CIT v. Deepak Kumar Garg

299 ITR 435High Court2008#2562 most cited

What is CIT v. Deepak Kumar Garg authority for?

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue when the Assessing Officer conducts a mere semblance of inquiry or accepts the assessee's claims without proper investigation, leading to substantial taxable income not being brought to tax.

45

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Deepak Kumar Garg · 299 ITR 435 · Section 263 · erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue · lack of inquiry · slipshod inquiry · semblance of enquiry · non-application of mind by AO · improper inquiry assessment order · substantial taxable income untaxed · Commissioner revision power · Section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 10(34)Section 10(43)Section 10ASection 10AASection 119Section 139

Issues it is cited on

public servantaudi alteram partemsection 263(1)prejudicial to interest of revenuemalabar industriallack of enquiryerroneous and prejudicialsection 143(3a)non-application of mindagricultural incomesection 40(a)(ia)share application money

Judgments citing CIT v. Deepak Kumar Garg

Sh. Nittan Aneja, Sbs Nagar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, both the assessee’s appeal and the Revenue’s C

ITA 288/ASR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 288/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Joshi (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…); Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 867 (Mad); CIT vs. Export House [2002] 256 ITR 603 (P&H); CIT vs. Arunaben Sumankumar [2003] 259 ITR 386 (Guj); Pt. Lashkari Ram vs. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 309 (All); CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT vs. Toyota Motor Corpn. [2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del) (affirmed by the apex court vide its judgment at [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC)), on some of which reliance stands placed by the ld. Pr. CIT as well (refer para 6, pgs. 12-13 of his order) (also refer: Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 343 (Ch)(SB)). 3.3 Lack of enquiry, it may be note…

Lally Motors India Pvt. Ltd, Jalandhar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jalandhar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 218/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 218(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Sameer Bhatia (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar (D. R.)
Section 119Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…); Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 867 (Mad); CIT vs. Export House [2002] 256 ITR 603 (P&H); CIT vs. Arunaben Sumankumar [2003] 259 ITR 386 (Guj); Pt. Lashkari Ram vs. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 309 (All); CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT vs. Toyota Motor Corpn. [2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del) (affirmed by the apex court, vide its judgment at [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC)). (also refer: Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 343 (Ch.)(SB)). 4.2 The second, equally relevant, aspect of the matter is if the provision could be invoked in the absence of any tax-exempt income. Toward…

Atc Telecom Tower Corporation P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 9, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2706/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2706/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Atc Telecom Tower Pvt. Ltd. Principal Cit-9 (Earlier Known As Essar Telecom Aayakar Bhavan, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) बिधम/ Mumbai-400 020 403, 4Th Floor, Skyline Icon Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Near Mittal Industrial Estate Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaeca9823E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka, Senior Counsel &For Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 68

…necessary verifications and affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. D.R in support of his aforesaid contention relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pardesh in the case of CIT Vs. Deepak Kumar Garg (2008) 299 ITR 435 (MP). The ld. D.R submitted that as the appeal of the assessee was devoid and bereft of any force of law, therefore, the same may be dismissed. The ld. A.R rebutting the aforesaid contentions of the revenue, submitted that the reply furnished by the Mauritius Revenue Authority was in itself the conclusion of the enquiry, because the reopening of…

Ayyazuddin J, Khan, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT- 22

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2881/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2881/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ayyazuddin J. Khan Ito-22(3)-1, Block No. 103, Aggarwal Upavan, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway बनाम/ Plot No. 11, Sector – 19, Nerul, Station, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 706 Navi Mumbai-400 073 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Atxpk 4365 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kishore K. Poddar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri H. N. Singh

For Appellant: Shri Kishore K. PoddarFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh
Section 143(3)Section 263

…y Chettiar vs. CIT [1996] 220 ITR 657 (Mad); Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1999] 238 ITR 867 (Mad.); CIT vs. Export House, Amritsar [2002] 256 ITR 603 (P&H); PT. Lashkari Ram vs. CIT [2005] 272 ITR 309 (All.); CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT vs. Toyota Motor Corpn. [2008] 306 ITR 49 (Del) (affirmed by the apex court, vide its judgment at [2008] 306 ITR 52 (SC)); CIT vs. Arunaben Sumankumar [2003] 259 ITR 386 (Guj); besides by the larger bench of the tribunal in Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. vs. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 343 (Chen) (SB), signifying the application of the concept in a vari…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd

ITA/1376/2009HC Delhi05 Jul 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

For Appellant: Mr N.P. Sahni and Ms Prem Lata Bansal with Mr P.C. YadavFor Respondent: Mr Ajay Vohra with Ms Kavita Jha and Mr Sriram Krishna
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80HSection 80I

…llowing decisions:- 1) Gee Vee Enterprises v. Additional Commissioner of Income- tax, Delhi: 99 ITR 375(Del); 2) Malabar Industrial Company Ltd v. Commissioner of Income-tax: 243 ITR 83 (SC); 3) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Deepak Kumar Garg: [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); 4) Deepak Kumar Garg v. Commissioner of Income-tax: SLP(C) Nos.4814-16/2008 dismissed by the Supreme Court on 10.03.2008: 299 ITR 91 (Journal). 13. On the other hand, Mr Ajay Vohra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent / assessee, supported the decision of the Tribunal in both the appeals and submitted that t…