How many judgments cite CIT v. Ashok Logani?

30 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ashok Logani (347 ITR 22), spanning 2013 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ashok Logani come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 143(2), Section 147.

CIT v. Ashok Logani

347 ITR 22High Court2012#3952 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.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 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 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 143(2)Section 147 Section 194A Section 272A(1)(d)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

malabar industrial prejudicial to interest of revenue inadequate enquiry lack of enquiry section 263(1)section 80hh erroneous and prejudicial section 119 section 80ia section 263 section 80i principal commissioner of income-tax

Judgments citing CIT v. Ashok Logani

Manpasand Beverages Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1208/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

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 October, 2015. 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…

Futuristic Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Prcit (Central), Gurugram

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1043/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[A.Y 2009-10] M/S Futuristic Sales [P] Ltd Vs. The Pr. C.I.T Flat No. 97, Sfs, First Floor Central Ashok Vihar, Phase – Iv Gurgaon New Delhi Pan No: Aaacf 6597 N [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 148Section 263

…hand, the Assessing Officer had not only made sufficient enquiries, but after satisfying himself, assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act. 18. 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 order…

Arun Kumar Garg HUF, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 13, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3391/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Arun Kumar Garg Huf, Vs Pr. Cit, G-20/24, Sector-7, Delhi-13, Rohini, New Delhi. New Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Department By: Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Assessee By: Smt. Aparna Karan, C.I.T. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.01.2019

For Appellant: Smt. Aparna Karan, C.I.T. DRFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Gupta, CA

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Arun Kumar Garg HUF, vs Pr. CIT, G-20/24, Sector-7, Delhi-13, Rohini, New Delhi. New Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Department by: Shri Suresh Gupta, CA Assessee by: Smt. Aparna Karan, C.I.T. DR Date of hearing: 10.10.2018 Date of pronouncement: 08.01.2019 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This is assessee’s appeal preferred against the order dated 12.03.2018 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter c…

Bajinath Melaram, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 18, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1795/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm / I.T.A. No.1795/M/16 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Baijnath Melaram Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income C/O.Mangaldas D. Shah & Co Tax – 18 506, Lotus House, 5Th Floor, 6Th Floor, Earnest House, 33-A, New Marine Lines Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan/Gir No. : Aaafb2675E (/Appellant) .. Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dhirendra M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri N. P. Singh & B.S.Bist

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 43BSection 44A

…person, ii will certainly be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In the present case, the plain reading of the order of the AO indicate that there has been no application of mind by the Assessing Officer. 5. In the case of CIT vs Ashok Logani (2012) 347 ITR 22, while reversing the order of the ITAT, Delhi High Court vide order dated 11.5.2011, has upheld the order of CIT and held that CIT was justified in exercising his powers u/s 263 and giving another chance to assessee to explain his case. Tribunal was not justified in undertaking the exercise by itself about the explanation tendered by assessee. 6.…

Surendra L. Hiranandani, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 1, Mumbai

In the result all the appeals for A

ITA 3226/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri N. K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: ShriManjunatha Swamy

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 24Section 263

…icial to interest of revenue: i. CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [2017 TaxPub (DT) 4015 (Bom- HC) / 85 taxmann.com 10] ii. Bassera Realtors (P.) Ltd. v CIT [163 TTJ 736 (Chandigarh)] iii. SubhlakshmiVanijya P. Ltd. v CIT (155 ITD 171) iv. CIT v Ashok Logani [347 ITR 22 (Del)] v. Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. v Pr.CIT [77 Taxmann.com 285 (SC)] vi. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v DCIT [148 ITD 26 (Ahd). 33. In reply to DR’s argument, learned AR submitted that in case of CIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. the order passed by the CIT u/s. 263 of the Act was upheld for the reason that the assessing officer had failed to ca…

Metakaps Engineering & Mahendra Construction Co . (Jv), Mumbai vs. CIT 18, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2895/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2895/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Metacaps Engineering & The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-18 Mahendra Construction Co.(J.V) बिधम/ Mumbai B-2, Kamdar Park, Vs. Ghokhale Road Dadar (West), Mumbai-400 028 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaaam8326J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent :

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ntions raised and the judicial pronouncements which had been relied upon by the ld. D.R. before us. The ld. D.R had during the course of hearing of the appeal relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Ashok logani (2012) 347 ITR 22 (Del). We find that the facts involved in the case before the Hon‟ble High Court revolved around the aspect that though the assessee had surrendered certain amount during the course of survey proceedings conducted on him, however, the same was not offered as income by the assessee in his „return of income‟. That it was in the backdrop of the afore…

Bhagirath Chandulal Arya, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 18, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 931/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263

…essment proceedings: (i) CIT vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (2012) 342 ITR 0074 (ii) P.V. Sreenijin vs. CIT (Central) 2014) 106 DTR 087 (iii) CIT vs. Parasmal Jain (2012) 249 CTR 0534 (iv) CIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain (2015) 370 ITR 140 (v) CIT vs. Ashok Logani (2012) 347 ITR 22 (vi) Tata B.P. Solar India Ltd vs. Addl. CIT (2011) 139 TTJ 0289” 6. Eventually, CIT is of the opinion that these transactions constitute “an adventure in the nature of trade”. He relied on various decisions to substantiate that when there is no proper enquiries by the AO in the regular assessment, CIT can assume jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. A…

CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd

The appeal is disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITA/1691/2010HC Delhi10 Sept 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80H

…was placed upon Gee Vee Enterprises vs. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del.); Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC); CIT vs. G.M. Mittal Stainless Steel (P.) Ltd. (2003) 263 ITR 255 (SC) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ashok Logani (2012) 347 ITR 22 (Del.) and that two decisions of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del.) and ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.), in fact, support the case of the Revenue. Our attention was also drawn to the decisions in CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 446 (Del) and CIT vs. Nagesh Knitwears…

CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd

The appeal is disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITA - 1691 / 2010HC Delhi10 Sept 2013

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80H

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi V vs. New Delhi Television Ltd

The appeal is disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITA - 1404 / 2009HC Delhi10 Sept 2013

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80H