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 366,470 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

M/S. Iconic Infrabuild LLP, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT- Central, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 58/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt.Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2015-16 Iconic Infrabuild Llp The Pr.Cit, Central 75, Nandkishor Ahmedabad. University Road Gangotri Park Opp: Bts, Rajkot. Pan : Aaifc 5100 F (Applicant) (Responent)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 263Section 263oSection 68

…has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of "lack of inquiry", that such a course of action would be open.” 15. This proposition was reiterated in another decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83(Del) holding that where details were filed to the AO and the Commissioner was unable to point out defects conclusively in the material for arriving at a conclusion that particular income had escaped assessment on account of non application of mind by AO, order for revision of assessment order on account of the same u/s 263 of the Act was not susta…

Ashish Niranjan Shah, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax -4, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 697/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43(5)

…CIT V. Nirav Modi - 380 UTR 292 (Bom) - PB-III - Page-434 - CIT V. Shreepati Holdings & Finance P Ltd - ITA ano. 1879 - / 2013 (Bom) - PB-III - page-442 , - CIT V. Leisure Wear Exports ltd - 341ITR 166 - (Del) - PB-III - Page- 448 - CIT V. Anil Kumar Sharma - 335 ITR 83 (Del0 - PB-lll-Page-457 Considering the specific enquiry of the learned AO, the 143(3) order does not suffer from the issue of absence of enquiry. As such, same is not "Erroneous". PART-III Whether the 143(3) order is prejudicial to the interest of revenue 5. Speculative transaction issue - This issue is wrecked up by the learned PCIT-4 time and…

Jai International, Udaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 23/JODH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: The Date Of Hearing. 4. That The Hon’Ble Pcit Has Not Given Any Specific Instance About Rejecting The Details Submitted By Us In Response To Their Query. 5. That The Hon’Ble Pcit Has Not Given Any Specific Reason/Speaking Order Contradicting Case Laws Submitted By Us. The Hon’Ble Pcit Only Says That The Facts Are Different.”

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Jai International Vs PCIT, G-1/202 G-1/202, Udyog Udaipur Vihar, Sukher (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AAAFJ 7582 Q Assessee By Sh. Anil Sharma, C.A. Revenue By Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR Date of hearing 04/07/2023 Date of 26/09/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur dated 04.02.2021 [here in after (ld. PCIT)] for assessment year 2015-16…

Shri Amritpal Singh (Prop), Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 425/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 110Section 263Section 54D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 425/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sh. Amritpal Singh Prop. H. S. Vs. PCIT-Central, Oil Furnace C/o Sh. Sameer Jalandhar. Bhatia, Adv. 158/2, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Opposite Mata Gujri Park Jalandhar. (Respondent) [PAN:-ABTPS9774K] (Appellant) Appellant by Sh. Sameer Bhatia, Adv. Respondent by Sh.HitendraBhauraojiNinawe, CIT DR. 30.08.2023 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 13.09.2023 ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the a…

Raj Kumar Karanwal, Muzaffarnagar vs. Pr.CIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 644/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year 2010-11 Shri Raj Kumar Karanwal, Vs. Pr. CIT 194/A, Bhahmpuri, Dehradun. Muzaffarnagar-251001. PAN ADQPK8099N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Sankalp Malik, Advocate Shri Sanjay Malik, Advocate Department by: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 10.08.2023 Date of 11.09.2023 pronouncement: O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun (“PCIT”…

Jai Salasar Balaji Industries(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 440/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 440/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jai Salasar Balaji Industries (P) Ltd. Acit, Central Circle – 4(1), Kolkata 5, Bentinck Street Vs Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacj6970D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Kolkata -2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 28/03/2023, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Steel. E-Return Filed On 27/10/2018 Declaring Total Income At Nil For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Case Selected For Through Cass Followed By Issuance Of Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. Details Were Called For In Respect Of The Reason Of Scrutiny Selection. The Assessee Complied By Filing All The Relevant Details & The Same Were Duly Examined By The Assessing Officer & He Came To The Conclusion That The Assessee Was Entitled To The Claim Of Carry Forward Of Loss To 2

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 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." 14. 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…

Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Amritsar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 65/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

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

…e is an enquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to pass order under s. 263, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter—Such a course of action is open only in cases of "lack of enquiry" CIT V Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Del) "Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Lack of proper enquiry—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 the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue—Tribunal has arrived at a conclusive finding that…

Nimita Soni Prop. Swaranlata Traders, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 41/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 263

…umed as it was only in Nimita Soni Prop. Swaranlata Traders the cases of lack of enquiries that the jurisdiction under Sec. 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 can be assumed. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions: 1. CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma - 335 ITR 83 (Delhi); 2. CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Delhi); 3. CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) "From reading of sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo moto revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceedings under this Act, he considers that any order passed…

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 203/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT
Section 115JSection 263Section 35ASection 36(1)(viia)

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JPR/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYears : 2017-18 M/s. AU Small Finance Bank Ltd. cuke The Pr. CIT CP-3-235,Industrial Area, Apparel Park, Vs. Jaipur -1 Jaipur. Mahal Road, Jagatpura, Jaipurm- 302022 LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACL 2777 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Sanja…

Dr. Sanjay Kumar, Ranchi vs. Pr. CIT, Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 29/RAN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “RANCHI” BENCH VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 29/Ran/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dr. Sanjay Kumar Vs. Pr. CIT-Ranchi (PAN: ADLPK 6690 G) Appellant / (अपीलाथ") Respondent / (""यथ") 21.07.2023 Date of Hearing / सुनवाई क" "त"थ Date of Pronouncement/ 31.07.2023 आदेश उ"घोषणा क" "त"थ For the Appellant/ Shri Manjeet Verma, CA "नधा#$रती क" ओर से For the Respondent/ Smt. Rinku Singh, CITDR राज(व क" ओर से ORDER / आदेश Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is the appeal preferred by the assessee against…

Rits Jewellers Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Faridabad

The Appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1886/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Initiating The Proceeding As No Enquiry Was Made By Pr. Cit In Arriving At Conclusion Which Is Contrary In View Of The Jurisdictional & Other High Courts & The Apex Court. D. That Once The Sums Have Been Received Through Banking Channels & Complete Evidences Was Provided During The Course Of The Assessment, Suspicion Raised Purely On Assumptions Is Wholly Unsustainable In Law.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bombay) which was followed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) and in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Delhi). The relevant paragraphs of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (supra) are extracted hereunder :- “We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have gone through the records. The first issue that arises for our consideration is about the exercise of power by the…

Shri Vijay Kumar Singhla, Mansa vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Amritsar

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

ITA 100/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…er to pass order under section 263, merely because he has a different opinion in matter; it is only in case of 'lack of inquiry' that such a cause of action can be open - Held, yes [Para 15] [In favour of assessee]” • CIT vs. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA as reported in 335 ITR 83 (Del HC) 7 I.T.A. No. 100/Asr/2022 Vijay Kumar Singla v. Pr.CIT “In view of the above discussion, 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…

M/S Rani Sati Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 68

…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: I.T.A. No. 85/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s. Rani Sati Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. 15 "63.…

M/S Roy and Sahani Company, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward 24(1), Hooghly

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 169/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 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." 15. 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…

Smt. Satvir Kaur W/O Sh. Shinder Singh, Ferozepur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 102/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…thy PCIT has not come up with any new finding and therefore, the revision proceedings u/s 263 of the Act are bad in law and deserves to be quashed. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the following judgments: • CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma as reported in 335 ITR 83 (Del, HC) “In view of the above discussion, 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 disce…

M/S Torrent Roofing System, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical

ITA 84/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143Section 263Section 40(1)(ia)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 84/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/sTorrent Roofing Systems, V. Income Tax Officer, C/o Sachin K Malhotra Ward-4, Hoshiarpur (Adv.), Phagwara Road, Hoshiarpur [PAN: AAHFT 1660L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 09.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 12.05.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of…

Prabhu Kanimozhi, Erode vs. PCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 14

ITA 350/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate-Erode) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69B

…rआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ,ी वी. दुगा2 राव, "ाियक सद3 एवं माननीय ,ी मनोज कुमार अ8वाल ,लेखा सद3 के सम:। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.350/Chny/2022 (िनधा2रण वष2 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Prabhu Kanimozhi Pr. CIT बनाम/ 228, Vasavi corner, Mysore Trunk Road, Coimbatore-1. Vs. Sathyamangalam, Erode – 638 402. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. ASWPK-8744-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar (Advo…

Sh. Gurjinder Singh, Amritsar vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT DR
Section 194CSection 263

…e is an enquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to pass order under s. 263, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter—Such a course of action is open only in cases of "lack of enquiry" CIT V Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Del) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Lack of proper enquiry—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 the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue—Tribunal has arrived at a conclusive finding that t…

K.R.Overseas Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-(Central)-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 185/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

…ven 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." 10.7. 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 Page 12 of 21 I.T.A. No.: 185/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 K. R. Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 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: "6…

Delhivery Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1036/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1036/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Delhivery Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit-3, Plot No. 5, Sector-44, Central Revenue Building, Gurugram, Haryana-122002 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aapcs9575E Assessee By : Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Sh. M. Baranwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.03.2023

For Appellant: Sh. K. M. Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 201Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)

…pass orders under Section 263 of the Act, merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of "lack of inquiry" that such a course of action would be open.’’ 19. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Anil Kumar Sharma [335 ITR 83], also held that where there was no "lack of enquiry" by AO even if it could be said to be inadequate, proceedings under section 263 of the Act was not 11 Delhivery Pvt. Ltd. valid since the AO had applied his mind to complete details filed by the assessee. 20. In light of the facts submitted in the original assessment, the above expenses are cry…