What is CIT v. Ashish Rajpal authority for?

When an assessment has been framed after an inquiry, the Commissioner cannot revise the order under Section 263 merely because the assessment order does not explicitly detail the queries raised and responses received. An order is not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue solely because the inquiry could have been more elaborate, provided the Assessing Officer applied their mind.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Ashish Rajpal?

124 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ashish Rajpal (320 ITR 674), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ashish Rajpal 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. Ashish Rajpal (320 ITR 674)

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-10 vs. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd

ITA/579/2016HC Delhi21 Apr 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143Section 260Section 263Section 90

…ty of provisions of the DTAA. It was also contended that having regard to the law applicable to Section 263, the CIT could not have travelled beyond the show cause notice and the issues covered by it. To say so, the assessee relied on CIT Vs. Ashish Rajpal 320 ITR 674. 9. The ITAT decided the merits of the DTAA claim as follows: "18. With regard to allowing credit for deemed dividend tax which would have been payable in Oman, we have gone through the relevant provisions of the DTAA between the Republic of India and the Sultanate of Oman read with section 90 of the I.T. Act. Clause (4) of Article 25 of…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd

ITA/578/2016HC Delhi21 Apr 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143Section 260Section 263Section 90

…ty of provisions of the DTAA. It was also contended that having regard to the law applicable to Section 263, the CIT could not have travelled beyond the show cause notice and the issues covered by it. To say so, the assessee relied on CIT Vs. Ashish Rajpal 320 ITR 674. 9. The ITAT decided the merits of the DTAA claim as follows: "18. With regard to allowing credit for deemed dividend tax which would have been payable in Oman, we have gone through the relevant provisions of the DTAA between the Republic of India and the Sultanate of Oman read with section 90 of the I.T. Act. Clause (4) of Article 25 of…

Sh. Gaurav Bhatia, Kotdwar vs. CIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 1730/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Miss S. Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Gaurav Bhatia Vs. The Cit Bhatia Bhawan, Sitapur Devi Road Dehradun Kotdwar (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Afypb 4513 J)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…t , the ld. CIT Page 8 of 21 has not raised the issue of cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- so as to show violation of section 40A(3) of the Act. Referring to the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashish Rajpal reported in 320 ITR 674, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that under the provisions of section 263 of the Act, opportunity of hearing must be given to the assessee. Where the notice referred to four issues and the order on revision referred to 9 issues, the principles of natural justice was violated. Accordingly, order of revision w…

Small Wonder Industries, Mumbai vs. CIT 24, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2464/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Small Wonder Industries, Cit-24, 78, Virwani Indl. Estate, Mumbai बनाम/ Western Express Highway, Vs. Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400063 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aalfs6318Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Prakash Jotwani Shri Debasis Chandra Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2017 24/02/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…. So far as, non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer is concerned under the facts narrated in this order, reliance can be placed upon the ratio laid down in following cases:- i. CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) ii. CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (320 ITR 674)(Del.) iii. CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. (294 ITR 310) (Del.) iv. Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT (263 ITR 437) (P&H) v. CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (323 ITR 206) (Bom.) vi. RCI Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 40 DTR Mum (Trb.) 186 vii. Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT(2014) (100 DTR 1)(Mum.)(Trb.) and viii. CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335…

Shri Satish Jain, Indore vs. The CIT-2, Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 342/IND/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 263

…15/A.Y: /10-11 Page 7 of 14 Commissioner that no proper enquiry with respect to the issue was made by the assessing officer, and enable him to assume jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act on the basis of following decisions : CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal [2009] 320 ITR 674 (Delhi) , CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537(Del) /[2010] 194 Taxman 57(Del) and CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. [2013] 212 Taxman 184(Del) /28 taxmann.com 273 (Del) submitted that once inquiry was made; a mere non discussion thereof in the assessment order cannot lead to assumption that the Assessing Officer did not apply his mind or th…

People Ineractive (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3717/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 10ASection 147Section 263

…ced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment, the Assessing Officer applied his mind to the material and accepted the view canvassed by the assessee. Identically, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (320 ITR 674) vide order dt.14/5/2009, decided in favour of the assessee. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) held that there must be material before the Commissioner to satisfy himself that two requisite provided u/s. 263 are present, otherwise power cannot be exercised at the whims and caprice of the Commissione…

People Ineractive (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3558/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 10ASection 147Section 263

…ced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer at the time of original assessment, the Assessing Officer applied his mind to the material and accepted the view canvassed by the assessee. Identically, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (320 ITR 674) vide order dt.14/5/2009, decided in favour of the assessee. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) held that there must be material before the Commissioner to satisfy himself that two requisite provided u/s. 263 are present, otherwise power cannot be exercised at the whims and caprice of the Commissione…

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order dated 31

ITA 2193/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chander, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 263

…Garments vs. JCIT 95 ITD 363 16. Marico Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT 27 SOT 73 17. DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation ; 357 ITR 388 18. CIT vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. 341 ITR 166 19. CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Ltd. 341 ITR 180 20. CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal 320 ITR 674 21. CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals (P) Ltd. 317 ITR 249 (D) Ld. CIT (DR) appearing for Revenue strongly supported the impugned order u/s 263 of the Act and relied on it heavily. He also drew our attention to order of apex court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC) to support the impugned order u/s 263 of I.T. Act. (E) We h…

Chandan M Parmar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4601/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Subhlachan Ram & Ms

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 2(14)Section 253Section 263Section 43(5)Section 68

…Raj.) the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court held: “That the error envisage by section 263 is not one which depend on possibility of guess work, but should be actually an error either on fact or on law.” The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Ashish Rajpal [2009] 320 ITR 674 (Delhi) (HC), and further CIT v. Vikash Polymers [2010] 194 Taxman 57 (Delhi) (HC) held : “Where the assessing officer during the scrutiny assessment proceeding raised a query which was answered by the assessee to the satisfaction of the assessing officer but the same was not reflected in the assessment order by him, a conclusion cannot be drawn…

Prathama Bank, Moradabad vs. CIT, Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2316/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 2316/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Prathma Bank, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ram Ganga Vihar, Phase-Ii, Moradabad-244001 Moradabad-244001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaajp0988Q Assessee By : Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Paramita Tripathy, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.02.2013 Of Ld. Cit, Moradabad.

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…. (2010) 332 ITR 167 (Del) " CIT Vs New Delhi Television Ltd. (2013) TIOL 776 HC Del " CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) " CIT Vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) " CIT Vs International Travel House Ltd. 344 ITR 554 (Del) " CIT Vs Ashish Rajpal 320 ITR 674 (Del) " A2Z Maintenance & Engineering Services Ltd. Vs CIT (2015) TIOL-1894-ITAT-DEL " Sardhana Papers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (2015) TIOL-2016 (ITAT Del) " ITO Vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del) " Director of Income Tax Vs Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del) 13 Prathama Bank 10. It was further submitted that the ld. CIT cannot remand the mat…

M/S Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2487/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri J.S. Reddy

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. Vartik RFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Saroha, CIT(DR)

Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…ication of mind, the view of the learned Pr. CIT cannot substitute his view by assuming jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. 14.3 In this respect we would like to place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal, 320 ITR 674, the Headnote of which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “The parameters and principles laid down by the courts which govern the exercise of power by the Commissioner under the provisions of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are: (i) The power is supervisory in nature, whereby the Commissioner can call 56 for and examine the ass…

Krunal Pravinchandra Gala, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1 Thane, Pune

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1312/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 263Section 80I

…Pravinchandra Gala that he did not express this in the assessment order, cannot be a ground to conclude that income has escaped assessment, further supports the case of the assessee. Identically, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (320 ITR 674) vide order dt.14/5/2009, decided in favour of the assessee . The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) held that there must be material before the Commissioner to satisfy himself that two requisite provided u/s. 263 are present, otherwise power cannot be exercised at the whims and caprice of the Commiss…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6786/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)

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

…be complete nexus between the reasons or grounds indicated in the Show Cause Notice issued under Section 263 and the final order passed under Section 263. Kind reference is invited to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Ashish Rajpal 320 ITR 674. For ready reference the relevant part of the head note of this case is reproduced below: "Held, dismissing the appeal, that there was nothing on record which would show that the Assessee was given an opportunity to respond to the discrepancies which formed part of the order in revision but were not part of notice dated 11.5.2016. Even though the…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6785/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)

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

…be complete nexus between the reasons or grounds indicated in the Show Cause Notice issued under Section 263 and the final order passed under Section 263. Kind reference is invited to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Ashish Rajpal 320 ITR 674. For ready reference the relevant part of the head note of this case is reproduced below: "Held, dismissing the appeal, that there was nothing on record which would show that the Assessee was given an opportunity to respond to the discrepancies which formed part of the order in revision but were not part of notice dated 11.5.2016. Even though the…

Sh. Harpreet Singh Puniani, Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 4228/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishi Assessment Year: 2010-11 Harpreet Singh Puniani, Vs. Principal Cit, Prop. M/S. Broadband Technologies, Xvi, 84-B, Old Lajpat Rai Market, New Delhi. Delhi. (Pan: Aaipp2364E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Manoj Kumar Mittal, Adv. Department By: Shri A.K. Saroha, Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 :03.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Impugned The Revisional Order Passed Under Sec. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On Several Grounds Involving The Sole Issue Regarding The Validity Of The Order Passed Under Sec. 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Also Moved Application For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Late By 15 Days. It Has Been Explained That The Assessee Had Engaged Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Learned Ca To Represent Its Case Before The Learned Cit Against The Show-Cause Notice Issued Under Sec. 263

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar Mittal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT( DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 154Section 263

…ons: i) Electric Supply Co. Ltd., vs. CIT - 89 ITR 266; ii) CIT vs. Birla Gwalior Pvt. Ltd. - 57 ITR 521; iii) CIT vs. Excel Ind. Ltd. (SC) - 358 ITR 295; 7 iv ) CIT vs. Contimeters Electricals P. Ltd. - 317 ITR 249 (Del.); v ) CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (2010) - 320 ITR 674 (Del.); & vi) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. - 332 ITR 167 (Del.) 8. Learned CIT(DR) on the other hand tried to justify the revisional order in question. He submitted that the Assessing Officer had not made any inquiry on the issues raised in the revisional order, hence, the assessment order was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Art Beauty Exports, New Delhi

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 924/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR

Section 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 143(3)Section 263

…2531, 5702, 5703 & 924/D/2014 AYs: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 iv. Grasim Industries Ltd. vs CIT 321 ITR 92 HC (Bombay) v. CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 227 CTR 133 HC (Delhi) vi. CIT vs DLF Power Ltd. 229 CTR 27 HC (Delhi) vii. CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal [2010] 320 ITR 674 (Delhi) viii. CIT vs Vodafone Essar South Ltd. [2013] 212 Taxman 184 elhi) ix. CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd [2014] 360 ITR) 44 (Delhi vi. It is submitted that since the view taken by the assessing officer is in accordance with law as such, same cannot be held to be erroneous. Without prejudice, it is submitted that the view taken by the lea…

M/S. Arts Beauty Exports, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5703/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR

Section 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 143(3)Section 263

…2531, 5702, 5703 & 924/D/2014 AYs: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 iv. Grasim Industries Ltd. vs CIT 321 ITR 92 HC (Bombay) v. CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 227 CTR 133 HC (Delhi) vi. CIT vs DLF Power Ltd. 229 CTR 27 HC (Delhi) vii. CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal [2010] 320 ITR 674 (Delhi) viii. CIT vs Vodafone Essar South Ltd. [2013] 212 Taxman 184 elhi) ix. CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd [2014] 360 ITR) 44 (Delhi vi. It is submitted that since the view taken by the assessing officer is in accordance with law as such, same cannot be held to be erroneous. Without prejudice, it is submitted that the view taken by the lea…

M/S. Arts Beauty Exports, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5702/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR

Section 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 143(3)Section 263

…2531, 5702, 5703 & 924/D/2014 AYs: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 iv. Grasim Industries Ltd. vs CIT 321 ITR 92 HC (Bombay) v. CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 227 CTR 133 HC (Delhi) vi. CIT vs DLF Power Ltd. 229 CTR 27 HC (Delhi) vii. CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal [2010] 320 ITR 674 (Delhi) viii. CIT vs Vodafone Essar South Ltd. [2013] 212 Taxman 184 elhi) ix. CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd [2014] 360 ITR) 44 (Delhi vi. It is submitted that since the view taken by the assessing officer is in accordance with law as such, same cannot be held to be erroneous. Without prejudice, it is submitted that the view taken by the lea…

M/S. Art Beauty Export, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2531/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR

Section 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 143(3)Section 263

…2531, 5702, 5703 & 924/D/2014 AYs: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 iv. Grasim Industries Ltd. vs CIT 321 ITR 92 HC (Bombay) v. CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 227 CTR 133 HC (Delhi) vi. CIT vs DLF Power Ltd. 229 CTR 27 HC (Delhi) vii. CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal [2010] 320 ITR 674 (Delhi) viii. CIT vs Vodafone Essar South Ltd. [2013] 212 Taxman 184 elhi) ix. CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd [2014] 360 ITR) 44 (Delhi vi. It is submitted that since the view taken by the assessing officer is in accordance with law as such, same cannot be held to be erroneous. Without prejudice, it is submitted that the view taken by the lea…

B.V. Satyanarayana Rao, Malur vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 976/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George & Shri. Vijaypal Raoi.T.A No.976/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Shri. B. V. Satyanarayana Rao, Patalamma Extension, Malur .. Appellant Pan : Bevps5461M V. Commissioner Of Income-Tax- Iv, Bangalore .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. R. Chandrashekar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sanjay Kumar, Cit -Iii Heard On : 19.11.2015 Pronounced On : 27.11.2015 O R D E R Per Abraham P. George:

For Appellant: Shri. R. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CIT -III

Section 263Section 54(2)Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…ed by the CIT u/s.263 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd [ITA.296 of 2013, dt.03.02.2015] and also that of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ashish Rajpal (320 ITR 674). 06. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that AO had not done the enquiry as required under the law for correlating the deposits in the bank account with the sale of the assets. Further according to him once an assessee purchased one another residential property either within a period of two years from the date of transfer or within a period of one ye…

CIT v. Ashish Rajpal

What is CIT v. Ashish Rajpal authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Ashish Rajpal

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-10 vs. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd

Sh. Gaurav Bhatia, Kotdwar vs. CIT, Dehradun

Small Wonder Industries, Mumbai vs. CIT 24, Mumbai

Shri Satish Jain, Indore vs. The CIT-2, Indore

People Ineractive (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 7, Mumbai

People Ineractive (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 7, Mumbai

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, New Delhi

Chandan M Parmar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(2), Mumbai

Prathama Bank, Moradabad vs. CIT, Moradabad

M/S Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr CIT, New Delhi

Krunal Pravinchandra Gala, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1 Thane, Pune

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Sh. Harpreet Singh Puniani, Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Art Beauty Exports, New Delhi

M/S. Arts Beauty Exports, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

M/S. Arts Beauty Exports, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

M/S. Art Beauty Export, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

B.V. Satyanarayana Rao, Malur vs. CIT, Bangalore