CIT v. DLF Ltd.

350 ITR 555High Court2013#1310 most cited

What is CIT v. DLF Ltd. authority for?

Where the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view based on sufficient details and disclosures on record, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue to invoke revisionary powers under Section 263.

87

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. DLF Ltd. · Section 263 · revisionary powers · erroneous and prejudicial assessment · plausible view · sufficient disclosures · limits of Section 263 · Commissioner's jurisdiction · assessment not erroneous · 350 ITR 555 · Delhi High Court

Also reported as

31 Taxmann.com 158

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 10(37)Section 145A(b)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 56(2)(viii)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 141section 282a(1)section 194lasection 145a(b)section 33bsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 145brevision u/s 263section 10(37)section 74

Judgments citing CIT v. DLF 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)

…cient details/information/disclosures were available on record to form an opinion on the matter, even then, it was held that there was no error in the assessment order and, accordingly, the jurisdiction assumed under section 263 was quashed: -CIT v. DLF Ltd.: 350 ITR 555 (Del.) -CIT v. International Travel House Ltd.: 344 ITR 554 (Del.) -Gulmohar Finance Ltd.: 170 Taxman 483 (Del.) -CIT v. Leisurewear Exports: 341 ITR 166 (Del.) -CIT v. Hero Auto Ltd.: 343 ITR 342 (Del.) -CIT v. Escorts Ltd.: 338 ITR 435 (Del.) 151 For the aforesaid reason, too, it is respectfully submitted that the revisionary proceedings initia…

Sh. Randhir Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT Rohtak, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…15 ITR 1, the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. reported in 350 ITR 555. x) That order of assessment or reassessment cannot be said to 12 – 12.3 erroneous in as much as prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely because the learned PCIT had a different opinion. xi) That non-consideration of a decision of Jurisdictional High 13 – 13.2 Court by the learned Assessing officer at best can be treated as "mistake apparen…

Surjeet Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…15 ITR 1, the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. reported in 350 ITR 555. x) That order of assessment or reassessment cannot be said to 12 – 12.3 erroneous in as much as prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely because the learned PCIT had a different opinion. xi) That non-consideration of a decision of Jurisdictional High 13 – 13.2 Court by the learned Assessing officer at best can be treated as "mistake apparen…

Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…15 ITR 1, the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. reported in 350 ITR 555. x) That order of assessment or reassessment cannot be said to 12 – 12.3 erroneous in as much as prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely because the learned PCIT had a different opinion. xi) That non-consideration of a decision of Jurisdictional High 13 – 13.2 Court by the learned Assessing officer at best can be treated as "mistake apparen…

Dhuni Chand HUF, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…15 ITR 1, the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. reported in 350 ITR 555. x) That order of assessment or reassessment cannot be said to 12 – 12.3 erroneous in as much as prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely because the learned PCIT had a different opinion. xi) That non-consideration of a decision of Jurisdictional High 13 – 13.2 Court by the learned Assessing officer at best can be treated as "mistake apparen…

Sh. Kashmir Singh Sandha, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…15 ITR 1, the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. reported in 350 ITR 555. x) That order of assessment or reassessment cannot be said to 12 – 12.3 erroneous in as much as prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely because the learned PCIT had a different opinion. xi) That non-consideration of a decision of Jurisdictional High 13 – 13.2 Court by the learned Assessing officer at best can be treated as "mistake apparen…

M/S Ganesh Dass HUF, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…15 ITR 1, the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. reported in 350 ITR 555. x) That order of assessment or reassessment cannot be said to 12 – 12.3 erroneous in as much as prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely because the learned PCIT had a different opinion. xi) That non-consideration of a decision of Jurisdictional High 13 – 13.2 Court by the learned Assessing officer at best can be treated as "mistake apparen…

Sh. Arvail Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…15 ITR 1, the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. reported in 350 ITR 555. x) That order of assessment or reassessment cannot be said to 12 – 12.3 erroneous in as much as prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely because the learned PCIT had a different opinion. xi) That non-consideration of a decision of Jurisdictional High 13 – 13.2 Court by the learned Assessing officer at best can be treated as "mistake apparen…

Axis Infoline P Ltd, Delhi vs. PCIT-1, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2613/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2613/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Axis Infoline P. Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Income 196/16B, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Tax, Ramesh Market, East Of Kailash, Income Tax Office, Delhi-1. Nehru Nagar, South Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aadca9862C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…at the action of the AO should not be unsustainable in law. We find that the action of the AO is certainly not unsustainable in law but is merely suffering from a possibility of there being two views on the matter. Also, in the case of DLF Limited reported in 350 ITR 555 (Del.), on facts, a debatable issue has not been approved for any proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. We also find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Housing Construction Ltd. reported in 45 taxmann.com 223 (Del.), has held that a debatable issue would be an unjustified ground for invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Ac…

ITO, Ward- 44(2), New Delhi vs. Threepence Craft, New Delhi

ITA 5995/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195(2)Section 263

…the interest of Revenue. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited (332 ITR 167). Reliance was also placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. (350 ITR 555) and CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 537). Reliance was also placed on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of SSG Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT (ITA No.2278/Del/2024 dated 12.03.2025). 12. Ld. Counsel further submitted that in so far as the direction of the Ld. CIT to verify the genuineness of the purchases and export sales are conc…

Threepence Craft, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 44(2), New Delhi

ITA 5410/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195(2)Section 263Section 40

…the interest of Revenue. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited (332 ITR 167). Reliance was also placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. (350 ITR 555) and CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 537). Reliance was also placed on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of SSG Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT (ITA No.2278/Del/2024 dated 12.03.2025). 12. Ld. Counsel further submitted that in so far as the direction of the Ld. CIT to verify the genuineness of the purchases and export sales are conc…

Threepence Craft, New Delhi vs. CIT- IX, New Delhi

ITA 2234/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195(2)Section 263

…the interest of Revenue. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited (332 ITR 167). Reliance was also placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. (350 ITR 555) and CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 537). Reliance was also placed on the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of SSG Infra Tech Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT (ITA No.2278/Del/2024 dated 12.03.2025). 12. Ld. Counsel further submitted that in so far as the direction of the Ld. CIT to verify the genuineness of the purchases and export sales are conc…

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)

…ient details/information/disclosures were available on record to form an opinion on the matter, even then, it was held that there was no error in the assessment order and, accordingly, the jurisdiction assumed under section 263 was quashed: - CIT v. DLF Ltd.: 350 ITR 555 (Del.) - CIT v. International Travel House Ltd.: 344 ITR 554 (Del.) - Gulmohar Finance Ltd.: 170 Taxman 483 (Del.) 41 - CIT v. Leisurewear Exports: 341 ITR 166 (Del.) - CIT v. Hero Auto Ltd.: 343 ITR 342 (Del.) - CIT v. Escorts Ltd.: 338 ITR 435 (Del.) 151 For the aforesaid reason, too, it is respectfully submitted that the revisionary proceedin…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…a view with which the CIT/PCIT does not agree, the assessment order cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. The following decisions support this : i) CIT Vs DLF 350 ITR 555 (Del), holding that possibly the AO could have taken another view, but that he did not do so, would not render his opinion to be an unsustainable opinion requiring exercise of revisional powers. ii) In Garg Brothers (P) Ltd. V DCIT vide order dated 18.04.2018, ITA No. 2519/Del/2017, the was found to have adopted one of the courses permissible in…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…a view with which the CIT/PCIT does not agree, the assessment order cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. The following decisions support this : i) CIT Vs DLF 350 ITR 555 (Del), holding that possibly the AO could have taken another view, but that he did not do so, would not render his opinion to be an unsustainable opinion requiring exercise of revisional powers. ii) In Garg Brothers (P) Ltd. V DCIT vide order dated 18.04.2018, ITA No. 2519/Del/2017, the was found to have adopted one of the courses permissible in…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…a view with which the CIT/PCIT does not agree, the assessment order cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. The following decisions support this : i) CIT Vs DLF 350 ITR 555 (Del), holding that possibly the AO could have taken another view, but that he did not do so, would not render his opinion to be an unsustainable opinion requiring exercise of revisional powers. ii) In Garg Brothers (P) Ltd. V DCIT vide order dated 18.04.2018, ITA No. 2519/Del/2017, the was found to have adopted one of the courses permissible in…

Bonjour Estates (P) Limited, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-1, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 732/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Bonjour Estates (P) Ltd., The Pcit (1), C-444, Defence Colony, New New Delhi 110002 Delhi 110024 Vs. Pan Aaecn 4851 H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca For Revenue : Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…263 of the Act, and various judgement of Hon’ble High Court including judgement of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 12 taxmann.com 445 (Del) and judgment of in the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. reported as 350 ITR 555 (Del). The Page 15 of 21 learned counsel as also placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Communication Ltd. 396 ITR 217 (Bom) and CIT vs. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bom). 14. Replying to the above the learned CIT(DR) drawing our attention towards impugned notice and order u/s. 263 of the Act sub…

Tata Nyk Shipping Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. CIT International Taxation-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1067/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tata Nyk Shipping Pte. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., International Taxation-3, 6, Shenton Way, #18-08B, New Delhi Oue Downtown 2, Singapore Pan :Aadct9945P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 263Section 92C

…tted, the question whether the benefit of India–Singapore DTAA is available to the assessee or not, is a highly debatable issue, hence, outside the scope/ambit of section 263 of the Act. In this context, he relied upon a decision in case of CIT Vs. DLF Ltd., 350 ITR 555 (Delhi HC). He submitted, even assuming for argument sake but not accepting that the assessee is not entitled to treaty benefits in respect of income from shipping business in international traffic, such income cannot be taxed as royalty under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. He submitted, when there is a special provision under the Act in shape of…

Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-3, Vadodara

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 178/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.178/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Vs. The Pcit-3 & Chemicals Ltd., Surat. Narmada House, Narmadanagar, Bharuch – 392015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacg8372Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Yogesh Shah, Ar Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 03/01/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2023

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 801Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.178/SRT/2020 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Vs. The PCIT-3, & Chemicals Ltd., Surat. Narmada House, Narmadanagar, Bharuch – 392015. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAACG8372Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Yogesh Shah, AR Respondent by Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 03/01/2023 Date of Pronouncement 22/02/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: By way of this appeal, the assessee has challenged the c…

Uday Punj (HUF), New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Circle-11, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 8117/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Uday Punj (Huf) Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chimes -55, Sultanpur Farms Circle-11, New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Aaahu0518H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. G.S.PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Uday Punj (HUF) Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chimes -55, Sultanpur Farms Circle-11, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAAHU0518H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Sh. Rohan Khare, Advocate Revenue by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 27.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 13.02.2023 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: 1. The Pr. CIT-11, New Delhi (herein after referred as “the Revisionary Authority”) passed revisionary order dated 23.08.2019 for Assessme…