How many judgments cite CIT v. Development Credit Bank Ltd.?

80 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (323 ITR 206), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Development Credit Bank Ltd. come up under?

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

CIT v. Development Credit Bank Ltd.

323 ITR 206High Court2010#1434 most cited

What is CIT v. Development Credit Bank Ltd. authority for?

If the Assessing Officer conducts a specific enquiry on an issue during the original assessment and adopts a possible view, the Principal Commissioner cannot invoke revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act on that same issue.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Development Credit Bank Ltd. · Section 263 · revisionary jurisdiction · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · erroneous and prejudicial · AO examined issue · AO took possible view · capital gains · assessment order erroneous · Principal Commissioner of Income Tax · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.

Also reported as

196 Taxmann 329262 CTR 604

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263 Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 143(2)Section 147 Section 148 Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiry lack of enquiry malabar industrial revision under section 263 revision u/s 263 assessment order erroneous section 56(2)(viib)section 263(1)valuation of shares erroneous and prejudicial kelvinator section 56(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Development Credit Bank Ltd.

AMAZON SMART COMMERCE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

ITA 3533/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

…: 350 ITR 555 (Del) -CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co: 171 ITR 141 (MP) -CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishonoi: 152 Taxman 242 (Raj.) -CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers: 270 ITR 157 (MP) -CIT vs. Associated Food Profits (P) Ltd.: 280 ITR 377 (MP) -CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Bom.) -Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. PCIT: [2025] 171 taxmann.com 754 (Delhi – Trib.) 156 It is respectfully submitted that, in the aforesaid circumstances, the AO order dated 15.12.2022 was not ‘erroneous’or‘prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' warranting exercise of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Re (d): CIT to record p…

MADAN MOHAN RAO PUVVADA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-5(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1152/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1152/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Madan Mohan Rao The Income Tax Puvvada, Hyderabad. Officer, Ward-5(1), Vs. Pin – 500 063. Hyderabad. Pan Agjpp4754H Telangana. Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1152/Hyd/2024 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Madan Mohan Rao The Income Tax Puvvada, Hyderabad. Officer, Ward-5(1), vs. PIN – 500 063. Hyderabad. PAN AGJPP4754H Telangana. Telangana. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee by: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CA राज" व "ारा /Revenue by: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 11.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER…

SURBHIT IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2570/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram Sr. Adv.& Shri Shashi Bekkal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)

Section 147Section 263Section 41(1)

…\nthat the liability did not cease in AY 2018-19.Reliance is placed on the\ndecision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Tribunal in the case of Sir Dorabji\nTata Trust v. DCIT [2020] 122 taxmann.com 274 (Mum.)(Trib.) and CIT\nv. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 206 (Bom)(HC).\n4.4Without prejudice to the above, it is contended that the liability\ndid not cease in AY 2018-19.The creditors preferred an appeal against\nthe winding-up orders of the Bombay High Court which was decided on\nJuly 30, 2018; hence, there is cessation of liability in AY 2019-20.This is\nmentioned in the assessment order. Hence, there…

INDUR THANWERDAS DADLANI,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PCIT, MUMBAI-42, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed without any order as to cost

ITA 2476/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarindur Thanwerdas Dadlani Vs. Pr. Cit Flat No. 4604, The Imperial Mumbai – 42 Towers, Mp Mill Compound, Room No. 741, Aayakar Bb Nakashe Marg, Mardeo, Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400034. Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aacpd5262D (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 57Section 74

…sources as well as capital gains were specifically enquired into and therefore invocation of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 for the same issue is bad in law. 12. In this regard we draw strength from the decision of CIT Vs. Development Credit Bnk ltd (2010) 323 ITR 206 (Bom HC), it was held that “since the enquiry was specifically held with reference to the issue of capital gain by the AO in original assessment therefore invoking revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 on the issue of capital gains was not justified”. 13. Since in our view the AO has verified the issue of ‘income from other sources and capital gains’…

HIMMATLAL KANHAIYALAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-41, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 102/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhujhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri. Biswanath Das-CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Himmatlal Kanhaiyalal PCIT, Mumbai Jain Room No. 541, Kautilya Shop No.3, Jai Narayan Bhavan, C-41 to C-43, G- Niwas, Off. Aarey Road, VS. Block, Bandra Kurla Goregaon (East), Mumbai complex, Bandra (East), 400063 Mumbai 400051 PAN: AAAPJ4427A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala Revenue by : Shri. Biswanath Das-CIT DR Date of Hearing : 03.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.05.2025 O R D E R…

VENETIAN LDF PROJECTS LLP,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3533/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

…ITR 555 (Del) - CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co: 171 ITR 141 (MP) - CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishonoi: 152 Taxman 242 (Raj.) - CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers: 270 ITR 157 (MP) - CIT vs. Associated Food Profits (P) Ltd.: 280 ITR 377 (MP) - CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Bom.) - Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. PCIT: [2025] 171 taxmann.com 754 (Delhi – Trib.) 156 It is respectfully submitted that, in the aforesaid circumstances, the AO order dated 15.12.2022 was not ‘erroneous’ or ‘prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue’ warranting exercise of revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. Re (d): CIT to recor…

SKILL PROMOTERS HOLDING AND LEASING PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 370/HYD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.370/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Skill Promoters Vs. Pcit (Central) Holding & Leasing Hyderabad Private Limited Hyderabad [Pan : Aascs8012P] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna,Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 29/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.06.2023 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) (Ld.Pcit), Hyderabad, Pertaining To A.Y.2019-20 On The Following Grounds : 1. The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 23.06.2023 Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law. 2. The Ld.Pr.Cit Erred In Holding That The Assessment Order Dated 26.09.2021 Passed U/S 153A Is Erroneous In So 2

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna,CIT-DR

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 263Section 37

…uthorised capital of the assessee company. In this regard, he relied upon certain judicial precedents including the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-II, Mumbai Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 206 (Bombay). The assessee had also relied upon the decision of ITAT Hyderabad in the case of Madhucon Toll Highways Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No.1487/Hyd/2018 and various judicial precedents in support of his argument. Shri B.Bala Krishna, the Ld.CIT-DR supporting the 6. order of the Ld.PCIT, submitted that the Assessing Officer has not examined the iss…

CHAITALEE SACHIN DEOKAR,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,-IT -2, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2806/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69BSection 69C

…on proceedings on the ground that the enquiry was not conducted in the manner thought by him. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd (2010)(323 ITR 206)(Bom). Не further submitted that the provisions of sec. 263 do not visualise a case of substitution of the judgement of the Commissioner for that of the Income tax Officer who passed the order unless the decision is held to be erroneous, as held by Hob'le Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd (2011)(332 ITR 167). 8. He further…

MAX HOSPITALS AND ALLIED SERVICES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MUMBAI -3, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 2907/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Smt Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19 Max Hospitals & Principal Allied Services Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor, Income Tax Mumbai- 3 Man Excellenza, Room No.612, Vs. S. V. Road, 6Th Floor, Vile Parle (W.), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400056 Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aagcr9198D Mumbai- 400020. Appellant : Respondent

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Sanyogia Nagpal (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…Assessment order. D. It is respectfully submitted that since enquiry was specifically made with Drespect to the share premium the invocation of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 for the same issue is bad in law.  In CIT v. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 206 /(2011) 196 Taxman 329 (Bom.)(HC) P. (210) para 7&8 it was held that since the enquiry was specifically held with reference to the issue of capital gain by the AO in original asst. therefore invoking revisionary jurisdiction u/s. 263 on the issue of capital gains was not justified. [Pg.No-254-257 PBⅢ] E. It is respectfully submitted that as A.O.…

BHAGWANRAM CHIMNARAMJI PRAJAPAT ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 494/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: : Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) and the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.Development Credit Bank Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 206 (Bombay). 7. The Ld.DR on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld.PCIT submitted that the assessment order passed by the Ld.AO is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, which is evident from the facts analysed by the Ld.PCIT in the order passed u/s 263 of the Act, where, the Ld.PCIT brought out anomalies in sundr…

MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-5 (1) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the ground no

ITA 206/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 263Section 37

…revenue in nature. Thus, learned AO accepted the fact that the Appellant has provided the correct tax treatment on such transaction. Having regard to the same, the order of the AO cannot be held as erroneous. 3.5 In CIT v. Development Credit Bank Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR 206 (Bom.) it was held that assessment cannot be revised under section 263 when the Assessing Officer has passed the order after considering all the details called for and furnished by the assessee. 3.6 The case laws relied by the Appellant are as follows: • Mylan Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v. ITO in ITA No.122/Hyd/2022 dated 26.12.2022  Shri H…

SHRI HARENDRA NATH GUPTA,FIROZABAD vs. P CIT CIRCLE-2, AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 148/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 263

…regard, following submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee regarding the case laws is also germane, which is reproduced hereunder:- “The appellant places further reliance on following judicial pronouncement 1- CIT v. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 206 Bom (HC) "Principal objection which revisional authority expressed against order of AO was an alleged failure of A to examine whether capital gain had been earned on transaction relating to investment "held to maturity" and depreciation was claimed on investments held as stock in trade. Court noted from records that assessee had supplied details…

HARISH KUMAR MURALIDHAR HARWANI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,WARD-3(1) , HYDERABAD

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

ITA 69/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2016-17 Shri Harish Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer Muralidhar Harwani, Ward 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aayph0485N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21/03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.03.2021 Of The Learned Pr.Cit -1, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, However, These All Relate To The Validity Of The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act By The Pcit-I.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

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

…n.522 (Allahabad) High Court iv) CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi (2006) 152 Taxmann.242 (Raj.) High Court v) Malabar Industries Co. Ltd (109 Taxmann.66) Supreme Court vi) Spectra Shares & Script (P) Ltd (36 Taxmann.348) A.P High Court vii) Development Credit Bank (196 Taxmann 329) Bombay High Court viii) D.G. Housing Projects Ltd (20 Taxmann 587) Delhi High Court ix) Divya Jyothi Steels Ltd (20 Taxmann 587) ITAT Hyderabad x) Pravardhan Seeds P Ltd (ITA 667/Hyd/2017) ITAT Hyderabad xi) Futuretech Industries vs. DCIT – ITA No.1009/Hyd/2013 – ITAT Hyderabad xii) Glade Steel (P) Ltd v. Income Tax Officer ITA/723/2015, ITA…

SH. GURJINDER SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, AMRITSAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT DR

Section 194CSection 263

…assessments of the partners who were income-tax assessees and the unsecured loan was duly reflected in the assessment order of the said creditor which was also an assessee—Provisions of s. 263 have not been rightly invoked” CIT V Development Credit Bank Ltd 323 ITR 206 (Bom) 16 Gurjinder Singh v. Pr.CIT “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—Lack of proper enquiry—Assessee had furnished the details called for by the AO with regard to the capital gain and break up of investments on which depreciation was claimed—AO had considered the same and assessment order was passed under s. 143(3)—CIT wrongly assumed…

V.L JEWELLERS,DELHI vs. CIRCLE-49(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.836/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम V.L. Jewellers, Pr. Commissioner Of 2775, 1St Floor, Gali No. 20-21, Vs. Income Tax, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Circle 49(1), New Delhi. Room No. 1202, 12, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadfv7989A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…quiry revision under section 263 may be permissible and if there is an enquiry no prejudice is caused to the Revenue and revision is not permissible for inadequate enquiry. Reliance was placed on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. NDTV, 262 CTR 604 and CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167. 10. The Ld. Counsel further submits that when two views are possible and the Assessing Officer adopts one of the possible view with which the Pr.CIT does not agree then that order would not be an order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for invoking the provisions of Section 263 I.T.A.No.836…

NAVINCHANDRA K. PATEL,SURAT vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1 , SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.57/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Navinchandra K. Patel, Vs. The Pcit-1, Surat. 5, Kaaliytawadi Faliya, At Post Saniya Hemad, Surat-395006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Birpp6292D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/02/2023 10/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Surat (In Short “Ld. Pcit”], Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Dated 31.03.2021. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Passing Revisionary Order U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act Setting Aside The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 24.11.2017 For The Year Under Consideration Although Said Order Is Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Observing That Order Passed By Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act Is Erroneous On The Ground That Indexed Cost Of Acquisition Of Property Is Under Assessed By Rs.2,12,58,035/-. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Observing That Order

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

…s further supported by the following judicial pronouncements;  CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Del HC);  Ramakant Singh Vs. CIT 140 TTJ 41 (Patna ITAT);  Vodafone Essar South Ltd. vs CIT 141 TTJ 84 (Del ITAT);  CIT Vs. Developement Credit Bank Ltd. 323 ITR 206 (2010);  CIT vs Gabrial India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (1993);  Russel Properties Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT 109 ITR 229 (Cal);  CIT Vs. Vikash Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del); 18. In this regard, we also place reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Fab India Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, 201 Taxman 173 wherein under the similar facts and circumstan…

SUBHASH CHAND DHINGRA ,GURGAON vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1063/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasubhash Chand Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Central Circle-3(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aarpd8652J Satish Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-4(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aanpd1971A Ashok Kumar Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abupd6730B Giriraj Dhingra, Vs. Acit, House No. 1/43, Shivaji Nagar, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Achpd9434E

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…m Coal Ash Co. 171 ITR 141 (MP)  CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers 270 ITR 157 (MP)  CIT vs. Associated Food Products (P) Ltd. 280 ITR 377 (MP)  CIT vs. Girdhari Lai: 258 ITR 331 (Raj.)  CIT vs. Raman Singh: 73 DTR 297 (MP.)  CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Bom.)  CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd.: 262 CTR 604 (Del.) 19. On merits the ld counsel submitted that in the case of CIT v. Ghanshyam (HUF), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held in unequivocal terms that the additional amount under section 23(1 A), solatium under section 23(2) and interest on excess compensation under section 28 of the Land Acqui…

ASHOK KUMAR DHINGRA ,GURGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1061/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

SATISH KUMAR DHINGRA ,HARYANA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4(1), GURGAON

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1060/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Kavita Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 10(37)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 263Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

JVR RETAILS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 175/HYD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2012-13 Jvr Retails Private Limited Vs Dcit, Circle-2(1) C/O. Murali & Co. . Hyderabad Chartered Accountants 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda Hyderabad-500 082 Pan : Aaccv9428J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri M.V.Joshi Appeared For P.Murali Mohan Rao, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.01.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.03.2021 Passed U/S. 263 By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Hyderabad Relating To A Y 2012-13. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Domestic Company Engaged In The Business Of Retails & Manufacturing Of Jewelry. It Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 49,97,390/- On 08.09.2012 Which Was Processed U/S 143(1) On 21.02.2013. Subsequently, The Ao Reopened The Assessment By Recording Reasons As Per Provisions Of Section 147. The Reasons To Believe Which Was Put Up Before The Ld.Pcit-2 For Approval & Which Has Been Reproduced By The Ao In The Body Of The Assessment Order Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Joshi appeared for P.Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri K.Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 JVR Retails Private Limited Vs DCIT, Circle-2(1) C/o. Murali & Co. . Hyderabad Chartered Accountants 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda Hyderabad-500 082 PAN : AACCV9428J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri M.V.Joshi appeared for P.Murali Mohan Rao, CA Revenue by: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 14.01.2023 Date of pronouncement: 31.01.2023 O R D E R Per Shri Rama Kanta Panda (A.M.): This appeal filed by the assessee…

Showing 1–20 of 80 · Page 1 of 4