the possible view, then also…

Future Ideas Co Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT -9, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 3062/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainfuture Ideas Co. Ltd. Principal Cit – 9 Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar 2Nd Floor, Room No. 214 Vs. Off Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Rd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400060 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aaacf9519L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

…es, the learned CIT could not assume jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act merely because he had a different opinion in the matter; reliance was, inter alia, placed on: - (i) Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) (ii) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Del) (iii) CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del) 4.26 It was further argued that without prejudice to the main objections, the provisions of section 14A and section 36(i)(iii) of the Act are mutually exclusive. In as much as, to the extent interest expenditure is found to be incurred not for the purpose of business, but incurr…

Future Corporate Resources Ltd.(Formerly Known As Simpleton Investrade Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT -9, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 3061/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainfuture Corporate Resources Ltd. Principal Cit – 9 (Formerly Simpleton Investrade P. Ltd.) 2Nd Floor, Room No. 214 Knowledge House, Shyam Nagar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Off Jogeshwari Vikroli Link Rd. Mumbai 400020 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai 400060 Pan – Aajcs3979E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi &For Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…es, the learned CIT could not assume jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act merely because he had a different opinion in the matter. Reliance was, inter alia, placed on: - (i) Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) (ii) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Del) (iii) CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del) 4.26 It was further argued that without prejudice to the main objections, the provisions of section 14A and section 36(i)(iii) of the Act are mutually exclusive. In as much as, to the extent interest expenditure is found to be incurred not for the purpose of business, but incurr…

Small Wonder Industries, Mumbai vs. CIT 24, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2464/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Small Wonder Industries, Cit-24, 78, Virwani Indl. Estate, Mumbai बनाम/ Western Express Highway, Vs. Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400063 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aalfs6318Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Prakash Jotwani Shri Debasis Chandra Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2017 24/02/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…T (263 ITR 437) (P&H) v. CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (323 ITR 206) (Bom.) vi. RCI Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 40 DTR Mum (Trb.) 186 vii. Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT(2014) (100 DTR 1)(Mum.)(Trb.) and viii. CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83(Del.) ix. CIT vs Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) x. CIT vs Sunbeam Auto 189 taxman 436 (Del.) 2.3. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in International Travel House Ltd. (344 ITR 554) held that the ld. Commissioner has no unfettered power to initiate proceedings by revision for 6 Small Wonder Industries. reexamining and directing fresh enquiry on his…

M/S. Paswara Impex Ltd., Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2243/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishipaswara Impex Ltd, Acit, Paswara House, Baghpat Road, Meerut, Circle-2, Vs. Pan:Aadcp0113F Meerut (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Saniv Sabra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. RL Meena, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the confirmation is filed the AO has not asked for the account of that particular party, therefore, it can be said to be a case of inadequate enquiry but not at all a case of no enquiry. It has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Anil Kr. Sharma 335 ITR 83 (del) that if there was enquiry even inadequate that would not by itself given occasion Commissioner to pass order u/s 263 of the Act. It was further held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 with the AO is not required to give detailed reason in respect of each of every item of claim in the assessment order. We also…

People Ineractive (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3717/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 10ASection 147Section 263

…”. In the present case the Assessing Officer collected necessary details, examined the same and then framed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, in such a situation the decision from Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Del.)(supra), clearly comes to the rescue of the assessee . The Hon'ble High Court held as under :- “ Held, dismissing the appeal, that the present case would not be one of “lack of enquiry” even if the enquiry was termed inadequate. The Tribunal found that complete details were filed before the ITA No. 3558 & 3717/Mum/2016 16 Assessing Officer…

People Ineractive (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3558/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 10ASection 147Section 263

M/S Ilc Industries, Hospet vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 847/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Verma, CIT - DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 37(1)

…ITA.847 & 848/Bang/2015 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'A', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A Nos.847 & 848/Bang/2015 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/s. ILC Industries Limited, D 6/7, Near Industrial Estate, Dam Road, Hospet 583 203 .. Appellant PAN : AABCI0361A v. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. Zain Ahmed Khan, CA Revenue by : Shri. Sunil Kumar Verma, CIT - DR Heard on : 28.09.2016 Pronounced on : 09.12.2016 O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOU…

Surajmal Memorial Education Society, New Delhi vs. CIT(E), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the appellant society is allowed

ITA 2011/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G.D. Agrawal V.P. & Sh. C.M. Garg, J.M Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Surajmal Memorial Education Vs Cit(E) Society New Delhi C-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv, Sh. Sanjeev Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Shankar, CIT, DR

Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ry and on wrong application of fact and law. 8 The Ld counsel also placed his reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs Vikas Polimers 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) and decision in the case of CIT VS Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) and submitted that while AO has raised quires from the assessee and assessee submitted its reply along with relevant documents then the AO is allowing the claim of the assessee in this situation review of said conclusion of the Act under section 263 of the Act is not permissible as the same would amount to reviewing of an order without any…

M/S. Thiess India Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(4), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2290/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year:2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…scussed above, therefore relying on the same, we reverse the order of Ld. CIT for u/s 263 of the Act. We are also putting our reliance in the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 and CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Del) held that the fact as to whether the AO has applied his mind or not need not necessarily be determined from what has been stated in the assessment order alone, it has to be examined as to whether any inquiry was at all conducted by the AO. There exists a difference between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. If there were any inquiry, ev…

Rukmini (Koel) Mallick, Kolkata vs. CIT, -Xx, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1227/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Rukmini (Koel) Mallick V/S. Commissioner Of 14/106A, Golf Club Road, Income Tax-Xx Kolkata, Kolkata – 700 033 54/1, Rafi Ahmed [Pan No.Ajkpm 5044 L] Kidwai Road, Kolkata – 700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…Revenue. We find that the ld. CIT treated the order erroneous on premise regarding the issue of survey. 5. We are also relying in the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del) and CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Del) held that the fact as to whether the AO has applied his mind or not need not necessarily be determined from what has been stated in the assessment order alone, it has to be examined as to whether any inquiry was at all conducted by the AO. There exists a difference between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. If there were any inquiry, ev…

M/S Itc Limited, Kolkata vs. CIT, Kolkata-III, Kolkata

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

ITA 684/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 263Section 43B

…the judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR ITA No.301/Kol/15, 684/Kol/14 & 1027/Kol/13 A.Ys 09-10, 08-09 & 07-08 ITC Ltd. v. CIT Kol-3 Page 9 167 (Del) and in the case of CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Del), held that the fact as to whether the AO has applied his mind or not need not necessarily be determined from what has been stated in the assessment order alone, it has to be examined as to whether any inquiry was at all conducted by the AO. There exists a difference between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. If there were any inquiry, e…

I.T.C Limited, Kolkata vs. C.I.T Kol - III, Kolkata

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

ITA 1027/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasusdevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 263Section 43B

M/S. Sicgil India Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 877/CHNY/2011[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2015AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pathlavath Peerya, CIT

Section 80

…I.T.A. No.877/Mds/11 judgment of Bombay High Court in CIT v. Design & Automation Engineers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 632 and also on the judgments of Delhi High Court in CIT v Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 and CIT v. Anil Kuma Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83. The Ld.counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in CIT v. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. (2011) 333 ITR 547. 4. On the contrary, Sh. Pathlavath Peerya, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the Assessing Officer has not considered whether the rental charges, cylinder service charges and cylinder trans…

Elder It Solutions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 4, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2461/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri A.V.SondeFor Respondent: Manjunatha R.Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 263

…Hari Iron Trading Co. Vs. CIT ( 263 ITR 437) (ii)Commissioner of Income-Tax. Vs. Eicher Limited (294 ITR 310) (iii) CIT. vs. Development Credit Bank Limited. (323 ITR 167) (iv) CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., (2011) 3321TR 167 (Del.) (v) CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 33. The learned DR from the department had also argued before Tribunal that the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry and that revenue. The learned DR had relied upon following decisions:- i. CIT v Infosys Technologies 341 ITR 293 ii. CIT v Hindustan Lever 343 ITR 161 iii. Frick India Ltd. v DCIT 6 ITR 82 iv. Major Metals Ltd. v Union of Indi…