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.

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 83)

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 957/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 951 to 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, PCIT (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [PAN: AERPM-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2…

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 956/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 951 to 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, PCIT (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [PAN: AERPM-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2…

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 953/CHNY/2025[953]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 951 to 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, PCIT (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [PAN: AERPM-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2…

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 952/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 951 to 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, PCIT (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [PAN: AERPM-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2…

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee for the assessment years 2017-

ITA 951/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 951 To 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aerpm-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram Pcit (Central)-2, Legal Heir Of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, Vs. Chennai. 395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aazpl-6816-A] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 956 To 959/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Pcit (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street Vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [Pan: Aiypj-4331-M] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)(i)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘सी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरर, न्यागिक सदस्य एवं श्री एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 951 to 953/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, PCIT (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street vs. Chennai. Coimbatore – 641 001. [PAN: AERPM-3937-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2…

Ct. Ramanathan (HUF), Pudukkottai vs. PCIT 1, Madurai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 761/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.761/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 C.T.Ramanathan(Huf), Income Tax Officer, No.7/45, Ct.Rm.S.House, M.St.S. Street Ward-1, Kulipirai, Pudukottai Dist, Pudukottai. Tamil Nadu-622 402. [Pan: Aaahc0701L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.V.Subbarayan, Dcit(Retd.) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.M.K.Biju, Cir Dr By Virtual. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.V.Subbarayan, DCIT(Retd.)For Respondent: Mr.M.K.Biju, CIR DR by virtual

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार धिरर ,न्याधयक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.761/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 C.T.Ramanathan(HUF), Income Tax Officer, No.7/45, CT.RM.S.House, M.ST.S. Street Ward-1, Kulipirai, Pudukottai Dist, Pudukottai. Tamil Nadu-622 402. [PAN: AAAHC0701L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.V.Subbarayan,…

Alliance Nirmaan Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 263

…l were perverse or contrary to record, invoking of revision proceedings was unjustified - Held, yes [Para 13] [In favour of assessee]" Further reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Anil Kumar Sinha reported in 335 ITR 83 (Del) wherein it has been held there is a distinction between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate inquiry", if there was any inquiry even inadequate, that would not itself give right or occasion to the Commissioner to pass order u/s 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion in the matter. Further reliance is placed on the decision of Ho…

Micromax Informatics Ltd, New Delhi vs. PCIT, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2524/Del/2024, A.Y. 2018-19 Micromax Informatics Ltd. Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Plot No.21/14 Block-A, Income Tax, Delhi-4, Phase-II, C. R. Building, I. P Estate, Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi. New Delhi-110028 PAN: AABCR8863N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Sandeep Jain, CA Respondent by MS. Monika Dhami, CIT DR Date of Hearing 09/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement 06/06/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM The appeal of the a…

Assotech Moonshine Urban Developers P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2524/Del/2024, A.Y. 2018-19 Micromax Informatics Ltd. Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Plot No.21/14 Block-A, Income Tax, Delhi-4, Phase-II, C. R. Building, I. P Estate, Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi. New Delhi-110028 PAN: AABCR8863N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Sandeep Jain, CA Respondent by MS. Monika Dhami, CIT DR Date of Hearing 09/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement 06/06/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM The appeal of the a…

Mmtc Ltd vs. DCIT Circle 5(1)

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2006[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Pcit, Plot No. 23, 5Th Floor, Aggarwal Delhi-1, Delhi Corporate Tower Govind Lal Sikka Marg, Rajendra Place, West Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India, 110008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacc0642F

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Bharati, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37

…ld AO and assessment being framed with non application of mind by the ld AO. Reliance in this regard is rightly placed by the ld AR on the following decisions:- a. CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) b. CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma reported in 335 ITR 83 (Del) c. CIT Vs. Amalgamations Ltd reported in 238 ITR 963 (Mad) d. Hari Iron Trading Company Vs. CIT reported in 263 ITR 437 (P&H) e. CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd reported in 294 ITR 310 (Del) f. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 8. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we dismiss the preliminary argument of the ld DR that t…

Clix Capital Services Private Limited, Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Pcit, Plot No. 23, 5Th Floor, Aggarwal Delhi-1, Delhi Corporate Tower Govind Lal Sikka Marg, Rajendra Place, West Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India, 110008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacc0642F

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Bharati, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37

…ld AO and assessment being framed with non application of mind by the ld AO. Reliance in this regard is rightly placed by the ld AR on the following decisions:- a. CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) b. CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma reported in 335 ITR 83 (Del) c. CIT Vs. Amalgamations Ltd reported in 238 ITR 963 (Mad) d. Hari Iron Trading Company Vs. CIT reported in 263 ITR 437 (P&H) e. CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd reported in 294 ITR 310 (Del) f. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 8. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we dismiss the preliminary argument of the ld DR that t…

Genus Power Infrastructures Limitted, Noida vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax(Centeral), Lucknow

ITA 74/LKW/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kumar, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.74/LKW/2022 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Genus Power Infrastructures Ltd Registered Office – G-14, Sector-63, Noida-201307. PAN:AACCG1218P (Appellant) v. Pr Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Aayakar Bhawan, 5 Ashok Marg, Lucknow-226001. (Respondent) Appellant by: Respondent by: Shri Praveen Kumar, Adv. Smt Namita S. Pandey, CIT(DR) ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, А.М.: (A) This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Principa…

Sbs Biotech Unit II, Sirmour vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 801CSection 80I

…s passed without making inquiries or verification which 5 should have been made or the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim. 10. It was further submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Sharma [2011] 335 ITR 83(Delhi) has explained that 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 Act merely because he has a different opinion in the matter and the relevant findings read as under: "In vie…

Jarnail Singh, Bilaspur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 395/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 263

…ing any enquiries at her end. In any case, it is a trite law that insufficient enquiry by the Assessing officer does not entitle invocation of revisional power and in support thereof, reliance was placed on the following judgments: • CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Del HC) • CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd. 341 ITR 180 (Del HC) • Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H) • CTT vs. Gabriel (India) Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR-108 (Bom) • Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243-ITR-83 (SC) • CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282(SC) • CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in 332 IT…

Jarnail Singh, Bilaspur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 394/CHANDI/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 263

…ing any enquiries at her end. In any case, it is a trite law that insufficient enquiry by the Assessing officer does not entitle invocation of revisional power and in support thereof, reliance was placed on the following judgments: • CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Del HC) • CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd. 341 ITR 180 (Del HC) • Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 437 (P & H) • CTT vs. Gabriel (India) Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR-108 (Bom) • Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243-ITR-83 (SC) • CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282(SC) • CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in 332 IT…

Ankur Goyal, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2524/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2524/Del/2024, A.Y. 2018-19 Micromax Informatics Ltd. Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Plot No.21/14 Block-A, Income Tax, Delhi-4, Phase-II, C. R. Building, I. P Estate, Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi. New Delhi-110028 PAN: AABCR8863N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Sandeep Jain, CA Respondent by MS. Monika Dhami, CIT DR Date of Hearing 09/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement 06/06/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM The appeal of the a…

Horizon Dwellings Private Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

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

ITA 77/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl

Section 143(3)Section 263

…bunal were perverse or contrary to record invoking revision proceedings was unjustified - Held, yes [Para 13] [In favour of assessee]" Further reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Anil Kumar Sinha reported in 335 ITR 83 (Del) wherein it has been held there is a distinction between “lack of inquiry” and “inadequate inquiry”, if there was any inquiry even inadequate, that would not itself give right or occasion to the Commissioner to pass order u/s 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion in the matter. Further reliance is placed on the decision of Ho…

Mikuni India Private Limited, Alwar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT

12. In view of the above discussion, we find merit in this appeal, when the assessment order dated 27

ITA 745/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: passing the impugned order, Learned PCIT issued notice to the assessee, as Learned PCIT found that the Assessing Officer, while framing the above said assessment and the making addition, did not initiate penalty proceedings 270A of the Act. Learned PCIT was of the view that penalty proceedings were to be initiated under the said provision on account of misreporting of income, which came to be added by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee company. It being a Transfer Pri

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Agarwal, C.A. (Through V.C.) &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 194C(5)Section 263Section 270ASection 92CSection 94C

…nd Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT [263 ITR 437]  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. [294 ITR 310].  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar [335 ITR 83].  Copy of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan [384 ITR 200].  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.P. Karai [266 ITR 113].  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers [259 ITR 502]  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryan…

Rishab Jhunjhunwala, Delhi vs. AO Ward-1(1), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 960/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Sh Rishab Jhunjhunwala Vs Pcit, Delhi-1 E-28 Geetanjali Enclave, Delhi Pan No. Aeupj8955M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…o be seen. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to pass orders u/s 263 of the Act, merely because he has different opinion in the matter. 16. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 has held that there is a distinction between “lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry. If there was any enquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the commissioner to pass orders u/s 263 of the Act. 17. Considering the facts of the case in hand, in the light of the judicial decision discussed above, we set aside the assessm…

Sunitha, Coimbatore vs. PCIT -1, Coim, Batore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2013/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [Pan: Bhqps 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Irs, Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, IRS, CIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "ाियक सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.2013/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Sunitha, Vs. The Principal Commissioner of No.30, Sivaji Colony, Income Tax -1, Thadagam Road, Coimbatore Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore 641 025. [PAN: BHQPS 4789G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri N.V. Balaji,…

CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma

What is CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, Coimbatore vs. PCIT, Central, Chennai

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, Coimbatore vs. PCIT (Central), Chennai

Ct. Ramanathan (HUF), Pudukkottai vs. PCIT 1, Madurai

Alliance Nirmaan Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

Micromax Informatics Ltd, New Delhi vs. PCIT, Delhi

Assotech Moonshine Urban Developers P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), New Delhi

Mmtc Ltd vs. DCIT Circle 5(1)

Clix Capital Services Private Limited, Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, Delhi

Genus Power Infrastructures Limitted, Noida vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax(Centeral), Lucknow

Sbs Biotech Unit II, Sirmour vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

Jarnail Singh, Bilaspur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

Jarnail Singh, Bilaspur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

Ankur Goyal, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Ghaziabad

Horizon Dwellings Private Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

Mikuni India Private Limited, Alwar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT

Rishab Jhunjhunwala, Delhi vs. AO Ward-1(1), Delhi

Sunitha, Coimbatore vs. PCIT -1, Coim, Batore