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.

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

…atable that cannot be basis for holding an order to be erroneous. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following judgments:-  CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd: 332 ITR 231 (Del)  CIT v. DLF Limited: 350 ITR 555 (Del.)  CIT v. Ansal Properties & India (P.) Ltd.: 315 ITR 225 (Del.) 24. Relying the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Cartier Leaflin Pvt Ltd: [2020] 286 Taxman 222 it was submitted that when records suggest that assessing officer has made due enquiry during assessment proceedings before allowing claim of the assessee and arrive…

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

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

…atable that cannot be basis for holding an order to be erroneous. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following judgments:-  CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd: 332 ITR 231 (Del)  CIT v. DLF Limited: 350 ITR 555 (Del.)  CIT v. Ansal Properties & India (P.) Ltd.: 315 ITR 225 (Del.) 24. Relying the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Cartier Leaflin Pvt Ltd: [2020] 286 Taxman 222 it was submitted that when records suggest that assessing officer has made due enquiry during assessment proceedings before allowing claim of the assessee and arrive…

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

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

…atable that cannot be basis for holding an order to be erroneous. Reliance in this regard was placed on the following judgments:-  CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR 1 (SC)  CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd: 332 ITR 231 (Del)  CIT v. DLF Limited: 350 ITR 555 (Del.)  CIT v. Ansal Properties & India (P.) Ltd.: 315 ITR 225 (Del.) 24. Relying the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT v. Cartier Leaflin Pvt Ltd: [2020] 286 Taxman 222 it was submitted that when records suggest that assessing officer has made due enquiry during assessment proceedings before allowing claim of the assessee and arrive…

Gurbakshish Singh Batra, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT - 12, New Delhi

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

ITA 396/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.Cit-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. Pan: Adspb2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22Nd March, 2021 Of The Pcit, Delhi-12, Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 6Th October, 2016 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.44,86,160/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The It Act. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For ‘Limited Scrutiny’ Based On The Following Reasons:-

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 263Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Gurbakshish Singh Batra, Vs Pr.CIT-12, E-1511, Wazir Nagr, New Delhi. Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. PAN: ADSPB2480J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA Revenue by : Shri Shashi Bhushan Sukla, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 15.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31.03.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22nd March, 2021 of the PCIT, Delhi-12, passed u/s 263 of the…

Shri. Tarsem Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 157/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…which the Ld. Pr. CIT does not agree, the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT v. DLF Ltd. ii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT v. Munjal Casting 5.5 It was further submitted that an order u/s 263 of the Act based on highly vague and cryptic observations does not satisfy the statutory pre-conditions contained in section 263 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 112 taxmann.com 321 (D…

Sh. Parshotam Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…which the Ld. Pr. CIT does not agree, the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT v. DLF Ltd. ii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT v. Munjal Casting 5.5 It was further submitted that an order u/s 263 of the Act based on highly vague and cryptic observations does not satisfy the statutory pre-conditions contained in section 263 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 112 taxmann.com 321 (D…

Priyanka, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 152/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…which the Ld. Pr. CIT does not agree, the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT v. DLF Ltd. ii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT v. Munjal Casting 5.5 It was further submitted that an order u/s 263 of the Act based on highly vague and cryptic observations does not satisfy the statutory pre-conditions contained in section 263 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 112 taxmann.com 321 (D…

Priya Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…which the Ld. Pr. CIT does not agree, the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT v. DLF Ltd. ii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT v. Munjal Casting 5.5 It was further submitted that an order u/s 263 of the Act based on highly vague and cryptic observations does not satisfy the statutory pre-conditions contained in section 263 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 112 taxmann.com 321 (D…

M/S Pardeep Ispat(P) Ltd., Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…which the Ld. Pr. CIT does not agree, the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT v. DLF Ltd. ii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT v. Munjal Casting 5.5 It was further submitted that an order u/s 263 of the Act based on highly vague and cryptic observations does not satisfy the statutory pre-conditions contained in section 263 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 112 taxmann.com 321 (D…

Shri Rajeev Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…which the Ld. Pr. CIT does not agree, the said order cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. Reliance was placed on following judicial pronouncements: i) 350 ITR 555 (Del) CIT v. DLF Ltd. ii) 303 ITR 23 (P&H) CIT v. Munjal Casting 5.5 It was further submitted that an order u/s 263 of the Act based on highly vague and cryptic observations does not satisfy the statutory pre-conditions contained in section 263 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 112 taxmann.com 321 (D…

Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 386/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…//FIT FOR PUBLICATION// OP Kant BS A.M. J.M. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.383/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Smt. Abha Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), 103B, The Aralias, DLF Gurgaon. Golf Link City Phase-V, vs. Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. PIN – 122 001 PIN – 122 001. PAN AANPB8695H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.384/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Shri Pankaj Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), C-13, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon. Phase-1, Gurgaon, vs. Haryana. Haryana.…

Shri Basant Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 385/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…//FIT FOR PUBLICATION// OP Kant BS A.M. J.M. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.383/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Smt. Abha Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), 103B, The Aralias, DLF Gurgaon. Golf Link City Phase-V, vs. Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. PIN – 122 001 PIN – 122 001. PAN AANPB8695H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.384/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Shri Pankaj Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), C-13, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon. Phase-1, Gurgaon, vs. Haryana. Haryana.…

Pankaj Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 384/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…//FIT FOR PUBLICATION// OP Kant BS A.M. J.M. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.383/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Smt. Abha Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), 103B, The Aralias, DLF Gurgaon. Golf Link City Phase-V, vs. Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. PIN – 122 001 PIN – 122 001. PAN AANPB8695H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.384/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Shri Pankaj Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), C-13, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon. Phase-1, Gurgaon, vs. Haryana. Haryana.…

Abha Bansal, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Central, Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 383/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…//FIT FOR PUBLICATION// OP Kant BS A.M. J.M. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.383/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Smt. Abha Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), 103B, The Aralias, DLF Gurgaon. Golf Link City Phase-V, vs. Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. PIN – 122 001 PIN – 122 001. PAN AANPB8695H (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.384/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Shri Pankaj Bansal, The Pr. CIT (Central), C-13, Sushant Lok, Gurgaon. Phase-1, Gurgaon, vs. Haryana. Haryana.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Hero Honda Motors Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6302/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…r section 14A of the Hero Motorcorp Ltd. vs. ACIT & DCIT Act. For the aforesaid argument, the Ld. AR relied on the following decisions: - Maxxop Investment Ltd. v. CIT: 402 ITR 640 (SC) - DLF Ltd. vs. CIT: 27 SOT 22 (Del. ITAT) – Affirmed by Delhi High Court (350 ITR 555) - Impulse (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT: 22 SOT 368 (Del. ITAT) - Minda Investments Ltd. vs. DCIT: 48 SOT 169 (Del. ITAT) - PukhrajChunilalBafna vs. DCIT: 65 SOT 187 (Mum. ITAT) - DCIT vs. Smita Conductors Ltd.: 16 SOT 251 (Mum. ITAT) - DCIT vs. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd: 152 TTJ 522 (Amr. ITAT) - CIT v. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.:237 CTR 164/207 T…

M/S. Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6282/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2005-06

Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…r section 14A of the Hero Motorcorp Ltd. vs. ACIT & DCIT Act. For the aforesaid argument, the Ld. AR relied on the following decisions: - Maxxop Investment Ltd. v. CIT: 402 ITR 640 (SC) - DLF Ltd. vs. CIT: 27 SOT 22 (Del. ITAT) – Affirmed by Delhi High Court (350 ITR 555) - Impulse (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT: 22 SOT 368 (Del. ITAT) - Minda Investments Ltd. vs. DCIT: 48 SOT 169 (Del. ITAT) - PukhrajChunilalBafna vs. DCIT: 65 SOT 187 (Mum. ITAT) - DCIT vs. Smita Conductors Ltd.: 16 SOT 251 (Mum. ITAT) - DCIT vs. Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd: 152 TTJ 522 (Amr. ITAT) - CIT v. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.:237 CTR 164/207 T…

Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3285/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 17(2)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…ld to be erroneous and, therefore, the provisions of section 263 cannot be applied. The ld. Counsel also relied on the following decisions:- i) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers, 341 ITR 537 (Del); ii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Del); iii) CIT vs. DLF Ltd., 350 ITR 555 (Del); iv) CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282; v) ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd., 343 ITR 329 (Del); vi) Director of Income-tax vs. Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388 (Del); vii) PCIT vs. Vinita Chaurasia, 394 ITR 758 (Del); viii) Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd., 398 ITR 8 (Del) ix) Shri Abhimanyu Gupta vs. PCIT, ITA No. 771/CHD/2017; x) Naray…

Shuma Kalra, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 12, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee failed on all five grounds raised before us

ITA 4128/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishuma Kalra, Vs. Pr. Cit-12, A-28, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaipk8142R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaoudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…considered several judicial precedents stated by the ld Authorized Representative. However, we do not find that any of the decisions even comes anywhere near to the facts of the case of assessee. a. With respect to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court 350 ITR 555 raising the contention that in absence of any finding of the Pr. CIT to show that view formed by the ld AO was not possible but unsustainable, action u/s 263 cannot be upheld. He further referred to several judicial precedents on this proposition. We find that the ld PCIT has clearly held that the order of the ld AO is wholly unsustainable in law…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The DCIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…is neither a case of “no enquiry” nor is a case where the AO, failed to make necessary enquiry and the assessment order was passed after making detailed inquiry and application of mind. 42. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 555 (Delhi) laid down the ratio that it is not mere prejudice to the Revenue or a mere erroneous view which can be revised u/s 263 of the Act but also there should be the element of “unsustainability” in the order of the assessing officer, which empowers the commissioner to issue notice and to proceed to pass ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/In…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The ACIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…is neither a case of “no enquiry” nor is a case where the AO, failed to make necessary enquiry and the assessment order was passed after making detailed inquiry and application of mind. 42. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. (2013) 350 ITR 555 (Delhi) laid down the ratio that it is not mere prejudice to the Revenue or a mere erroneous view which can be revised u/s 263 of the Act but also there should be the element of “unsustainability” in the order of the assessing officer, which empowers the commissioner to issue notice and to proceed to pass ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/In…