CIT v. Ashok Logani

347 ITR 22High Court2012#4005 most cited

What is CIT v. Ashok Logani authority for?

The Commissioner is justified in invoking revisionary powers under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer failed to properly consider the issues at hand, leaving loose ends in the assessment.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ashok Logani · Section 263 · prejudicial to interest of revenue · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · erroneous and prejudicial · revisionary powers · Assessing Officer failure · loose ends in assessment

Also reported as

11 Taxmann.com 208

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 194ASection 272A(1)(d)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

malabar industrialprejudicial to interest of revenueinadequate enquirylack of enquirysection 263(1)section 80hherroneous and prejudicialsection 119section 80iasection 263section 80iprincipal commissioner of income-tax

Judgments citing CIT v. Ashok Logani

DABUR INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT - 1, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

…ker Tradex Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT – ITA No.2999/Del/2017 for AY 2007-08 order dated 16.04.2018; (xiv) ITAT, Delhi in Surya Financial Services Ltd. vs. PCIT 2018-TIOL-74- ITAT-DEL order dated 08.01.2018; (xv) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Ashok Logani (2011) 347 ITR 22 (Delhi); (xvi) ITAT, Delhi in Pooja Gupta in ITA No.4057/Del/2018 31.01.2019; (xvii) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs. PCIT 88 taxman.com 25 (Delhi) (2017); and (xviii) Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. 149 taxmann.com 115 (SC) (2023). 18 8. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on r…

GAURAV KUMAR ARYA,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT -20, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2000/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Gaurav Kumar Arya, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income 3-P, Pocket-4, Tax, Delhi-20, Kondly Gharoli-Ii, Mayur New Delhi. Vihar, Delhi-1100 96 Pan: Airpa0102C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath & V. RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

…/Del/2017 for A.Y. 2007-08 order dated 16.04.2018; 13. Order of Hon'ble Delhi Bench in the case of Surya Financial Services Ltd. Vs. PCIT [2018-TIOL-74-ITAT-DEL] order dated 8.01.2018; 14. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Ashok Logani [2011] 347 ITR 22 (Delhi); 15. Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Pooja Gupta in ITA No 4057/Del/ 2018 dated 31.01.2019; 16. In the judgment of BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. vs Pr. CIT, Delhi 88 taxmann.com 25 (Delhi) [2017] Hon'ble High Court of Delhi; & 17. In the Judgment in CIT vs Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. 149 taxmann.com 115 (SC) [2023] the Hon'ble Supreme Court.”…

MANJU RAKESH JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2280/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Manju Rakesh Jain, Pcit, Mumbai-20 704-A, Highland Park, Lokhanwala 418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Complex, Andheri West, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400058. Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaepj 9613 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Joshi, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 57

…ified in invoking Manju Rakesh Jain subsequent to assessment order. subsequent to assessment order. 13. CIT Vs Ashok Logani (11 taxmann.com 208, 202 13. CIT Vs Ashok Logani (11 taxmann.com 208, 202 13. CIT Vs Ashok Logani (11 taxmann.com 208, 202 Taxman 201, 347 ITR 22) Taxman 201, 347 ITR 22) Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that when, o Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that when, on facts, it was n facts, it was found that there was no proper consideration by Assessing found that there was no proper consideration by Assessing found that there was no proper consideration by Assessing Officer to issue at hand and he l…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PVT. LTD.,

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

ITA/53/2024HC Karnataka05 Jun 2025

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 260ASection 263Section 40

…on 263. 9. This view is supported by the following judicial decisions: 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. Daniel Merchants P. Ltd. 2017- TIOL-455- SC-IT 3. Rajmandir Estates P Ltd. (2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 4. Ashok Logani (2012) 347 ITR 22 (Delhi) 5. Gee Vee Enterprises (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) 6. Vedanta Ltd. (2021) 279 Taxman 358 (Bom) 7. V. K. Bharathi (2019) 102 taxmann.com 255 (Kar) 8. Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO (2009) 121 ITD 343 (Chennai) (SB) 9. Lokesh M. (2021) 187 ITD 342 (Bang) 10. In view of the above discussion, the assessment order u/s 143(3) is erroneo…

DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2585/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Dlf Home Developers Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Sansad Delhi-1, Marg, New Delhi-110001. New Delhi Pan-Aaccd0037H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Singhvi, Ca & Shri Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 143(3)Section 263

….ltd. vs PCIT in ITA No.2999/Del/2017 for AY 2007-08 order dated 16.04.2018 15. Surya Financial Services Ltd. vs PCIT [2018-TIOL-74-ITAT-DEL] order dated 08.01.2018 16. CIT vs Nagesh Knitwears (P) Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 135 (Delhi) 17. CIT vs Ashok Logani [2011] 347 ITR 22 (Delhi) 18. Pooja Gupta in ITA No.4057/Del/2018 dated 31.01.2019 Ld.CIT DR prayed for the confirmation of the order of Ld.PCIT. 55. In the instant case, the ld. PCIT has given direction to the AO for making further examination and verification on various issues without pointing out any error in the assessment order on any of such issue raised by l…

NIVESH GROUP ,DELHI vs. PR. CIT DELHI-15, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1176/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms Rano Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…e information and the material in hard copy and in form of CD was made available to him. Hence, assessment order is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of revenue 10 Nivesh Group 2. CIT Vs Ashok Logani (11 taxmann.com 208, 202 Taxman 201, 347 ITR 22) Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that whether when, on facts, it was found that there was no proper consideration by Assessing Officer to issue at hand and he left many loose ends, that too in a case where huge cash was found during search most of which was surrendered by giving statement at time of search, though retracted and sought to be explaine…

ASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 697/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43(5)

…. Maithan International 375 IR 123 (Calcuta)  Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Delhi)  CIT Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bombay)  CIT Vs. M.M.Khambhatwala 198 ITR 144 (Guj)  CIT Vs. Ashok Logani (11 taxmann.com 208, 347 ITR 22) (Delhi HC) 11 Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]  PCIT Vs. Shri Braham Dev Gupta ITA 907/2017 and 1162/2017 (Del HC)  CIT Vs. Toyota Motor Corporation (Delhi) (174 Taxman 395) / Toyota Motor Corporation 173 Taxman 458 (SC)  Omni Lens Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Ahmedabad Bench) (ITA No.2818/Ahd/2017) Findings and Analysis : 5. We have heard both the parties and…

MADAAN ASSOCIATES,NEW DELHI vs. PR,CIT DELHI-15, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 974/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…Officer once the information and the material in hard copy and in form of CD was made available to him. Hence, assessment order is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of revenue 2. CIT Vs Ashok Logani (11 taxmann.com 208, 202 Taxman 201, 347 ITR 22) Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that whether when, on facts, it was found that there was no proper consideration by Assessing Officer to 6 Madaan Associates issue at hand and he left many loose ends, that too in a case where huge cash was found during search most of which was surrendered by giving statement at time of search, though retracted and…

SASANUR HOSPITAL,VIJAYPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee as well as the appeal of revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 415/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Mandur, C.A by RevenueFor Respondent: Shri Vilas Shinde, CIT (DR) by
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…basis of materials available on record. He relied on the following judgments. 1. Malabar Industrial Co., Ltd [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. Daniel Merchants P. Ltd. 2017- TIOL-455-SC-IT 3. Rajmandir Estates P Ltd. (2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 4. Ashok Logani (2012) 347 ITR 22 (Delhi) 5. Gee Vee Enterprises (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) 6. Vedanta Ltd. (2021) 279 Taxman 358 (Born) 7. V. K. Bharathi (2019) 102 taxrnann.com 255 (Kar) 8. Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO (2009) 121 lTD 343 (Chennai)(SB) 9. Lokesh M. (2021) 187 lTD 342 (Bang) 4. After discussing in detail in his order, he observed that the order passed by the AO…

SHRI. UMEDMAL SONMAL MUTHA,GADAG vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee as well as the appeal of revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 385/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Preethi Patel, Advocate by RevenueFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR) by
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…263 of the Act. Further, the ld.Pr.CIT also relied on the following judgments. 1. Malabar Industrial Co., Ltd [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. Daniel Merchants P. Ltd. 2017- TIOL-455-SC-IT 3. Rajmandir Estates P Ltd. (2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 4. Ashok Logani (2012) 347 ITR 22 (Delhi) Page 4 of 10 5. Gee Vee Enterprises (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) 6. Vedanta Ltd. (2021) 279 Taxman 358 (Born) 7. V. K. Bharathi (2019) 102 taxrnann.com 255 (Kar) 8. Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO (2009) 121 lTD 343 (Chennai)(SB) 9. Lokesh M. (2021) 187 lTD 342 (Bang) 4. After discussing in detail, the ld.Pr.CIT directed the AO to make fresh…

SERICULTURISTS CUM FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 425/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Sericulturists Cum Farmers Service Co-Operative Society Ltd., The Principal 01Sfcs Building, Commissioner Of Near Bus Stop, Income Tax – 2, Sarjapura Town, Bengaluru. Vs. Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru – 562 125. Pan: Aaaas6468H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Ranjan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Praveen Karanth, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2022 Passed By Ld.Pr.Cit-2, Bangalore U/S. 263 Of The Act Relating To A.Y. 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. Tax Effect Relating To Grounds Of Appeal Each Ground Of Appeal The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bengaluru-2 ("Pr. Cit") Dated 30-Mar-2022, Passed Under I. Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ("The Act") N.A Insofar It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To The Law, Weight Of Evidence, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Ranjan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57Section 68Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…by the following judicial decisions: 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. Daniel Merchants P. Ltd. 2017- TIOL-455-SC-IT 3. Sreelekha Banerjee (196 49 ITR 112 (SC) 4. Rajmandir Estates P Ltd. (2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 5. Ashok Logani (2012) 347 ITR 22 (Delhi) 6. Gee Vee Enterprises (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) 7. Vedanta Ltd. (2021) 279 Taxman 358 (Born) 8. V. K. Bharathi (2019) 102 taxmann.com 255 (Kar) 9. Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO (200 121 ITD 343 (Chennai)(SB) 10. Lokesh M. (2021) 187 ITD 342 (Bang) 20. In view of the above discussion, the aforesaid assessment order is erroneous and prejudi…

DISHANT JAIN,GADAG vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 384/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.V Ravishankar, Advocate by RevenueFor Respondent: Shri Binod Kumar Singh, CIT (DR) by
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…of section 263. 6. This view is supported by the following juridical decisions: 1 Malabar Industrial Co., Ltd [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. Daniel Merchants P. Ltd. 2017- TIOL-455-SC-IT 3. Rajmandir Estates P Ltd. (2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 4 Ashok Logani (2012) 347 ITR 22 (Delhi) 5 Gee Vee Enterprises (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) 6. Vedanta Ltd. (2021) 279 Taxman 358 (Born) 7 V. K. Bharathi (2019) 102 taxmann.com 255 (Kar) 8 Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO (2009) 121 lTD 343 (Chennai)(SB) 9. Lokesh M. (2021) 187 lTD 342 (Bang) 7. In view of the above discussion, the assessment order u/s 143(3) is erroneous and prejudic…

SAMPKHAND GROUP SEVA SAHAKARI SANGH LIMITED,SAMPHKAND vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI, HUBLI

ITA 366/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Sampkhand Group Seva Sahakari Sangh Ltd., The Principal No. 104, Sahakari Commissioner Of Sangh, Kumta Road, Income Tax, Janmane, Hubli. Vs. Samphkand – 581 315. Pan: Aanas3902K Appellant Respondent : Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit Revenue By Dr-1 Date Of Hearing : 11-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 29/03/2022 U/S. 263 Passed By The Ld.Pr.Cit, Hubli Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax Hubli, Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 8o

…ction 80P. 20. This view is also supported by the following judicial decisions: 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. Daniel Merchants P. Ltd. 2017- TIOL-455-SC-IT 3. Rajmandir Estates P Ltd. (2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 4. Ashok Logani (2012) 347 ITR 22 (Delhi) 5. Gee Vee Enterprises (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) 6. Vedanta Ltd. (2021) 279 Taxman 358 (Born) 7. V. K. Bharathi (2019) 102 taxmann.com 255 (Kar) 8. Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO (2009) 121 ITD 343 (Chennai)(SB) 9. Lokesh M. (2021) 187 ITD 342 (Bang) 21. In this case, the assessee has not given any information regarding filing of appeal. No…

GENPACT CONSULTING (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS 'HEADSTRONG CONSULTING PTE. LTD.'),GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) INT. TAX., NEW DELHI

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

ITA 501/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwalla, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 2(47)Section 263Section 45Section 47

…re, in the case in hand, the Assessing Officer had not only made sufficient enquiries, but after satisfying himself, assessment was framed u/s 143(3). 24. The ld. DR also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Logani 347 ITR 22 wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that where the Assessing Officer has left many loose ends, that too in a case where huge cash was found during search, most of which was surrendered by giving statement at the time of search, it was necessary for the Assessing Officer to properly adjudicate upon that issue [surrender] and assessment or…

SMT. MAMTA SHARMA,BARGARH vs. PRINCIPAL CIT (CENTRAL) , VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/CTK/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shrichandra Mohan Garg & Manish Boradassessment Year :2012-13 Smt. Mamta Sharma, Ward Vs. Pr. Cit(Central), Visakhapatnam No.10, Near Govt. Bus Stand, Dist: Baragarh Pan/Gir No.Agvps 4382 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement :10/12/2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 153CSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRICHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year :2012-13 Smt. Mamta Sharma, Ward Vs. Pr. CIT(Central), Visakhapatnam No.10, Near Govt. Bus Stand, Dist: Baragarh PAN/GIR No.agvps 4382 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, AR Revenue by : Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 21/10/ 2021 Date of Pronouncement :10/12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order u/s 263 of the Act of the Pr. CIT(A), Visakhapatnam dated 11.3.2019 for the…

PAWANSUT MEDIA SERVICES PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT - 7, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viia)

…case of Shanker Tradex Pvt. Ltd., vs., PCIT vide ITA.No.2999/Del./ 2017 dated 16.04.2018. 20. Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Surya Financial Services Ltd., vs., PCIT [2018-TIOL-74- ITAT-DEL] Order Dated 08.01.2018. 21. CIT vs., Ashok Logani [2011] 347 ITR 22 (Del.). 22. Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Pooja Gupta in ITA.No.4057/Del./2018 Dated 31.01.2019. 17 ITA.No.534/Del./2021 Pawansut Media Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 23. Shree Manjunathesware Packing Products & Camphor Works vs., CIT [1998] 231 ITR 53 [SC]. 24. Order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of PTC Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd., vs.,…

THE JALGAON PEOPLE'S CO.OP BANK LTD,,JALGAON vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 698/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.698/Pun/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Jalgaon People‟S Co-Op Bank Ltd. 152, Polan Peth Dana Bazar, Jalgaon-425 001 Pan : Aacat1603M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

…f order u/s.263 of the Act we could not therefore supply reasons in respect of the assessment order, on aspects, which are not expressly reflected in the assessment order. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ashok Logani (11 taxmann.com 208), 347 ITR 22 has observed and opined that “once it was found that there was no proper consideration of the issue by the Assessing Officer, the very foundation of the order of the Tribunal was knocked off. Thereafter, the Tribunal has ventured to undertake the exercise by itself satisfying about the explanation tendered by the assessee which it could not do. Wh…

ESSAR CAPITAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 6, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Vajresh Consultants PrCIT 6, Ltd. (Earlier known as Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 PAN: AABCE 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue by : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member: The p…

ASHOK KUMAR SINHA,GHAZIABAD vs. PRCIT, GHAZIABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3615/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 263

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3615/DEL/2019 (A.Y. 2009-10) Ashok Kumar Sinha, Vs. Pr. CIT C-258, Govindpuram, 1st Floor, CGO Complex –I, Ghaziabad Hapur Road, PAN : AWKPS6166R Kamla Nehru Nagar Ghaziabad (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA & Ms. Rinki Sharma, ITP Respondent by Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 30.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement 20.08.2019 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed against the order dated 30.03.20…

MANPASAND BEVERAGES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-2,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1209/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Us Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Processing Fruit Juices. The Assessment In This Case, Under Section 143(3), Was Completed On 28Th March 2016. Subsequently, However, The Assessment Records Came Up For Perusal By The Learned Principal

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…e of Gujarat Vs Essar Oil Limited [2012-TIOL-05-SC-CT] wherein the same principle was reiterated. He also referred to, and extensively reproduced from, judicial precedents in the cases of Goetze India Ltd [(2014) 361 ITR 505(Del)], CIT Vs Ashok Logani [(2012) 347 ITR 22 (Del)] and Rajlakshmi Mills Ltd Vs ITO [(2009) 121 ITD SB 343 (Chennai)]. It was thus concluded that the assessment order in question was passed, inter alia, “without considering the above facts which show that deduction under section 80IB is not allowable”. The assessment order was thus set aside, and the Assessing Officer was asked to decide the…

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2