CIT v. Arvind Jewellers

259 ITR 502High Court2003#511 most cited

What is CIT v. Arvind Jewellers authority for?

An order cannot be revised under Section 263 merely because the Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's view or a different view is possible, provided the Assessing Officer has adopted one of the courses permissible in law.

186

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,416 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Arvind Jewellers · 259 ITR 502 · Section 263 · revision of assessment · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · two possible views · Commissioner's power under 263 · Assessing Officer's view · Malabar Industrial · mere disagreement · inadequate enquiry section 263

Also reported as

124 Taxmann 615

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 144BSection 143(2)Section 10(37)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 145a(b)section 45(5)malabar industrialsection 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)inadequate enquirylack of enquiryprejudicial to interest of revenuesection 263(1)section 10(37)revision u/s 263enhanced compensation

Judgments citing CIT v. Arvind Jewellers

Naresh Kumar Bhargava, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 221/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan SoganiFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Dhaka, CIT
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) 7.3.iii CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 7.3.iv CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) 7.3.v Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 7.3.vi CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7.3.vii CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 7.3.viii CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 7.3.ix CIT v Amalgamations Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 963 (Mad) 7.3.x CIT v Macneill Magore Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 945 (Cal) 7.4. Where the NFAC has exercised the quasi-judicial power vested in it in accordance with law and arrived at a…

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

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

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

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

…en brought by the A.O. to show any nexus between the assessee and the entry operator. The assessee has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. and decision of Gujarat High Court in case of CIT Vs Arvind Jeweller 259 ITR 502. 6.2 On examination of records, it is found that the A.O. issued show cause on 22.03.2022 wherein the detailed modus operandi has been mentioned by the A.O. based on the investigation conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Department wherein the entry operator Praveen Agarwal has confirmed that M/s Blue Print Securities Ltd. was controlled by…

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

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

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

…Year: 2017-18 Page 6 of 7 “Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT – 243 ITR 83 (SC) Kwality Steel Suppliers vs. CIT – 395 ITR 1 (SC) Mehsana Dist. Co-op. Milk Producers Union – 263 ITR 645 (Guj) CIT vs. D. P. Karia – 266 ITR 113 (Guj) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers – 259 ITR 502 (Guj) Sir Dorabji Tata Trust vs. DCII(E) – (2021) 188 ITD 38 (Mum) Torrent Pharmaceuticals vs. DCIT – (2021) 173 ITD 130 (Ahd.)” 5.2 The Ld. AR further submitted that inadequacy of inquiry by the Assessing Officer also cannot be ground for proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:- “CIT vs. Sunbea…

M/S.Hdb Financial Services Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 177/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80J

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2017-18 HDB Financial Services The Pr.CIT-1, Ltd., Ahmedabad 2nd Floor, Radhika, Vs Law Garden Road, (Respondent) Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 PAN: AABCH8761M (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.R. & Shri Biren Shah, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 06-12-2023 Date of pronouncement : 24-01-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Asses…

Aarti Sponge and Power Ltd., Raipur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur - 1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 78/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-DR
Section 14ASection 263

…income. Once the issue was looked into by AO, jurisdiction u/'s 263 could not have been invoked. Reliance on: - CIT vs Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.), PN 104 to 111 of PB, relevant finding on PN 110, para no. 15. - CIT vs Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj.). PN 112 to 116 of PB, relevant finding at PN 1 15, para no. 7. - Colour Publications P. Ltd. vs Pr. CIT (2018) 196 TT.T 257 (Bom.), PN 117 to 127 of PB, relevant finding at PN 127, para no. 17. Revision order passed it's 263 is without jurisdiction, without application of mind and there is no error in the order of the AO nor any prejudice…

Girnar Software Private Limited, 6Th Floor, Jaipur Textile Market, B-2, Near Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur vs. PCIT – 2, Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 330/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri PC Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

…of Revenue and the said principle has been held in the following decisions as well: • CIT vs. Max India Limited: 295 ITR 282 (SC) • CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd: 203 ITR 108 (Bom) • CIT vs. Smt. Meenalben S. Parikh: 215 ITR 81 (Guj.) • CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers: 259 ITR 502 (Guj) • CIT vs. Mehsana Dist. Co-op. Milk Producers Union Ltd.: 263 ITR 645 (Guj.) In the instant case, the assessment proceedings were initiated for complete scrutiny and one of the reason was ‘investment’. Also, a specific query on ‘investment’ was raised by the AO under the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act dated 11 December 2020.…

Career Point Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…1 (MP) 2. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) 3. CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 4. CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) . 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7. CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 1.17 From the facts on record (PB 22-27), it is crystal that the order was passed by AO after full enquiries and therefore, the case is not falling within clause (a) and (b) of Explanation 2 to Section 263. In view of the above factual…

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

…Coal Ash Co., 171 ITR 141 (MP); 3. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v. ACIT, 65 ITD 1 (Cal); 4. CIT v. Mehrotra Brothers, 270 ITR 157 (MP); 5. CIT v. Parameshwar Bohra, 267 ITR 698 (Raj.); 6. Paul Mathews and Sons v. CIT, 263 ITR 101 (Ker.); 7. CIT v. Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502 (Guj); 8. CIT v. Hastings Properties, 253 ITR 124 (Cal); 9. CIT v. Goal (J.P.) (HUF), 247 ITR 555 (Col); 10. CIT v. Amalgamations Ltd., 238 ITR 963 (Mad); 11. ClT v. Macneill Magore Ltd., 232 ITR 945 (Col.) (b) Simply because the Commissioner of Income Tax felt that the assessment order is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue by itself would n…

Pratap Technocrats Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 225/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

…Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) 4.8.iii CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 4.8.iv CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) 4.8.v Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 4.8.vi CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 4.8.vii CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 4.8.viii CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 4.8.ix CIT v Amalgamations Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 963 (Mad) 4.8.x CIT v MacneillMagore Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 945 (Cal) 4.9 Moreover, assessment order dated 29.03.2021, was passed under E-Assessment Scheme, 2019. Under E-Assessment…

Kgk Homes, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

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

ITA 223/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

…ITR 141 (MP) 2. Ashok Kumar Parasramka v ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) 3. CIT v Mehrortra Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) 4. CIT v Parameshwar Bohra (2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7. CIT v Hastings Properties (2002) 253 ITR 124 (Cal) 8. CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 9. CIT v Amalgamations Ltd. (1999) 238 ITR 963 (Mad) 10. CIT v Macneill Magore Ltd. (1998) 232 ITR 945 (Cal) 7. Where the NFAC has exercised the quasi-judicial power vested in it in accordance with law and arrived at a conclusion and such…

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

…ery sold by it, sum of Rs. 1 lakh was received for the sale of permit in respect of 1,200 spindles—There was no error in the view taken by the AO—CIT not justified in invoking jurisdiction under s. 263 on the strength of an audit note” CIT V Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502(2003) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Enquiry by ITO—Finding of fact given by the Tribunal that the assessee had produced relevant material and offered explanation in pursuance of the notices issued under s. 142(1) as well as s. 143(2)—ITO has come to a definite conclusion after considering those material and explanation—Mere fact that…

Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 68/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…revenue asa consequence of an order of A.O. cannot be treated as prejudice to the interest of revenue. For this proposition reliance is being placed on: a) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ARVIND JEWELLERS HIGH COURT OF GUJRAT (2002) 177 CTR (Guj) 546 : (2003) 259 ITR 502 ( Guj) (2002) 124 TAXMAN 615. (Page 146-150 of case laws index) b) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. HIGH COURT OF DELHI (2009) 227 CTR (Del) 133 : (2011) 332 ITR 167 : (2010) 189 TAXMAN 436 : (2009) 31 DTR 1 (Page 151-154 of case laws index) c) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DESIGN & AUTOMATION ENGINEERS ( BOMBAY) (P) LTD. HIGH CO…

Shri Sukhjit Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 67/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…revenue asa consequence of an order of A.O. cannot be treated as prejudice to the interest of revenue. For this proposition reliance is being placed on: a) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ARVIND JEWELLERS HIGH COURT OF GUJRAT (2002) 177 CTR (Guj) 546 : (2003) 259 ITR 502 ( Guj) (2002) 124 TAXMAN 615. (Page 146-150 of case laws index) b) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. HIGH COURT OF DELHI (2009) 227 CTR (Del) 133 : (2011) 332 ITR 167 : (2010) 189 TAXMAN 436 : (2009) 31 DTR 1 (Page 151-154 of case laws index) c) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DESIGN & AUTOMATION ENGINEERS ( BOMBAY) (P) LTD. HIGH CO…

Smt Harneet Kaur Juneja, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 66/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…revenue asa consequence of an order of A.O. cannot be treated as prejudice to the interest of revenue. For this proposition reliance is being placed on: a) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ARVIND JEWELLERS HIGH COURT OF GUJRAT (2002) 177 CTR (Guj) 546 : (2003) 259 ITR 502 ( Guj) (2002) 124 TAXMAN 615. (Page 146-150 of case laws index) b) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. HIGH COURT OF DELHI (2009) 227 CTR (Del) 133 : (2011) 332 ITR 167 : (2010) 189 TAXMAN 436 : (2009) 31 DTR 1 (Page 151-154 of case laws index) c) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DESIGN & AUTOMATION ENGINEERS ( BOMBAY) (P) LTD. HIGH CO…

M/S Shriram Properties Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT-Central1, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 431/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Ms. Lalitha. RFor Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…roneous but also prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It held that where two views are possible order cannot be termed as erroneous. The powers under section 263 cannot be exercised merely because a different view is possible - SC dismissed the SLP against 259 ITR 502 CIT Vs. Arvind Jewellery (266 ITR 101) St. :-54-: ITA. No: 431/Chny/2022 • In the case of CIT vs. Bharat Aluminum Co. Ltd. (303 ITR 256), the Hon'ble High 'Court of Delhi has held that for revision under section 263, the Commissioner of Income-tax has to be satisfied of two conditions viz. (i) the order of the AO sought to be revised is erroneo…

M/S Good Earth Fertilizers Company P Ltd [Chemikas Speciality LLP], Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward - 2[2], Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.424/Chny/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 V. M/S.Good Earth Fertilizers- The Income Tax Officer, Co. P. Ltd., Corporate Ward-2(2), (Now Known As Chemikas Chennai. Specialty Llp), No.2, North Crescent Road, T. Nagar,Chennai-600 017. [Pan:Aasfg 6012 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S.Sridhar, AdvFor Respondent: Mr.R.Mohan Reddy, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…roneous but also prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It held that where two views are possible order cannot be termed as erroneous. The powers under section 263 cannot be exercised merely because a different view is possible - SC dismissed the SLP against 259 ITR 502 CIT Vs. Arvind Jewellery (266 ITR 101) St. • In the case of CIT vs. Bharat Aluminum Co. Ltd. (303 ITR 256), the Hon'ble High 'Court of Delhi has held that for revision under section 263, the Commissioner of Income-tax has to be satisfied of two conditions viz. (i) the order of the AO sought to be revised is erroneous and (ii) It is prejudicial to…

Subhash Chand Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1063/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…m Bishnoi: 152 Taxman 242 (Raj.)  CIT vs. International Travel House: 344 ITR 554 (Del.)  CIT vs. Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.)  Fab India Overseas vs. CIT: 244 CTR 380 (Del.)  CIT vs. Vodafone Essar : 212 Taxman 184 (Del.)  CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj.)  CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 171 ITR 141 (MP)  CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP)  CIT vs. Associated Food Products (P) Ltd. 280 ITR 377 (MP)  CIT vs. Girdhari Lai: 258 ITR 331 (Raj.)  CIT vs. Raman Singh: 73 DTR 297 (MP.)  CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Bom.)  CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd.: 262 CTR 60…

Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1061/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…m Bishnoi: 152 Taxman 242 (Raj.)  CIT vs. International Travel House: 344 ITR 554 (Del.)  CIT vs. Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.)  Fab India Overseas vs. CIT: 244 CTR 380 (Del.)  CIT vs. Vodafone Essar : 212 Taxman 184 (Del.)  CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj.)  CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 171 ITR 141 (MP)  CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP)  CIT vs. Associated Food Products (P) Ltd. 280 ITR 377 (MP)  CIT vs. Girdhari Lai: 258 ITR 331 (Raj.)  CIT vs. Raman Singh: 73 DTR 297 (MP.)  CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Bom.)  CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd.: 262 CTR 60…

Satish Kumar Dhingra, Haryana vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1060/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…m Bishnoi: 152 Taxman 242 (Raj.)  CIT vs. International Travel House: 344 ITR 554 (Del.)  CIT vs. Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.)  Fab India Overseas vs. CIT: 244 CTR 380 (Del.)  CIT vs. Vodafone Essar : 212 Taxman 184 (Del.)  CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj.)  CIT vs. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. 171 ITR 141 (MP)  CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP)  CIT vs. Associated Food Products (P) Ltd. 280 ITR 377 (MP)  CIT vs. Girdhari Lai: 258 ITR 331 (Raj.)  CIT vs. Raman Singh: 73 DTR 297 (MP.)  CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Bom.)  CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd.: 262 CTR 60…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 70/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…4) Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. Vs CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) (5) CIT Vs Amit Corporation Tax Appeal No. 2583 of 2010 (Guj) (6) CIT Vs Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. 309 ITR 67 (Guj) (7) CIT Vs R.K. Construction Co. 313 ITR 65 (Guj) (8) CIT Vs Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) (9) CIT Vs Minalben S. Parikh 215 ITR 0081 (Guj) (10) Moil Ltd. Vs CIT 396 ITR 244 (Bom) (11) CIT Vs Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bom) (12) CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (13) ITO Vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del) (14) Gee Vee Enterprises Vs ACIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) (15) CIT Vs Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) (16…