What is CIT v. Eicher Ltd. authority for?

An assessment order cannot be considered erroneous for want of an inquiry, thus restricting revision under Section 263, if the Assessing Officer applied their mind to the issue and had all relevant facts before them. Additionally, disallowed expenditures are not to be included as part of an asset's cost for tax purposes.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Eicher Ltd.?

171 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Eicher Ltd. (294 ITR 310), spanning 2008 to 2026.

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

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 144C, Section 263, Section 144B, Section 148.

CIT v. Eicher Ltd. (294 ITR 310)

G S BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6581/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] G.S.Buildwell Pvt.Ltd. Vs Ito A-12, Swasthya Vihar, Ward-10(1) East Delhi, Delhi-110092. Delhi Pan-Aaccg1781H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Rajesh Kr. Dhanistha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08.04.2026

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

…e of opinion and would be completely without jurisdiction" Further, reliance is placed on the following authorities: - CIT vs. Usha International Ltd. 348 ITR 485 (Delhi) (Full Bench); - CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.: 320 ITR 561 (SC); - CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. 294 ITR 310(Del); - CIT vs. ForanerFranch 264 ITR 566 (SC) - Indian Oil Corporation 159 ITR 956(SC) - Associated Stone Industry Limited 224ITR 560 (SC) - CIT vs. Multiplex Trading & Industrial Co. Ltd378 ITR 351 (Del.) Further, it is apparent from reason recorded that the Ld AO has merely reproduced the report of investigation wing without discussing the con…

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-2, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 is allowed

ITA 1670/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Exemption Ward 4, Street, Adambakkam, Chennai. Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19. 2. Since, The Issues Raised In These Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…48 ITR 485 (Delhi) clarified that reopening in a non-scrutinized case based on fresh evidence is not a change of opinion. Further, she relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the 22 I.T.A. Nos.1667 to 1670/Chny/24 case of Eicher Limited v. CIT 294 ITR 310 (SC) and argued that the change of opinion applies only when the Assessing Officer revisits previously assessed facts. 24. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee filed its return of income declaring a total income at Rs.Nil on 29.06.2015. Admittedly that there was no scrutiny assessment in t…

D.A.V. EDUCATIONAL TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ITO, EXEMPTION WARD-4,, CHENNAI

ITA 1667/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1667, 1668, 1669 & 1670/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 D.A.V. Educational Trust, 5, S V Illam, Mohanapuri Lake View Street, Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. [Pan: Aaatc5967A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Appellant By Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward 4, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri G. Baskar, Advocate & Shri A. Satyaseelan, Advocate Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit 28.10.2025 21.01.2026 : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश/Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders All Dated 05.04.2024 Passed By The Id. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(15)

…the case of Usha International Ltd.348 ITR 485 (Delhi) clarified that reopening in a non-scrutinized case based on fresh evidence is not a change of opinion. Further, she relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Limited v. CIT 294 ITR 310 (SC) and argued that the change of opinion applies only when the Assessing Officer revisits previously assessed facts. 24. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee filed its return of income declaring a total income at Rs.Nil on 29.06.2015. Admittedly that there was no scrutiny assessment in t…

PARK DEVELOPERS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4507/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Rahul Chaudharyassessment Year : 2013-14 Park Developers, Ito-41(3)(3), 101/3, Kedia Chambers, Kautilya Bhavan, S.V. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400051 Malad West, Mumbai-400064. Pan : Aaifp7133P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr.DR

Section 40A(3)

…nd account by Rs. 96,32,881/- (from Rs. 106,25,51,940/- to Rs. 105,29,19,055/-) is a logical consequence of the disallowance, as the disallowed cash payments cannot form part of the asset's cost for tax purposes. This is supported by CIT v. Eicher Ltd. (2007) 294 ITR 310 (Del), where disallowed expenditures were excluded from asset costs. 2.9 The appellant's claim that the AO assessed income without receipts or accruals is incorrect. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) does not create income but adjusts the deductible cost base, increasing taxable income when the WIP is set off against sales. This is a standard…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED , AURANGABAD

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

ITA 1682/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak and Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

…d it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind as observed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT, 263 ITR 437 (P&H) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eicher Ltd., 294 ITR 310 (Delhi). Therefore, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer had failed to make an enquiry, no further enquiry is necessary and all the facts were before the Assessing Officer. Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that the proposition that the assessment order is erroneous for want of an enquiry or proper enquiry would have no appli…

MMTC LTD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5(1),

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2006[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Pcit, Plot No. 23, 5Th Floor, Aggarwal Delhi-1, Delhi Corporate Tower Govind Lal Sikka Marg, Rajendra Place, West Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India, 110008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacc0642F

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Bharati, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37

…am Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) b. CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma reported in 335 ITR 83 (Del) c. CIT Vs. Amalgamations Ltd reported in 238 ITR 963 (Mad) d. Hari Iron Trading Company Vs. CIT reported in 263 ITR 437 (P&H) e. CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd reported in 294 ITR 310 (Del) f. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 8. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we dismiss the preliminary argument of the ld DR that the ld AO had not indicated his mind in the assessment order by stating as to whether any enquiry was made on the issues that are sought to be revised by the ld PCIT u/s 263 of t…

CLIX CAPITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Pcit, Plot No. 23, 5Th Floor, Aggarwal Delhi-1, Delhi Corporate Tower Govind Lal Sikka Marg, Rajendra Place, West Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India, 110008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacc0642F

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Bharati, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37

…am Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) b. CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma reported in 335 ITR 83 (Del) c. CIT Vs. Amalgamations Ltd reported in 238 ITR 963 (Mad) d. Hari Iron Trading Company Vs. CIT reported in 263 ITR 437 (P&H) e. CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd reported in 294 ITR 310 (Del) f. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 8. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we dismiss the preliminary argument of the ld DR that the ld AO had not indicated his mind in the assessment order by stating as to whether any enquiry was made on the issues that are sought to be revised by the ld PCIT u/s 263 of t…

GENUS POWER INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITTED,NOIDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTERAL), LUCKNOW

ITA 74/LKW/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kumar, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…ITR437 (P&H); Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs.CIT,243 ITR 83(S.C.); CIT vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. 331 ITR 192 (Del.); CIT vs. International Travel House Lid. 194 Тахтап 324; CIT vs. DLF Power Limited 329 ITR 289 (Del.); CIT vs. Eicher Limited 294 ITR 310 (Del.) CIT vs. Ashish Rajput, 320 ITR 674 (Del.); CIT vs. Rohit Anand, 327 ITR 445 (Del.); CIT vs. Gopal Purohit, 228 CTR 582 (Bom.); and CIT vs. PNB Finance and Industries Limited, 236 CTR 1 (Del.).…

MIKUNI INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ALWAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PCIT,

12. In view of the above discussion, we find merit in this appeal, when the assessment order dated 27

ITA 745/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: passing the impugned order, Learned PCIT issued notice to the assessee, as Learned PCIT found that the Assessing Officer, while framing the above said assessment and the making addition, did not initiate penalty proceedings 270A of the Act. Learned PCIT was of the view that penalty proceedings were to be initiated under the said provision on account of misreporting of income, which came to be added by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee company. It being a Transfer Pri

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Agarwal, C.A. (Through V.C.) &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 194C(5)Section 263Section 270ASection 92CSection 94C

…batore Vaiyapuri Maathesh vs ITO [ITA No. 373/Chny/2021].  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT [263 ITR 437]  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. [294 ITR 310].  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar [335 ITR 83].  Copy of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan [384 ITR 200].  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.P. Karai [266 ITR 113].  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in th…