How many judgments cite CIT v. G.K. Kabra?

37 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. G.K. Kabra (211 ITR 336), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. G.K. Kabra come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 1961, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 263, Section 14A, Section 54E.

CIT v. G.K. Kabra

211 ITR 336High Court1995#3172 most cited

What is CIT v. G.K. Kabra authority for?

For the Commissioner to exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 263, the show-cause notice must clearly specify the exact error in the assessment order that is considered erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, giving the assessee an adequate opportunity to respond.

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. G.K. Kabra · section 263 · revisionary power · show cause notice · erroneous and prejudicial · adequate opportunity · assessment order · Commissioner · vague notice · specific error

Sections most often in play

Section 1961 Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263 Section 14A Section 54E Section 54F Section 54G

Issues it is cited on

malabar industrial disallowance under section 14a erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 26 section 142 section 14a section 142(1)section 143 company section 14 section 143(3)

Judgments citing CIT v. G.K. Kabra

SHILPI MODI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1965/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH,KOLKATA SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1964/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year 2022-23) Ravi Modi, Flat 2C, Block C & D, 12C Lord Sinha Road, Middletown Row S.O. Kolkata - 700071 [PAN: ADTPM5363Q] ..……..…...……………....Appellant vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110 Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata – 7000107 ................................ Respondent I.T.A. No. 1965/Kol/2025 (Assessment Year 2022-23) Shilpi Modi, 19 Canal South Road, Paridhan Garment Park, SDF01, Tangra, S.O., Kolkata -…

RAVI MODI,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2),, KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1964/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Feb 2026AY 2022-2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

ASHOKKUMAR PROJECTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,PORBANDAR vs. THE PR. CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appear of the assessee is allowed

ITA 83/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.83/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Ashokkumar Projects India P. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax, 4Th Floor, Manek Centre, P.N. Cholera Arcade, M.G. Road Opposite, Bhaveshwar Mahadev Marg, Jamnagar - 361008 Temple, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamca5891Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194CSection 263Section 40

…ITANo.83/RJT/2024 Ashok Kumar Project India P. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR.ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.83/RJT/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Ashokkumar Projects India P. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Ltd. Income Tax, 4th Floor, Manek Centre, P.N. Cholera Arcade, M.G. Road Opposite, Bhaveshwar Mahadev Marg, Jamnagar - 361008 Temple, Porbandar – 360575 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAMCA5891Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Dushyant Maharshi, AR Res…

RAGHUVIR RETAILERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 919/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Pcit-2 Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan P-7, Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Chowringhee Square, Kolkata- Bose Road, Kolkata-700026, Vs. 700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaecr8231M Assessee By : Shri S.M. Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, DR

Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…e bench in Vesuvius India Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 23 taxmann.com 425/54 SOT 172 (URO) (Kol.) and a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. G.K. Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2013-14 Kabra, Co-operative Industrial Estate [1994] 75 Taxman 503/[1995] 211 ITR 336. In both cases, it was held that if the object of the notice was one and the matter was treated for a different purpose in the ultimate order, that may not be the appropriate exercise of the jurisdiction. 8. In the light of a possible view taken on the facts as they presented themselves in such regard, the order of the tribunal in respect of the…

SHIVAM RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,VALSAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 396/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.396/Srt/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shivam Residential Construction Principal Commissioner Of (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Civil Income-Tax-Valsad, Palak Vs. Hospital Road, Nanakwada, Valsad Arcade, Pali Hill, Santinagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aapcs 3137 G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Milin Mehta, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By: Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Milin Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Pophare, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.396/SRT/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shivam Residential Construction Principal Commissioner of (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Civil Income-tax-Valsad, Palak Vs. Hospital Road, Nanakwada, Valsad Arcade, Pali Hill, Santinagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAPCS 3137 G (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Milin Mehta, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent by: Shri Ashish Pophare, CIT-D.R सुनवाई की तारीख/…

DNYANESHWAR PANDIT MAHAJAN,,JALGAON vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-2,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1155/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 May 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Milind JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Naveen Gupta

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORESHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1155/PUN/2018 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Dnyaneshwar Pandit Mahajan, H. No. 3231, Gujrathi Lane, Tal.-Parola, Distt.-Jalgaon PAN : AMWPM8083H .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. Pr. CIT – 2, Nashik ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sanket Milind Joshi Revenue by : Shri Naveen Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing :16-02-2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncemen…

NARENDRA AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 7, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh

Section 143(3)Section 263

…was without indicating anything which could justify the withdrawal and was vague the invocation of powers u/s 263 of the Act was liable to be quashed in the absence of material indicated therein. He thereafter submitted that in the case of CIT vs. G. K. Kabra 211 ITR 336, 339-341 (AP) it has been held that it is necessary for CIT to point out the exact error in the order which he proposed to revise so that assessee would have an adequate opportunity of meeting that error before the final order is made. He therefore, relying on the aforesaid decisions submitted that since the notice did not specify the issue, the…

PLAY GAMES 24 X 7 PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PR. .CIT-(A) 13, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3910/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija

Section 263

…an opportunity of being heard. In this regard, following case laws have been referred :- i) CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan (2016) 384 ITR 200 (SC); ii) CIT v. Electro House (1971) 82 ITR 824 (SC); iii) CIT v. Ashish Rajpal (2010) 320 ITR 674 (Del.); iv) G.K. Kabra (211 ITR 336) (AP); v) Chandan Wood Products (217 ITR 834) (MP); and, vi) A. Kannan v. State of Tamil Nadu (201 ITR 205) (Mad.) Furthermore, it has been pleaded that when the learned Commissioner revises the order on an entirely different ground, which has not been disclosed to the assessee, proper opportunity to the assessee is a must. In this regard, follo…

PURNA CHANDRA KISHAN KAZA,,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE ITO,, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/VIZ/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Blepurna Chandra Kishan Kaza, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), D.No. 2-15-42/6, Main Road, Visakhapatnam Mvp Colony, Visakhapatnam. Pan No. Aeqpk 8689 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri I. Kama Sastry – FCAFor Respondent: Shri T.S.N. Murthy – CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…of being heard, the order passed by the ld.CIT is invalid hence, requested to set aside the order of the CIT and allow the appeal of the assessee. Ld.AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. G.K. Kabra [(1995) 211 ITR 336] and argued that the assessee must be given opportunity of being heard before (Purna Chandra Kishan Kaza) passing the order. Ld.AR relied on the following other decisions also:- a) CIT & Ors. Vs. Ramendra Nath Ghosh (82 ITR 888) b) Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [(2006) 5 SOT 17] c) Bagsu Devi Bafna Vs. CIT & Ors. (62 I…

SMT. SHARDABEN B. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-5,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1026/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…rgy Enterprises Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No 2076/Mum/2010; order dated 31" March 2011], a coordinate bench had an occasion to deal with a materially identical situation. As held in this decision, following Maxpack Investments 13 SOT 67 (Del), G.K. Kabra 211 ITR 336 (AP) and Jagadhri Electric Supply 140 ITR 490 (P&H), if a ground of revision is not mentioned in the show-cause notice, it cannot be made the basis of the order for the reason that the assessee would have had no opportunity to meet the point . While learned Departmental Representative does not dispute this position and that decision of the coordi…

GUMPRO DRILLING FLUIDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 15, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2868/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids Vs Pr. Cit-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5Th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, Lbs M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcg2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri L.K.S. Dahiya Cit-Dr

Section 120Section 144ASection 263Section 35

…). For invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, the assessment order must contain grievous error which is subversive of the administration of Revenue. Further, exact error must be disclosed by the Commissioner as was held in CIT vs. G.K. Kabra (211 ITR 336)(AP). Section 263 of the Act enables the Commissioner to have a re-look at the orders or proceedings of the lower authority to effect correction, if so needed, particularly, if the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The object of the provision is to raise revenue for the state and section 263 is enabling provision…

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

…he impugned order are quite different for holding the order of assessment to be erroneous. Thus, the impugned order of the Learned CIT cannot be sustained in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. G.K. Kabra [1995] 211 ITR 336, and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sanco Trans Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [1997] 61 ITD 317 (Mad.). 28 M/s J.K. Trust Bombay 4. Proceeding further, it was submitted that all the details relating to the purchase transactions from sister concerns were supplied to the Assessing Officer. He drew our attention to the audit report to point out…

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

…he impugned order are quite different for holding the order of assessment to be erroneous. Thus, the impugned order of the Learned CIT cannot be sustained in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. G.K. Kabra [1995] 211 ITR 336, and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sanco Trans Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [1997] 61 ITD 317 (Mad.). 4. Proceeding further, it was submitted that all the details relating to the purchase transactions from sister concerns were supplied to the Assessing Officer. He drew our attention to the audit report to point out that all necessary details…

MANOIR PETRO INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 1, MUMBAI

ITA 2626/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manoir Petro India Limited, Pr. Cit-1 602, B-Wing, Universal Room No.387, बनाम/ Business Park, Chandivali 3Rd Floor, Vs. Farm Road, Off Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aafcm5210J

Section 263

…C). For invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, the assessment order must contain grievous error which is subversive of the administration of Revenue. Further, exact error must be disclosed by the Commissioner as was held in CIT vs. G.K. Kabra (211 ITR 336)(AP). Section 263 of the Act enables the Commissioner to have a re-look at the orders or proceedings of the lower authority to effect correction, if so needed, particularly, if the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The object of the provision is to raise revenue for the state and section 263 is enabling provisi…

GENERAL COMPUTER SERVICES INTERNATIONAL,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 31, MUMBAI

ITA 2459/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Anant N. Pai, A.RFor Respondent: Sh. Jayant Kumar, CIT, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

…erroneous, thus, the order of revision could not be sustained and was liable to struck down. The Ld. A.R. in support of his aforesaid contention relied on the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CIT Vs. G.K. Kabra Co-Op. Ind. Estate (1995) 211 ITR 336 (AP). It was further averred by the Ld. A.R that though the Pr. CIT had initiated the revisional proceedings on certain specific issues, but while passing the order had traversed beyond them, thus, the order passed by him under Sec. 263 could not be sustained and was liable to be struck down. Reliance in support of the aforesaid contention was pl…

SAIGAL SEA TRADE,MUMBAI vs. CIT -18, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2511/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

Section 142(1)Section 263

…iction u/s. 263 of the Act, the assessment order must contain grievous error which is subversive of the administration of Revenue. Further, exact error must be disclosed by the Commissioner as was held in 21 M/s Trancfex Studios Pvt Ltd. CIT vs. G.K. Kabra (211 ITR 336)(AP). Section 263 of the Act enables the Commissioner to have a re-look at the orders or proceedings of the lower authority to effect correction, if so needed, particularly, if the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The object of the provision is to raise revenue for the state and section 263 is enabling provision…

GAUTAM TUBE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 19, MUMBAI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3609/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…he Act, the assessment order must contain grievous error which is subversive of the administration of Revenue. Further, exact error must be disclosed by the Commissioner as was held in ITA No.3608 & 3609Mum/2017 13 Gautam Tube Corporation CIT vs. G.K. Kabra (211 ITR 336)(AP). Section 263 of the Act enables the Commissioner to have a re-look at the orders or proceedings of the lower authority to effect correction, if so needed, particularly, if the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The object of the provision is to raise revenue for the state and section 263 is enabling provision…

GAUTAM TUBE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 19, MUMBAI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3608/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

MUMBAI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OP BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 1(1), MUMBAI

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3198/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

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

…SC). For invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act, the assessment order must contain grievous error which is subversive of the administration of Revenue. Further, exact error must be disclosed by the Commissioner as was held in CIT vs. G.K. Kabra (211 ITR 336)(AP). Section 263 of the Act enables the Commissioner to have a re-look at the orders or proceedings of the lower authority to effect correction, if so needed, particularly, if the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The object of the provision is to raise revenue for the state and section 263 is enabling provision…

SHRI SANJAY KUMAR TYAGI,MEERUT vs. ACIT, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4979/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblesanjay Kumar Vs Cit Prop. Tyagi Associates Meerut H-45, Gandhi Nagar, Garh Road, (Respondent) Meerut Aczpk2030M (Applicant) Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Acit H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Circle-2, Gali No. 3, Garh Road Bhansali Ground Meerut Meerut Acapk2030M (Respondent) (Applicant) Acit Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Circle-2, H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Bhansali Ground Gali No. 3, Garh Road Meerut Meerut (Applicant) Acapk2030M (Respondent)

For Appellant: “1. That the impugned

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

…not justified. The reliance was placed on the following case laws:- " CIT Vs Rashid Exports Industries and Ors. 389 ITR 293 (All.) " CIT Vs. Ashish Rajpal 320 ITR 674 (Del.) " CIT Vs. Contimeters Electricals Pvt. Ltd. 317 ITR 249 (Del.) " CIT Vs. G. K. Kabra 211 ITR 336, (A.P.) " CIT, Ghaziabad Vs M/s Raj Shyama Construction (P) Ltd. in ITA No.40 of 2011 order dated 04.10.2017 (All. HC) 15. In his rival submissions, the Ld. CIT DR strongly supported the order of the Ld. CIT and reiterated the observation made in the impugned order. It was further submitted that the A.O did not make proper enquiry while making as…

Showing 1–20 of 37 · Page 1 of 2