What is CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma authority for?

The Commissioner cannot invoke Section 263 for an assessment merely because of an inadequate inquiry by the Assessing Officer, provided there was some inquiry or the record demonstrates application of mind, as this constitutes a mere difference of opinion.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma?

264 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma (335 ITR 83), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 147, Section 143(2), Section 148.

CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma (335 ITR 83)

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

ITA 142/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…

Shri Sanjay Jain, Bathinda vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Ludhiana

ITA 140/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 Fortune Metaliks Limited, Ludhiana vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Ludhiana

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Dahiya, CIT-DR Khanna

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

…pon the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Indo German Fabs ITA No. 248 of 2012 dated 24.12.2014 (Copy filed at pages 39 to 40 of the Paper Book) and de cision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Copy filed at pages 46 to 48) for the proposition that where the issues have been looked into by the AO and application of mind by the AO is evident. The case cannot be visited by an order u/s 263 on the grounds of lack of enquiry or inadequate ITA 82 /CHD/2021 A.Y. 2016-17 Page 14 of 35 enquiry. Similar view, it was submitted, has been held b…

Sh. Surinder Pal Singh, Ludhiana vs. Pr.CIT-1, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SANJAY GARG, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 57/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Surinder Pal Singh The Pr. CIT-1 बनाम S/o Sh. Ajaib Singh, VPO Tajpur, Ludhiana Tehsil Raikot, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CULPS3097L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT सुनवाई क"…

Shergil Harjit, Ahmednagar vs. Pr Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 170/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.170/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shergil Harjit, 6, Penton Road, Opp. Moti Buag, Officer’S Enclave, Ahmednagar Camp, Ahmednagar- 414002. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Evhps1971N बनाम / V/S. Pr. Cit-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Prasad Bhandari Revenue By : Shri Subhakant Sahu सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2022 आदेश / Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Pune Dated 17.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal On Record :- “1. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, Respected Pcit – Pune -1 Erred Passing The Impugned Revision Order Under Section 263 As The Original Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Was Passed After Full Satisfaction Of The Ld. Assessing Officer. Hence, The Impugned Order Under Section 263 May Please Be Squashed. 2. On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, Respected Pcit, Pune -1 Erred Passing The Impugned Revision Order Under Section 263 Ex- Parte Inspite Of Duly Filed Submissions By The Assessee Before Time. Thus, The Order Passed Without Considering The Submissions Of The Assessee May Please Be Treated As Bad In Law & Hence, The Impugned Order Under Section 263 May Please Be Squashed. 3. The Appellate Craves The Permission To Add, Amend, Modify, Alter, Revise, Substitute, Delete Any Or All Grounds Of The Appeal, If Deemed Necessary At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Subhakant Sahu

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 44ASection 68Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "यायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.170/PUN/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shergil Harjit, 6, Penton Road, Opp. Moti Buag, Officer’s Enclave, Ahmednagar Camp, Ahmednagar- 414002. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant PAN : EVHPS1971N बनाम / V/s. Pr. CIT-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee by : Shri Prasad Bhandari Revenue by : Shri Subhakant Sahu सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date of Hearing : 18.01.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 2…

Ashutosh Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271BSection 44ASection 54E

…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. 6.3 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…

Alps Liesure Holiday Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 1406/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Us. We Have Noted That Despite

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Atri, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice President And Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2011-12 Alps Leisure Holidays The DCIT, Pvt. Ltd. Vadodara Central Circle-1(1)(1), PAN: AAFCA1549Q Vs Vadodara (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Ajay Atri, CIT-D.R. Assessee by: None Date of hearing : 01-12-2021 Date of pronouncement : 14-12-2021 आदेश/ORDER PER : ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Principal Commissione…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 37/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…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. 21 ITA 35 to 37/JP/2021_ Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs Pr.CIT 7.3 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…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palasana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 36/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…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. 21 ITA 35 to 37/JP/2021_ Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs Pr.CIT 7.3 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…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palsana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 35/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…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. 21 ITA 35 to 37/JP/2021_ Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vs Pr.CIT 7.3 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…

Andritz Hydro P Ltd, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-1, Bhopal

ITA 199/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing

Section 115JSection 253Section 263

…rted by the ratio laid down in the the following judicial pronouncements: a. Jurisdictional bench of ITAT in the case of Vidisha Tractors vs ACIT (53 TTJ 432) (ITAT Indore). b. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its judgment in the case of CIT vs Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Delhi HC) c. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its judgment in the case of CIT vs Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd. 341 ITR 180 (Delhi HC) 17. Further, we find that at the time of merger i.e. as on 31 December 2008, the amount of provision standing in the balance sheet of Prithla unit was Rs.5,10,50,999. This amount has arrived as follows:…

Sangram Keshari Samantaray, Bhubaneswar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bhubaneswar

ITA 12/CTK/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida/C.Parida, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…remanded the proceedings, nothing stated in this order would affect either side in considerations of such claim. 7. No question of law arises. Tax Appeals are dismissed." 17. 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 Shri Kailash Khandelwal 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 Polyme…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 94/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.92, 93 & 94/SRT/2021 A.Y: 2014-15 to 2016-17 (Hearing in Virtual Court) M/s.Amrut Sarovar, The Principal Commissioner Block No. 514-515, of Income Tax – Central, Vs. Opposite Girnar Hotel, Surat. At & PO Kather, Taluka-Kamrej, Surat. PAN: ABGFA 2065 C Applicant /assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 21.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 93/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.92, 93 & 94/SRT/2021 A.Y: 2014-15 to 2016-17 (Hearing in Virtual Court) M/s.Amrut Sarovar, The Principal Commissioner Block No. 514-515, of Income Tax – Central, Vs. Opposite Girnar Hotel, Surat. At & PO Kather, Taluka-Kamrej, Surat. PAN: ABGFA 2065 C Applicant /assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 21.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 92/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.92, 93 & 94/SRT/2021 A.Y: 2014-15 to 2016-17 (Hearing in Virtual Court) M/s.Amrut Sarovar, The Principal Commissioner Block No. 514-515, of Income Tax – Central, Vs. Opposite Girnar Hotel, Surat. At & PO Kather, Taluka-Kamrej, Surat. PAN: ABGFA 2065 C Applicant /assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee by Shri Rasesh Shah – CA Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT-DR Date of hearing 15.09.2021 Date of pronouncement 21.10.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act…

Auto Engineers Services Centre, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1104/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Roy Chauduri, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.1104/DEL/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Auto Engineers Services vs. Pr.CIT, Centre, New Delhi. Petrol Pump, Opp. Alpana Cinema Mall Road, Model Town, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAHFA8720C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. Roy Chauduri, Adv. Respondent by: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing: 14 07 2021 Date of pronouncement: 11 10 2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned ord…

Aditi Aggarwal, Ambala Cantt vs. Pr.CIT, Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 21/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT

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

…D.G. Housing Project Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del) • City Beautiful Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 554/Chd/2017 (Chd Trib) order dt. 04/10/2018 • PCIT Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. [2017](9) TMI 529 (Del) • CIT Vs. Anil Kumar reported in 335 ITR 83 (Del) • CIT Vs. Atlas Cycle Industries reported in 180 ITR 319 (P&H) • CIT Vs. Sohana Woollen Mills [2008] 296 ITR 238 (P&H) 6.4 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the proceedings for reopening of the assessment under section 148 of the Act were initiated in respect of three co-owners i.e; the assessee, Smt. Monica and Smt. Swati but…

M/S Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1070/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year: 2013-14 M/s. Karnataka State Seeds Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Corporation Ltd., Income Tax, ‘Beeja Bhavan’, Bellary Road, Bengalurlu-4, Hebbal, Bangalore – 560 024. Bengaluru. PAN: AACCK 1985D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri L. Bharath, CA Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 02.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 20.09.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member This appeal by th…

M/S Active Tools (P). Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -II, Jalandhar

ITA 260/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 115Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 154Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69BSection 69CSection 69D

…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: ITA 260/Amr/2019 20 "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, dismiss…

Sh. Gurbachan Singh Brar, Moga vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Moga

ITA 207/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 263(1)

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar Before : Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 204 to 205/Asr/2017 Assessment Year2010-11 V.S. ITO, Ward – 2 Smt Surinder Kaur Brar D/o. Sh. Pal Singh Moga C/o. Brar Motors, Moga Road Baghanpurana, Distt. Moga PAN:ACWPB4197M (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 206/Asr/2017 Assessment Year2010-11 V.S. ITO, Ward – 2 Sh. Santokh Singh Brar Prop. M/s. EssEss Filling Station Moga C/o. Brar Motors, Moga Road Baghanpurana, Distt. Moga PAN:ADBPB2312A (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos. 207/Asr/2017 Assessment Ye…

CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma

What is CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma

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

Shri Sanjay Jain, Bathinda vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Ludhiana

M/S Fortune Metaliks Limited, Ludhiana vs. Pr.CIT(Central), Ludhiana

Sh. Surinder Pal Singh, Ludhiana vs. Pr.CIT-1, Ludhiana

Shergil Harjit, Ahmednagar vs. Pr Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Pune

Ashutosh Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Pr.CIT-2, Jaipur

Alps Liesure Holiday Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palasana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palsana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

Andritz Hydro P Ltd, Bhopal vs. Pr CIT-1, Bhopal

Sangram Keshari Samantaray, Bhubaneswar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bhubaneswar

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

Auto Engineers Services Centre, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

Aditi Aggarwal, Ambala Cantt vs. Pr.CIT, Panchkula

M/S Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Bangalore

M/S Active Tools (P). Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -II, Jalandhar

Sh. Gurbachan Singh Brar, Moga vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Moga