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

Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Chennai vs. DCIT Intl Tax 1(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1319/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Keller (M) Sdn Bhd, Income Tax, 7Th Floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [Pan: Aagck 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Ashik Shah, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 239Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ 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, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1319/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Keller (M) SDN BHD, Income Tax, 7th floor, Centennial Square, International Taxation 1(2) No.6A, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024. [PAN: AAGCK 8014M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : S…

Ved Prakash & Sons Liumbers Pvt Ltd, Karnal vs. Pr. CIT, Karnal

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4079/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganeh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANEH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s. Ved Parkash & Sons Vs. Principal CIT, Lumbers Pvt. Ltd., Timber Karnal Market, Karnal (Hr.) PAN No:AACCN0304M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aman Garg, CA Department by Shri P N Barnwal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 05.06.2024 Date of pronouncement 23.08.2024 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The assessee’s appeal is against order dated 25.03.2019 of Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karnal (he…

Exotic Realtors and Developers, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

…powers under section 263 of the Act. Basis this the Ld. AR contended that the Ld. AO has examined the material on record, passed assessment order which is well merited. 13.7 The Ld. AR then relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court reported in [2011] 335 ITR 83 Delhi [Anil Kumar Sharma case] which speaks of distinction between “ lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry”. 13.8 The Ld. AR then relied upon decision in case of Vodafone Essar South Ltd. reported in [2012] 28 Taxmann.com 273 Delhi High Court which speaks about even if thee is some inquiry by the AO in the original proceedings even if inadequate…

Sajjad Ali, Chittorgarh vs. DCIT(Intl)- Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 459/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Ojha (CIT-DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 54

…matter required by the CIT to be considered by him is a finding of fact. Although in the present case the ld. AO has made the detailed inquiry on the very same issue being the reason of reopening the case u/s 148. 8.3 In the case of CIT V/s Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83(Del), held that “ Revision- Erroneous and Prejudicial order- lack of proper enquiry- Pr. CIT came to the conclusion that the issue relating to taxability of compensation received by the assessee was not examined by the AO and held that the order of AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue- Tribunal has arrived at a conclusive…

Jayant Kumar, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 263Section 56(1)

…e before us narrows down to whether the AO could have enquired further more or the enquiry made by the AO is insufficient. 4 Jayant Kumar 10. On this issue, we are guided by the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 wherein it was held as under: “7…it is apparent that the Tribunal arrived at a conclusive finding that, 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…

Aargee Enterprises, Kaithal vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 508/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Y.P. Rawla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…e of Shri Bal Krishan Vs. The Pr. CIT (ITA No. 406 to 409/Chd/2021 dt. 16/03/2023), Bindas Foods Pvt Ltd (ITA No. 409/CHD/2021and Bajaj Sons vs DCIT (ITA No. 1127/CHD/2019); and the decisions of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83(Del) and CIT vs Sun Beam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (Del). 10. Per contra, the Ld. CIT/DR supported the order and the findings of the Ld. Pr. CIT. It was submitted that during the course of survey, the assessee had surrendered an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- which is in the nature of excess stock and excess cash which was not accounted for in the books o…

The Mullanpur Garibdas Co-Op Multipurpose Society, Mohali vs. DCIT, C-6(1), Mohali

ITA 645/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT, DR
Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…, that everything stands examined by the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings and that there is no new issue pointed out by the PCIT, due to which, the revision proceedings are unsustainable. 17. In this regard, in 'CIT Versus Anil Kumar Sharma', 335 ITR 83 (Delhi), it was held that it was apparent that the Tribunal had arrived at a conclusive finding that though the Assessment Order did not patently indicate that the issue in question had been considered by the AO, the record showed that the AO had applied his mind; that once application of mind by the AO was discernible from the record, the proce…

The Mullanpur Garibdas Co-Op Multipurpose Society, Mullanpur vs. Pr. CIT-II, Chandigarh

ITA 569/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT, DR
Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…, that everything stands examined by the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings and that there is no new issue pointed out by the PCIT, due to which, the revision proceedings are unsustainable. 17. In this regard, in 'CIT Versus Anil Kumar Sharma', 335 ITR 83 (Delhi), it was held that it was apparent that the Tribunal had arrived at a conclusive finding that though the Assessment Order did not patently indicate that the issue in question had been considered by the AO, the record showed that the AO had applied his mind; that once application of mind by the AO was discernible from the record, the proce…

The Mullanpur Garibdas Co-Op Multipurpose Society, Mohali vs. Pr. CIT-II, Chandigarh

ITA 515/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT, DR
Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…, that everything stands examined by the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings and that there is no new issue pointed out by the PCIT, due to which, the revision proceedings are unsustainable. 17. In this regard, in 'CIT Versus Anil Kumar Sharma', 335 ITR 83 (Delhi), it was held that it was apparent that the Tribunal had arrived at a conclusive finding that though the Assessment Order did not patently indicate that the issue in question had been considered by the AO, the record showed that the AO had applied his mind; that once application of mind by the AO was discernible from the record, the proce…

Mohammed Gyasuddin, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-30, Kolkata

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

ITA 571/KOL/2020[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2012-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

…even though the working of allowability of deduction under section 54F is available in the order under section 263 which is not disputed by the assessee before ITAT." 13. 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 Page 10 of 15 I.T.A. No.: 571/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mohammed Gyasuddin. cannot invoke section 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion. Relevant observation of the High Court reads as under: "63. We…

Mohammed Gyasuddin, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-30, Kolkata

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

ITA 570/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

…n the order under section 263 which is not disputed by the assessee before ITAT." Page 10 of 15 I.T.A. No.: 570/KOL/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mohammed Gyasuddin. 13. 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. 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 Olympus Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1088/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1088/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Olympus Suppliers Pvt Ltd.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 15/B, Clive Row, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabco0624Q] Vs. Pcit, Circle-2, Kolkata……….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 13, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 23.03.2015 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. This Is A Second Round Of Litigation Before Us. Earlier, The Assessee Had Filed Appeal Before This Tribunal Against The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit Passed U/S 263 Of The Act, However, The Said Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Along With Three Other Cases By A Common Order Dated 05.08.2016. Being Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred Further Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court Bearing No. Itat/328/2017 Ia No.Ga/2/2017 (Old No.Ga/3184/2017). It Was Pleaded Before The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Along With Other Appeals, However, The Specific

Section 143(1)Section 151Section 263

…le in the order under section 263 which is not disputed by the assessee before ITAT." I.T.A. No.1088/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/s Olympus Suppliers Pvt Ltd 13. 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. 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…

Ramotar Choudhari HUF, Kolkata vs. PCIT 5 Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1336/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1336/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ramotar Choudhari Huf.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 7Th Floor, R.N 25 Fortuna Tower, 23A N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aanhr9093K] Vs. Pcit-5, Kolkata………….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Pransukha, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 06, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 18.10.2023 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,55,970/- On 21.01.2014. Thereafter, An Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer From Investigation Wing That The Assessee Has

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 263

…even though the working of allowability of deduction under section 54F is available in the order under section 263 which is not disputed by the assessee before ITAT." 13. 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. 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…

Sriram Enterprises, Patna vs. PCIT (Central), Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 76/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises,………………………..........Appellant C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Nepali Kothi, Opposite Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001 [Pan:Aarfs8853J] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna,…………………………………..……………..Respondent, Bihar-800001 Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 5Th March, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 8Th, 2024 O R D E R

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 263

…under section 54F is available in the order under section 263 which is not disputed by the assessee before ITAT." 14 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises 8.7. 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. 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…

Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 809/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd….…......................…...……………....Appellant 48/6, Suman Villa, 2Nd Floor, 155, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcd1131H] Vs. Pcit, Asansol….....….........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 158 Days. A Separate Application Of Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That After Receipt Of The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit, The Assessee, Through Its Director, Shri Deep Kishan Saraf, Immediately Approached One Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Chartered

Section 253Section 263Section 5

…809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd 54F is available in the order under section 263 which is not disputed by the assessee before ITAT." 13. 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. 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…

Idemia Syscom India Private Limited, Noida vs. CIT(Tp), Delhi-2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 647/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT- DR
Section 263Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 647/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2020-21] M/s Idemia Syscom India Pvt Ltd Vs. The C.I.T. Plot No. 1-A, Sector - 73 (TP) Noida, Basi Bahuddin Nagar Delhi – 2, Uttar Pradesh. PAN – AABCS 2000 C (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.S. Syali, Sr. Adv Shri Mukesh Bhutani, Adv Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv Shri Nikky, Jhtamtani, CA Shri Sandeep Yadav, Adv Shri Saurabh Nandy, Adv Department By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT- DR Date of Hearing : 14.03.2024 Date of Pron…

Shree Alekh, Bhavnagar vs. PCIT Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…submitted that inadequacy of inquiry by the Assessing Officer also cannot be ground for proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:- “CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited – 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma – 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers – 341 ITR 537 (Delhi)” 6. The Ld. DR submitted that the PCIT has rightly invoked the revisionary power under Section 263 of the Act as the Assessing Officer has not examined the aspect of addition under section 69A in consonance with the taxing income under Section 115BBE of the Act. Besides this, the estimated expe…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Delhi vs. M/S Clix Finance India Pvt. Ltd

ITA/1428/2018HC Delhi01 Mar 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

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

…ITA 1428/2018 Page 1 of 14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 15 February 2024 Judgment pronounced on: 01 March 2024 + ITA 1428/2018 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, DELHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Prashant Meharchandani, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus M/S CLIX FINANCE INDIA PVT. LTD. .... Respondent Through: Mr. Sachit Jolly, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV J U D G M E N T PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR K…

Manuj Jain HUF, Ludhiana vs. PCIT -1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 392/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263(1)

…cannot simply set aside the order of the Ld. AO for further enquiries. In support of his aforesaid contentions, the ld AR has relied on the decisions in case of CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Limited reported in 332 ITR 167 (Delhi), CIT vs Anil Kumar Sharma reported in 335 ITR 83 (Delhi), Ganpati International, Jagraon vs PCIT (in ITA No. 932/Chandi/2019) and others. It was accordingly submitted that in view of the same, the order so passed by the ld PCIT be set-aside and that of the AO be confirmed. 12. Per contra, the Ld. CIT/DR has relied on the findings of the Ld. Pr. CIT. It was submitted that the business affairs of…

Kaustubh Gupta, Meerut vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1125/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Kaustubh Gupta, 412/3, Versus Pr. C.I.T., Mangal Pandey Nagar, Ghaziabad. Meerut. Pan: Aabcs3651B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Waseem Arshad, Cit/Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.12.2023 Order Per Saktijit Dey, Vice-

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Waseem Arshad, CIT/DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…itions of section 263 of the Act are not satisfied. Therefore, he submitted, the order passed under section 263 of the Act is unsustainable. In support of such contention, learned counsel relied upon the following decisions : (i). CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Del). (ii). CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Del.) (iii). Virtusa Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 442 ITR 385 (Mad). (iv). CIT vs. Neerav Modi, 390 ITR 292 (Bom) (v). ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd., 343 ITR 329 (Del) (vi) Eicher Motor Ltd. vs. CIT, 125 taxmann.com 432 (ITAT Delhi) (vii). CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., 33…