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 366,470 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 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

M/S Arena Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-17

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

ITA 862/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Arena Enterprise V. Pcit –Mumbai-17 Cts No. 20, Arena Space, Village Majas Room No. 120, 1St Floor Jvlr, Behind Majas Depot Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 Jogeshwari (E), Mumbai - 400060 G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aanfa3473E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Mrugakshi Joshi Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…el Power Products Ltd., 333 ITR 547 (Del) (ii). 7 ITA.Nos. 170 TO 173/PNJ/2014 (ASST. YEARS: 2006-07 & 2010-11) (iii). CIT vs. Anand Food Products, 39 taxmann.com 187 (AP) (iv). CIT vs. Amit Corporation, 21 taxmann.com 64 (Guj) (v). CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Del) (vi). CIT vs. MeshanaDist Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd., 263 ITR 645 (Guj) (vii). PyarelalJaiswal vs. CIT, 41 taxmann.com 278 (All) (viii). Indu Fine Lands (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 45 taxmann.com 307 (Hyd) (ix). AnandPoddar vs. ACIT, 33 taxmann.com 367 (Gauh) (x). CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. 212 Taxmann 184 (Del.) 12. The Assessee has recei…

M/S La Opala RG Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 296/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. La Opala Rg Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Eco Centre Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Vs 8Th Floor Em-4, Sector-5 Kolkata - 700091 [Pan : Aaacl5569J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -2 (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 29/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Is That The Assessee Is A Limited Company & Income Of Rs.52,63,83,260/- Declared In The E-Return Furnished On 31/10/2017 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Was Completed On 21/12/2019 Assessing Income At Rs.56,22,70,863/-. Thereafter, The Ld. Pr. Cit Called For The Assessment Record & After Going Through The Same It Was Observed That The Order Of The Assessment Was Erroneous Insofar As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue On The Following Grounds:- “Upon Examination Of Case Records, It Is Observed That The Assessee Had An Income Of Rs. 49,08, 14,480/- From Sitaganj Exempted Unit In Which The Assessee Had Claimed Deduction U/S. 80Ic Of The Act Of Rs. 14,72,44,452/- (30% Of Rs.49,08, 14,480/-). It Was Observed From The Profit & Loss Accounts Of The Assessee For The Year Ended 31.03.2017 That The Assessee Had Credited An Amount Of Rs. 2,43,75, 193/- From Export Incentives & Also

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

…ld that the AO had made inadequate inquiry, then also powers under section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked under the facts and circumstances of the case. This position is further supported by the following judicial pronouncements; - CITVs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Del HC); - CIT Vs. Developement Credit Bank Ltd. 323 ITR 206 (2010); - CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (1993); ITA No. 559/Kol/2018 La Opala RG Ltd.., AY- 2013-14 - CIT Vs. Vikash Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del); 8. In this regard, the ld AR also placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Fab India Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. C…

Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh, Na

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 102/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh. The Pr.Cit, Alka Society, Chhapara Road, Valsad. Vs. Dist.-Navsari-396445, Gujarat. Pan No. Abgpp 6727 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

…not be a ground for proceedings under Section 263 of the Act, otherwise it will be an endless process. To support his view, the ld. Sr. Counsel relied upon the following case laws: (i) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (ii) CIT Vs Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) (iii) CIT Vs Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) 11. The ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee submits that even on merit, no addition is called for on account of cash deposit of Rs. 19.00 lacs. Such cash deposits were out of opening cash balance at the time of beginning of demonetization period which, in turn was on account of professional r…

Rahul Mittal, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT-10, New Delhi

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

ITA 708/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT- DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

…there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the CIT to pass orders under section 263 of the Act, merely because he has different opinion in the matter. 21. 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. 22. Considering the facts of the case in hand, in totality, in light of the judicial decisions discussed hereinabove, we…

Rivet Electrical Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6225/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., Vs Pr.Cit, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. Pan-Aafcr8803C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “F” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., vs Pr.CIT, FF-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. PAN-AAFCR8803C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent by Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement 15.11.2022 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the Assess…

Roop Vatika, Jagroan vs. Commissioner of ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals bearing I

ITA 77/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

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

Section 10Section 10(23)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263o

…g convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation, existing solely for philanthropic purposes and not for purposes of profit, shall be one crore rupees.]" Further relied on the case Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Anil Kumar Sharma’, 335 ITR 83 (Del. HC). The relevant para is extracted as below: “7. 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…

Saint Mahapragya Educational Society, Jagroan vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ( Exemptions), Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals bearing I

ITA 76/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

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

Section 10Section 10(23)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263o

Veer Plastics Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT -4, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/AHD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: ShriA. P. Singh, CIT

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 263Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…R submitted that "Inadequacy" of inquiry by Assessing Officer also cannot be ground for proceedings under section 263 of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the followings decisions: " CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. - 332 ITR 167 (Delhi); " CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma - 335 ITR 83 (Delhi); " CIT vs. Vikas Polymers - 341 ITR 537 (Delhi); The Ld. AR further submitted that even on merits, no addition is called for in respect of either of the three issues raised by Pr. CIT in view of contentions taken by the assessee during the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. In addition to above, the proposed additions are not justif…

M/S Uma Glass Works, Agra vs. Pr.CIT.-1, Agra

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

ITA 18/AGR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…I.T.A.Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021/A.Ys.2014-15 & 2015-16 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “DB” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/s Uma Glass Works PCIT, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh. PAN No. AACFU5061D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Shri Ranjan Chopra, CA Revenue by Shri Surende Pal, CIT DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 14.10.2022 02.11.2022 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O…

M/S Uma Glass Works, Firozabad vs. Pr.CIT.-1, Agra

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

ITA 17/AGR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

M/S Kamlesh Trade & Agency Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Kamlesh Trade & Income Tax Officer, Ward- Agency Pvt. Ltd., 8, B.R.B 4(4), Kolkata. Vs Basu Road, 2Nd Floor, . Room No. 204, Kolkata- 700 001. (Pan: Aabck3338H) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. K. Sonawal, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…that Ld. AO enquired into the issue of unsecured loans for which the case was selected for limited scrutiny. 13.1 Here, in support of our finding, we would like to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma [2011] 335 ITR 83 (Del) wherein it has been held dismissing the appeal “that the present case would not be one of, “lack of inquiry” even if the inquiry was termed inadequate. The Tribunal found that complete details were filed before the Assessing Officer and that he applied his mind to the relevant material and fact, although such application of mind is not disce…

V.Rajasekhar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(5), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1357/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsri V. Rajasekhar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-14(5), [Pan No. Aadpr0797E] Hyderabad Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sri V. Rajasekhar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-14(5), [PAN No. AADPR0797E] Hyderabad Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, AR Revenue by: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 22/09/2022 Pronouncement on: 31/10/2022 ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, JM: Aggrieved by the order dated 27/03/2018 passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Hyderabad (“Ld. PCIT”), in the case of Shri V. Rajasekhar (“the ass…

Castamet Works Private Limited, Kharwa vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur

ITA 187/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Prakul Khurana (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’B’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM deys’k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 187/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2017-18 cuke Castamet Works Private Limited Principle Commissioner of Vs. Village – Kharwa,Tehsil- Masuda Income Tax, Udaipur Kharwa, Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADCC 5624 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Prakul Khurana (A…

V.M. *& Co., Ramanathapuram vs. DCIT Circle 1, Karaikudi

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2267/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Meenakshi Sundaram (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…as inadequate without explaining how it was inadequate. 3. The learned PCIT ought to have seen that there is difference between "lack of enquiry" and "inadequate enquiry" as explained by the Honourable Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Anil Kumar Sharma (335 ITR 83) and for inadequate enquiry the assessment cannot be set aside. 4. The learned PCIT ought to have seen that the case was selected for limited scrutiny and the assessing officer can only examine the issues for which the case was selected for limited scrutiny and he cannot examine any other issues. 5. The learned PCIT ought to have seen that the ass…

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

ITA 248/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…available on record, the order passed by AO can neither said to be erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Therefore, the order of Ld. CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act cannot be sustained.” 4.14 Further, in the case of CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (335 ITR 83), wherein held as under: “There is a distinction between “lack of inquiry” and “inadequate inquiry”. If there was any inquiry, even inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter: ITA No.415/Bang/2020 & M/s…

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bengaluru

ITA 415/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

Mallikarjun Virupaxappa Yarasi, Gadag vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 437/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

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

…decision on the issue of assessability of income of the assessee. Now the Ld. PCIT cannot impose his decision on the AO by invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act. 4.3 The assessee’s counsel relied on following judgemenmts:- i. CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) ii. CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) iii ITA No.741/Hyd/2012 dated 19.12.2012 in the case of Sun Minerals Vs. Addl CIT reported in 276 Taxmann.com 460 (Karn) 5. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied on the order of PCIT. Mallikarjun Virupaxappa Yarasi, Gadag Page 11 of 24 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the m…

Shri Amrit Parkash Sehgal (HUF), Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 12/ASR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amlendu Nath Misra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…t make any addition on that account. The order of Assessing Officer cannot be said to be erroneous as he has taken a plausible view, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 has held as under: "There is a distinction between "lack of inquiry" and 'inadequate inquiry" If there was any inquiry, even inadequate that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter: “Held, dismissing the appeal, tha…

Smt. Kumari Shiwangi, Solan vs. Chief CIT (OSD), Shimla

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1380/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1380/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-15 Smt. Kumari Shiwangi, The Chief Cit((Osp), बनाम Mc Complex, Shimla Near Mohan Park, Solan Hp "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Cvhps4283H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ,च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “B”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1380/CHD/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-15 Smt. Kumari Shiwangi, The Chief CIT((OSP), बनाम MC Complex, Shimla Near Mohan Park, Solan HP "थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: CVHPS4283H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR सुनवाई क" तार$ख/Date of Hearing : 03.08.2022 उदघोषणा क" तार$ख/Date of Pr…

Britannia Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 177/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Britannia Industries Ltd. Principal Commissioner Of 5/1A, Hungerford Street, Income-Tax Vs. Shakespeare Sarani, Circle-1 Kolkata-700 017 Kolkata (Pan: Aabcb2066P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca Respondent By : Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revisionary Order Of Ld. Pr. Cit, Kolkata-1 Vide Order No. Itba/Rev5/2021- 22/1040498620(1) Dated 09.03.2022 For A.Y. 2017-18 U/S. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sudipta Guha, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35Section 35(1)

…m of assessee in respect of section 35(2AB) and section 35(1) which deals with expenditure on scientific research. Here, in support of our finding, we would like to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma [2011] 335 ITR 83 (Del) wherein it has been held dismissing the appeal “that the present case would not be one of, “lack of inquiry” even if the inquiry was termed inadequate. The Tribunal found that complete details were filed before the Assessing Officer and that he applied his mind to the relevant material and fact, although such application of mind is not disce…