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

Om Sai Co-Operative Credit Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Gadag vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 454/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George CIT(OSD)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

…relied on the following decisions:- • CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) • CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 332 ITR 167 (Del) • CIT v. Cyber Park Development & Construction Ltd. (2020) • 121 taxmann.com 172 (Karn.) • CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma (2011) 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) • Anantpur Kalpana v. ITO, ITA No. 541/Bang/2021 for AY 2017-18 decided on 13.12.2021. (Bangalore-Trib.) • ITO v. Sri Tatiparti Satyanarayana, ITA No. 76/Viz/2021 or AY 2017-18 decided on 16.03.2022. (Visakhapatnam- Trib.) Page 8 of 15 13. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The PCIT has set aside…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Technip France Sas, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 724/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicialmember Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144C(5)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

…tice, followed for number of years, had the approval of the IT authorities. Interestingly, even for future assessment years, the same very accounting practice is accepted. 62. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Anil Kumar reported in 335 ITR 83 has held that where it was discernible from record that the A.O has applied his mind to the issue in question, the ld. CIT cannot invoke section 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion. Relevant observation of the High Court reads as under: 63. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas Polymer reported in 341 ITR 53…

Vanishree Holabsu Shettar, Guledgudd vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 270/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas T. Bidari, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the following decisions: - CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Del) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) Page 6 of 17 CIT v. Cyber Park Development & Construction Ltd. [2021] 276 Taxman 460 (Kar) CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma [2011] 335 ITR 83 (Del) PCIT, Surat v. Shreeji Paints (P) Ltd. [2021] 282 Taxman 464 (SC) Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO [2016] 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum Trib) 6. The learned D.R. submitted that the AO has verified only the agricultural income of the assessee and made the addition and there is nothing mentioned in the order to claim that the business income of the assessee…

Shri Hiralal D. Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT (Central), Ahmedabad

ITA 1073/AHD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT-DR

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘A’ अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Conducted Through Virtual Court) ] ] BEFORE S/SHRI PRAMOD M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT AND T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1072 & 1073/Ahd/2018 Assessment Year :2008-09 & 2009-10 AND Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Hiralal D. Thakkar Pr.CIT (Central) Satkar Guest House Vs Ahmedabad. Swaminarayan Kutir S.G. Highway, Opp: YMCA Club Nr.Nirma Firm Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Divyang Shah, AR Revenue by : Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date o…

Shri Hiralal D. Thakkar, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT (Central), Ahmedabad

ITA 1072/AHD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Jaiswal, CIT-DR

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

Ravi Metallics Limited, Rourkela vs. Pr.CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/CTK/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaravi Metallics Limited, I/10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No.Adqps 4031 G ………………Assessee Versus Pr.Cit, Sambalpur ………………..Revenue Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Passed U/S.263 Of The Act In Case No.Pcit/Sbp/263/26/2018-19, Dated 29.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Heard On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Record, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 686 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Delay Occurred In Filing The Present Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate But Due To Unfortunate & Unavoidable Circumstances Beyond

Section 253Section 263

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़पऩया ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ravi Metallics Limited, I/10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 PAN No.ADQPS 4031 G ………………Assessee Versus Pr.CIT, Sambalpur ………………..Revenue Shri P.R.Mohanty, AR for the assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT-DR for the Revenue Date of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the ord…

Sanjay Amrutrao Satav (HUF), Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 12(4), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesses stands allowed

ITA 200/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.200/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Amrutrao Satav Vs. Ito, Ward- 12(4), Pune. (Huf), Amrut Palace Bungalow, Gat No.12 Bhavadi Road Wagholi, Near Bhairavnath Mandir, Taluka Haveli, Pune- 412207. Pan : Aayhs1085F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Pooja Rander Revenue By : Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 4, Pune [‘The Pr.Cit’] Dated 31.03.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Smt. Pooja RanderFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena

Section 2Section 263Section 45Section 54Section 54B

…held by the Hon’ble 10 Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bombay) and 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 Co…

Baljeet Yadav, Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 120/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH-A, JAIPUR MkWa- ,e- ,y- ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ,oa MkWa- ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. M.L. MEENA, AM & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 120/JP/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18. cuke Shri Baljeet Yadav, The PCIT, Jaipur-1, 27, Gyan Vihar, Ajmer Road, Vs. Jaipur. Nirman Nagar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AAOPY 4448 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Avdhesh Kumar (CIT) lquokbZ dh…

Apc Books, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-51(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 138/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Girewal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed, CIT- DR

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

…that the section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous ". 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. We further find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 15. Vikas Polymer reported in 341 ITR 537 has held as under: “63. We are thus of the…

Shri Narendra Goel, Muzaffarnagar vs. Pr.CIT, Dehradun

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 470/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 143(3)Section 263

…fficer and virtually filed before the Assessing Authority, who had 10 Narendra Goel Vs. Pr CIT verified and accepted the same. The assessee has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 and the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rashid Exports 66 Taxmann.com 38. We find that in the present case the Pr.CIT has decided the issue regarding the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue by observing as under: “2. On examination of the case records, it was noted tha…

Cygnus Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-11(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 361/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 26Section 263

…Cygnus Vanijya Private Limited inquiry and the same is factually incorrect. Reliance as placed on the following decisions:- (i) CIT Vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (S.C.); (ii) CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.); (iii) CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Del); (iv) CIT Vs. Vikas Polymers, 236 CTR 476/194 Taxman 57; (v) Hari Iron Trading Co. Vs. CIT, 263 ITR 437 (P&H); (vi) Malabar Industrial Co, Ltd. Vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (S.C.); (vii) CIT Vs, Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. 331 ITR 192(Del.); (viii) CIT Vs. International Travel House Ltd., 194 Taxman 324; (ix) CIT Vs. DLF Power Ltd.,…

Spml Infra Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 510/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

…of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi, [2016] 71 taxmann.com 272 (Bombay). Page 9 of 17 I.T.A. No.: 510/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 SPML Infra Limited. 8.5. 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…

Karnika Fuels & Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 439/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Karnika Fuels & Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 2, Kolkata Commodities Pvt. Ltd. C/O Rsvpc Aaykar Bhawan & Company, 41 A, A.J.C Bose Vs. P-7 Chowringhee Sq., Kolkata-700 Road, Suite No. 613, 6Th Fl., 069. Kolkata-700 017. Pan: Aacck8368C (Appellant/Department) (Respondent/Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kr. Jain, FCA (AR)For Respondent: Shri Manish Kanojia, Addl.CIT(DR)

Section 263

…he judgment of Hon'ble Delhi Here, in support of our finding, we would like to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi 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 in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma [2011] 335 ITR 83 (Del) wherein it in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma [2011] 335 ITR 83 (Del) wherein it has been held dismissing the appeal has been held dismissing the appeal “that the present case would not be one of, “lack “that the present case would not be one of, “lack of inqui…

Sach Electro Mech Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. CIT-2, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 392/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 145ASection 14ASection 254(1)Section 263Section 40A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Hearing in Virtual Court) Sach Electro Mech Private Limited Pr. Commissioner of Income C/2, Maheshwari Apartment, Tax-2, Vs. Nanpura, Timaliawad, Room No. 227, 2nd Floor, Surat. Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, PAN : AAICS 8963 M Surat-395001 APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by Shri H. P. Meena, CIT-DR Date of hearing 21/01/2022 Date of pronouncement 06/04/2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Thi…

Ganga Acrowools Limited, Ludhiana vs. Pr, CIT-1, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 196/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.196/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ced reliance on the following judicial precedents: (i) Venkatesh Technokraft Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No. 1464/Chd/2018 (ii) Manisha Ajay Shah in ITA No. 3001/MUM/2019 (iii) Pramod Kasharichand Shah in ITA No. 43/SRT/2018 (iv) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma reported in 335 ITR 83 Delhi-HC (v) CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd. reported in 341 ITR 180 Delhi-HC (vi) CIT Vs Late Shri Vijay Kumar Koganti reported in 195 DTR 428 Madras High Court. (vii) M/s DTE Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam). 4.17 Reliance was placed on numerous other judicial precedents copies of which have been enclosed in…

Facit Sales(P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kol-5, Kolkata

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

ITA 406/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

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

…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." 10.6. 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: 12 I.T.A. No.: 406/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Facit Sales Private Limited. "63.…

Gurbakshish Singh Batra, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT - 12, New Delhi

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

ITA 396/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 263Section 50C

…ES INDIA PVT. LTD vs. PCIT (ITA No. 115 OF 2010) (Dt. 02/12/2020) (Karnataka HC); 8 xi. CIT vs. VodafoneEssar South Ltd. (ITA No.119/2012) (Delhi High Court); xii. IT vs. Gabriel India Ltd [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay HC); xiii. CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma [2011] 335 ITR 83 (Delhi HC); xiv. M/s Arun Kumar Garg HUF vs. Pr. CIT (ITA No. 3391/Del/2018) (Delhi Trib.) (Dt. 08/01/2019); xv. Narayan Tatu Rane vs. ITO [2016] 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mumbai) [06- 05-2016]; xvi. JRD Tata Trust vs. DCIT [2021] 85 ITR (T) 431 (Mumbai-Trib.) [28.12.2020]; xvii. Bhandari Hospital and Research Center vs. PCIT [2020] 116 taxmann.com 258…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…ire in to the claim of assessee in respect of section 35(2AB) 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 19. AY 2016-17 Britannia Industries Ltd. found that complete details were filed before the Assessing Officer and that he applied his mind to the relevant material and fact, alt…

Tarun Jain, Bathinda vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Ludhiana

ITA 144/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

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

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…hnokraft Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No. 1464/Chd/2018 (ii) Manisha Ajay Shah in ITA No. 3001/MUM/2019 (iii) Pramod Kasharichand Shah in ITA No. 43/SRT/2018 ITA Nos. 140 to 143-Chd-2021 Sh. Sanjay Jain and Others, Ludhiana 22 (iv) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma reported in 335 ITR 83 Delhi-HC (v) CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd. reported in 341 ITR 180 Delhi-HC (vi) CIT Vs Late Shri Vijay Kumar Koganti reported in 195 DTR 428 Madras High Court. (vii) M/s DTE Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam). 6.1 Reliance was placed on numerous other judicial precedents copies of which have been enclosed in…

M/S Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.., Bathinda vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 143/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.143/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Royal Lifestyle Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit, बनाम 18-A, 2Nd Floor, (Central) North Avenue Road, Ludhiana West Punjab Bagh, New Delhi

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

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…aced reliance on the following judicial precedents: (i) Venkatesh Technokraft Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No. 1464/Chd/2018 (ii) Manisha Ajay Shah in ITA No. 3001/MUM/2019 (iii) Pramod Kasharichand Shah in ITA No. 43/SRT/2018 (iv) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma reported in 335 ITR 83 Delhi-HC (v) CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd. reported in 341 ITR 180 Delhi-HC (vi) CIT Vs Late Shri Vijay Kumar Koganti reported in 195 DTR 428 Madras High Court. (vii) M/s DTE Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. CIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam). 3.1.9 Reliance was placed on numerous other judicial precedents copies of which have been enclosed i…