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#1423 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 366,005 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.

Mr. Pranjal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1357/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.H. Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Murari, CIT-D.R

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

…hich is not warranted ether in law or on facts. 9. 214 CTR 348 (Allahabad):- It is related to the fact of not establishing with the specific instances that the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 10. 262 CTR 604 (Delhi):- The issue is related to deduction u/s. 80HHC and the assessee has submitted evidence in support of export/transmission. 11. 77 ITR 107 (SC):- Nothing has been brought on record by the ld. CIT(A) or no material has been referred by the ld. CIT which is not warranted either in law or on facts. I.T.A No. 1357/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Page N…

The J.K. Trust Bombay, Mumbai vs. CIT (E), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3769/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S The J. K. Trust Cit (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001

Section 11Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘जे’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “J”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s The J. K. Trust CIT (Exemption) Bombay, R. No.617, 6th Floor, बनाम/ New Hind House, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Narottam Morrjee Marg, Lalbaug, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai-400001 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No. AAATT0611L "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Rakesh Mohan राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Shri…

Maharashtra Airport Development, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3741/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Maharashtra Airport Pr. Cit-3, Development Company 612, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8Th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aadcm9623M

Section 148Section 154Section 263Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘बी’,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘B’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Maharashtra Airport Pr. CIT-3, Development Company 612, 6th Floor, बनाम/ Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 8th Floor, World Trade M. K. Road, Centre, Tower No.1, Mumbai-400020 Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No. AADCM9623M "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Salil Kapoor & Shri Sumit Lalchand…

Eagle Home Appliances P. Ltd ( Formerly M.S, Trder Team Ltd) vs. CIT-7

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5419/MUM/2008[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 May 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.5419/Mum/2008 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Eagle Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly M/S. Trade Team Ltd.) 4Th Floor, Parmar Gallery, Wanowrie, Pune – 411 040 अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan :Aaact3316M …. Vs. Ito, Ward-7(3)-(2) …. ""यथ" / Respondent Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 263

…er, which is made after considering the details, submission and information, cannot be revised u/s.263 of the Act. Relying on the judgments of jurisdictional High Court in the case CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108, CIT Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. 323 ITR 206 and the decision of Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rupali R. Desai Vs. ACIT 88 ITD 118 (TM), Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted the present order of the CIT is unsustainable as the AO has already examined the issues and followed due process of law in making the regular assessment order. 13. We heard both the parties on the…

Divya Jyothi Steels Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 29/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri K. Srinivasa Reddy

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…on the decision in the case Spectra Shares & Scrips (P) Ld., 36 Taxman 348 (AP High Court). Further, he submitted that ld. CIT cannot assign the work of enquiry to the AO. For this proposition, he relied on the decision in the case of Development Credit Bank, 196 Taxmann 329 (Bombay High Court) and in the case of DG Housing Projects Ltd., 20 Taxmann 587 (Delhi). 9. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that CIT had discussed the issue elaborately in his order, he has already formed an opinion for considering the assessment order as erroneous and in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Therefore…

Divya Jyothi Steels Ltd., Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1176/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri K. Srinivasa Reddy

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

ACIT Cir 7(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Laxmi Venture (India) Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6379/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit, Circle-7(1)(2) M/S. Laxmi Venture India Room No.130, First Floor, बनाम/ Ltd., 36/40, Mahalaxmi Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Bridge Arcade, Vs. Road, Mumbai 400 020 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 037 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaacl1982G यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Haridas Bhat याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Ms. Aarju Garodia ुनवाई की तायीख / 12/03/2018 Date Of Hearing : आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 12/03/2018

Section 263Section 73

…recorded in the assessment order. The ld. counsel invited our attention to various pages of the paper book. Reliance was placed upon the following decisions:- a) CIT vs Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom.) b) CIT vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2010) 323 ITR 206(Bom.) c) CIT vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi (2008) 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) d) CIT vs Design & Automation Engineers (Bom.) Pvt. Ltd. 323 ITR 632 e) Grasim Industries Ltd. vs CIT 321 ITR 92 & f) Fiduciary Shares & Stocks Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.321/Mum/2013) order dated 13/05/2016. g) 338 ITR 435 (Delhi) h) 379 ITR 222 (Delhi) The ld. counsel took us to the aforesaid…

Powerica Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT(Ltu), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3747/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Powerica Limited Cit (Ltu), 9Th Floor, Bakhtawar, 29Th Floor, World Trade Centre I, Nariman Point, Vs. Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400005. Pan: Aaacp3812E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh (CIT-DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 263Section 43A

…4 Powerica Ltd (5) Malabar Industrial Co Ltd versus CIT (243 ITR 83 SC) (6) CIT versus Max India (203 ITR 108 Bom) (7) CIT versus Gabriel India (203 ITR 108 Bom) (8) CIT versus Arvind Jewellers (290 ITR 689 Gujarat) (9) CIT versus Development Credit Bank Ltd(323 ITR 206 Bombay) (10) CIT versus Vikas Polymers (194 TAXMAN 57 Delhi) and (11) CIT versus Anil Kumar Sharma(194 TAXMAN 504 Delhi) 4. On the other hand the learned AR for the revenue supported the order of branded Commissioner. It was argued that the assessing officer has not examined the forex loss. The assessing officer was directed by learned Commissio…

Reliance Money Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3259/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Shri B Puresh

Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 50

…be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The reliance placed by the ld Counsel on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT V/s Development Credit Bank 15 I . T . A . N o . 3 2 5 9 / M u m / 2 0 1 7 Ltd reported in 323 ITR 206 Bom. As regards the issues raised by the Pr. CIT , the counsel submitted that the AO called for the details vide notice dated 11.3.2015 which were submitted vide written submissions dated 19.3.2015 and the assessment was framed after considering the said submissions of the assessee. The ld. AR also referred to and relied upon the decision of the…

Technip Uk Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4284/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2008-09] Technip Uk Limited Vs. The D.I.T. C/O Bmr & Associates Llp International - Ii 22Nd Floor, Building No. 5 New Delhi Tower ‘A’, Dlf Cyber City, Dlf Phase Iii, Gurgaon Haryana Pan : Aacct 8268 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora, Sr- DR

Section 263Section 4Section 44BSection 44D

…Taxman 184 (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 • CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (B • 36. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue regarding taxability of in-country and out-country receipts in any case is debatable. Therefore, in view of the decisions of different Benches of the Tribunal and Hon'ble High Courts including the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi Court in the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. reported in 350…

F Harley & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. The CIT, 1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 864/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Mishra, CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(va)

…n this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Deepak Mittal reported in 324 ITR 411 (P&H). We also find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Development Credit Bank Ltd reported in 323 ITR 206 (Bom) had held that the ld CIT cannot suo moto revise an order on the ground that enquiry was not conducted when the assessment order was passed after considering all details called for and furnished by the assessee. We also find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Honda Siel Power Products Ltd reported in 333 ITR 547 (Del) ha…

Small Wonder Industries, Mumbai vs. CIT 24, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2464/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Small Wonder Industries, Cit-24, 78, Virwani Indl. Estate, Mumbai बनाम/ Western Express Highway, Vs. Goregaon (East), Mumbai-400063 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aalfs6318Q "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Prakash Jotwani Shri Debasis Chandra Cit-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2017 24/02/2017 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 80I

…wn in following cases:- i. CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) ii. CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal (320 ITR 674)(Del.) iii. CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. (294 ITR 310) (Del.) iv. Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT (263 ITR 437) (P&H) v. CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (323 ITR 206) (Bom.) vi. RCI Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 40 DTR Mum (Trb.) 186 vii. Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT(2014) (100 DTR 1)(Mum.)(Trb.) and viii. CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83(Del.) ix. CIT vs Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) x. CIT vs Sunbeam Auto 189 taxman 436 (Del.) 2.3. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in International Tra…

Sabmiller India Ltd ( Formelrly Skol Breweries Ltd), Mumbai vs. CIT 8, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

ITA 4170/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajan Vora/ Heman Chandra and Ankit ShrimaliFor Respondent: S/Shri Anand Mohan

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई “ई” खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं सी एवं सी सी. एन सी एन एन. "साद एन "साद "साद,"याियक "साद "याियक "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and C.N. Prasad,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ITA/4170/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" SABMiller India Limited(formerly SKOL CIT-8 Breweries Ltd.) Mumbai. Unit No.301-302,Third Floor,Dynasty Vs. Business P…

People Ineractive (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3717/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 10ASection 147Section 263

…s laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT (2014) 100 DTR (Mum.) (Trb.) 1 , order dated 10/1/2014. In another case from Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Limited (2010) 323 ITR 206, on identical fact wherein assessment order was passed after considering all details called for and furnished by the assessee. The ld. Commissioner invoked revisional ITA No. 3558 & 3717/Mum/2016 17 jurisdiction on the ground that enquiry was not conducted, the Hon'ble High Court held that the ld. Commissioner was not justified. Identical is th…

People Ineractive (I) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3558/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 10ASection 147Section 263

Dun & Bradstreet Information Services India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 8, Mumbai

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

ITA 3989/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dun & Bradstreet Information Vs. The Commissioner Of Services India Pvt. Ltd., Icc Income Tax, Chambers, 98, Saki Vihar Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Powai, Mumbai 400 072 M. K. Road, Mumbai Pan: Aaacd P Appellant .. Respondent

Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(2)Section 263Section 436Section 50B

…However, there will be no order as to costs. " A similar stand was again taken in the following cases: • Grasim Industries Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2010) 321 ITR 92 (80m), • Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Development Credit Bank Limited (2010) 323 ITR 206 (Bom), . • Commissioner of Income Tax vs. R.K. Construction Co. (2009) 3131TR 65 (Guj),” Hence, considering the facts of the present case as well as while considering the judicial pronouncement as above and on the basis of reasoning given above, we cancel the impugned order u/s 263 passed by the learned CIT and restore the order of the AO for a…

Krunal Pravinchandra Gala, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1 Thane, Pune

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1312/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 263Section 80I

…d down by the Tribunal in the case of Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT (2014) 100 DTR (Mum.) (Trb.) 1 , order dated 10/1/2014. In another case from Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Limited (2010) 323 ITR 206, on identical fact wherein assessment order was passed after considering all details called for and furnished by the assessee. The ld. Commissioner invoked revisional jurisdiction on the ground that enquiry was not conducted, the Hon'ble High Court held that the ld. Commissioner was not justified. Identical is the situation from Hon'ble High…

A2Z Maintenance and Engineering Services Ltd., Gurgaon vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2438/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 211Section 263

…under section 143(3)/148 of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue without bringing on record specific instances, which in the present case, the Commissioner of Income- tax has failed to do.” CIT vs Development Credit Bank Ltd. 323 ITR 206 (Bombay) 5. (Page 34 of the PB) “We have indicated this only as and by way of an illustration in aid of our finding that there was no basis or justification for the Commissioner of Income Tax to invoke the provisions of Section 263. In the order of assessment, the Assessing Officer had after making an enquiry and eliciting a response from the ass…

The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. G Pulla Reddy Chritable Trust

ITTA/192/2015HC Telangana08 Oct 2015

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

Ms. Beena Jain, Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

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

ITA 2080/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263Section 68

…DELHI BENCH:‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No. 2080/Del/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09) Beena Jain, vs CIT, 24-26, Kalindi Colony, Meerut. Transport Nagar, Meerut. ACXPJ6992K Appellant by Sh. Deepak Kapoor, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DR Date of Hearing 23.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement 30.09.2015 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 25.03.2013 for A.Y. 2008-09 on the following re…