What is CIT v. Deepak K. Garg authority for?

The Assessing Officer or Tribunal cannot usurp the powers of the primary assessing authority by conducting independent inquiries or deciding issues on merits as if it were a court of first instance, particularly in the context of Section 263.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Deepak K. Garg?

29 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Deepak K. Garg (220 ITR 167), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Deepak K. Garg come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 10(34), Section 10(43), Section 10A, Section 10AA, Section 119, Section 139.

CIT v. Deepak K. Garg (220 ITR 167)

INFOBEANS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,INDORE, M.P. vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INDORE - 1, INDORE, M.P.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed being devoid of

ITA 371/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: S/Sh.SN Agrawal & Ritesh Jain, ARs

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 154Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SH. BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 371/Ind/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Infobeans Technologies Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner of 1st and 2nd Floor, Crystal IT Park, Income Tax, Indore-1, Indore, Indore, (M. P.), 452001 M.P. [PAN: AACCI5864K] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by : S/Sh.SN Agrawal & Ritesh Jain, ARs : Respondent by Sh. Ram Kumar Yadav,CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 30.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by…

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 140/COCH/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt

Section 147

…approved, the entire expenditure claim is to be allowed u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act is, therefore, unwarranted and, rather, an excess of jurisdiction, discountenanced by the higher courts, who have, both in the context of 263, as in CIT v. Mahavar Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP)(where, in it’s words, the Tribunal itself started making inquiries); or CIT vs. Eastern Medikit Page 14 ITANos. 139 & 140/Coch/ 2020 (AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12) CO Nos. 02 & 03/Coch/2020 Asst. CIT vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd. Ltd. [2011] 337 ITR 56 (Del)(where the Tribunal proceeded to decide the issue on merits, converting itself into a court of firs…

ACIT, ERNAKULAM vs. APPOLO TYRES LTD, COCHIN

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals as well as the Assessee’s COs, are allowed

ITA 139/COCH/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Shri Joseph Markose, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit K. Das, CIT-DR and Smt

Section 147

…approved, the entire expenditure claim is to be allowed u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act is, therefore, unwarranted and, rather, an excess of jurisdiction, discountenanced by the higher courts, who have, both in the context of 263, as in CIT v. Mahavar Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP)(where, in it’s words, the Tribunal itself started making inquiries); or CIT vs. Eastern Medikit Page 14 ITANos. 139 & 140/Coch/ 2020 (AYs 2009-10 & 2011-12) CO Nos. 02 & 03/Coch/2020 Asst. CIT vs. Apollo Tyres Ltd. Ltd. [2011] 337 ITR 56 (Del)(where the Tribunal proceeded to decide the issue on merits, converting itself into a court of firs…

SMT. RASHMI PAHARIYA,JABALPUR vs. PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 28/JAB/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri L.L. Sharma, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 50C

…n by the Apex Court, is legion, even as we may, if only for the sake of completeness of this order, make a reference to some decisions by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, viz. CIT vs. Deepak K. Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT v. Mahavar Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); H.H. Maharaja Raja Pawar Dewas v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 518 (MP). 4.2 Section 50C provides for deeming the stamp valuation as the deemed sale consideration for the purpose of computation of capital gains u/s. 48, also providing for a mechanism where the adoption thereof is disputed by the assessee. No inquiry in the matter was made by the AO…

SMT. ANURADHA UPADHYAY,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 22/JAB/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR

Section 263Section 263(2)

…434 (Gau)(FB). We may though refer to some by the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court, explaining the law in different fact settings, as indeed is the case in all the decisions, viz. CIT vs. Deepak K. Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT v. Mahavar Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); H.H. Maharaja Raja Pawar Dewas v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 518 (MP). Rather, the law, as amended w.e.f. 01/6/2015, statutorily deems an order made without inquiry which should have been made as liable for revision on that account. That is treats the order per se erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for that reason, as explain…

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 21/JAB/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR

Section 263Section 263(2)

…434 (Gau)(FB). We may though refer to some by the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court, explaining the law in different fact settings, as indeed is the case in all the decisions, viz. CIT vs. Deepak K. Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT v. Mahavar Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); H.H. Maharaja Raja Pawar Dewas v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 518 (MP). Rather, the law, as amended w.e.f. 01/6/2015, statutorily deems an order made without inquiry which should have been made as liable for revision on that account. That is treats the order per se erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for that reason, as explain…

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 20/JAB/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR

Section 263Section 263(2)

…434 (Gau)(FB). We may though refer to some by the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court, explaining the law in different fact settings, as indeed is the case in all the decisions, viz. CIT vs. Deepak K. Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT v. Mahavar Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); H.H. Maharaja Raja Pawar Dewas v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 518 (MP). Rather, the law, as amended w.e.f. 01/6/2015, statutorily deems an order made without inquiry which should have been made as liable for revision on that account. That is treats the order per se erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for that reason, as explain…

SURESH UPADHYAY AND SONS,JABALPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(5),

In the result, the appeals by the assessee‟s are dismissed

ITA 19/JAB/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra , CIT-DR

Section 263Section 263(2)

…434 (Gau)(FB). We may though refer to some by the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court, explaining the law in different fact settings, as indeed is the case in all the decisions, viz. CIT vs. Deepak K. Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT v. Mahavar Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP); H.H. Maharaja Raja Pawar Dewas v. CIT [1982] 138 ITR 518 (MP). Rather, the law, as amended w.e.f. 01/6/2015, statutorily deems an order made without inquiry which should have been made as liable for revision on that account. That is treats the order per se erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for that reason, as explain…

SHRI KRISHNA MOHAN CHUORSIYA,RAJGARH vs. THE PR. CIT UJJAIN, UJJAIN

ITA 626/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Krishna Mohan Pr. Cit Choursiya(Prop. Of M/S Laxmi Ujjain Mp बनाम/ Auto Parts) Vs. Ward No.14, Bus Stand, Kurawar Rajgarh(M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aempc3634G

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…ddl. Commissioner oflncome 99 ITR 375 (Delhi HC) 5 Tax Bhushan Steel Ltd. V/s Asstt. Commissioner oflncome IT AT A Bench Delhi 6 Tax Commissioner of Income-tax v.Deepak Kumar Garg 299 ITR 435 (Madhya 7. Pradesh) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahavar Traders 220 ITR 167 (Madhya 8. Pradesh) 9. Smt. Renu Gupta v. Commissioner oflncome-tax 301 ITR 45 (Rajasthan) 10. PT. Lashkari Ram v. Commissioner of Income-tax 272 ITR 309 (Allahabad) Commissioner of Income-tax, Patiala v. Himachal Pradesh 186 Taxman 105 (Himachal 11. Financial Corpn. Pradesh) Commissioner of income tax V/s Prafulla C.Pant And 176 Taxman 184 12 Dh…

SHRI SHALIGRAM BAROD, ,INDORE vs. PR. CIT-1, INDORE

ITA 625/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 54Section 54BSection 54FSection 54F(1)

…. Commissioner of 99 ITR 375 (Delhi HC) Income Tax 5 Bhushan Steel Ltd. Vis Asstt. Commissioner of IT AT A Bench Delhi lncome Tax 6 Commissioner of Income-tax v.Deepak Kumar 299 ITR 435 (Madhya Garg 7. Pradesh) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahavar Traders 220 ITR 167 (Madhya 8. Pradesh) 9. Smt. Renu Gupta v. Commissioner oflncome-tax 301 ITR 45 (Rajasthan) 21 Shaligram Borad 10. PT. Lashkari Ram v. Commissioner of Income-tax 272 ITR 309 (Allahabad) Commissioner of Income-tax, Patia1a v. Himachal 186 Taxman 105 Pradesh Financial Corpn. (Himachal 11. Pradesh) Commissioner of income tax Vis Prafulla C.Pant 176…

SATISH KUMAR LAKHMANI,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT-10, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 260/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…by various courts: (1968) 67 ITR 84(SC) Ram Pyari Devi Saraogi (1973) 88 ITR 323(SC) Tara Devi Aggarwal (1975) 99 ITR 375(Delhi) Gee Vee enterprises (1966) 220 ITR 657 (Mad) K.A. Ramaswami Chettiar & Another (1966) 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) Duggal and Co. (1966) 220 ITR 167 (MP) Mahavar Traders (1995) 213 ITR 843 (Raj) Emery Stone Mfg. Co. (1992) 198 ITR 611 (Ker) Malabar Industrial Co. - Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 243 ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) -.…

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

…s from the ratio of the decisions such as Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs C1T 243 ITR 83(30, CIT vs Max India ltd. 295 ITR 282(SC), CIT Vs Mangal Castings 303 ITR 23CP&H), CIT v. Kohinoor Tobacco Products(P)Ltd.[1998] 234 ITR 557, CIT v. Mahavar Trader s[1996J 220 ITR 167(MP), Duggal &Co.v. CIT [996] 220 ITR 456, CIT vs MEPCO Industries Ltd 294 ITR 121 (Mad,), MemttRoller Flour Mills Ltd vs CIT[2013J 35 Tatman.com 1S3(AIL), Bharti Hexacom Ltd v CIT [2013] 33 Taxman.com.210(Delhi-Tr.), CIT v RKBK Fiscal Service (P) Ltd [2013] 32 Taxman.com.l53(Cal)/ M.I. Overseas Ltd v DIT (Int. Tax) [2012] 28 Taxman.com. 279 11 M…