CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi

296 ITR 292High Court2008#697 most cited

What is CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi authority for?

An assessment order cannot be revised under Section 263 for being erroneous due to a perceived lack of enquiry if the Assessing Officer has already conducted an enquiry, applied their mind, and accepted the assessee's explanation.

145

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi · Section 263 · revision of assessment order · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · lack of enquiry · Assessing Officer's application of mind · enhanced compensation · Section 56(2)(viii) · Section 28 Land Acquisition Act

Sections most often in play

Section 57(iv)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 10(37)Section 263Section 143(3)Section 45(5)Section 145ASection 28

Issues it is cited on

section 145bsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 145a(b)section 10(37)enhanced compensationsection 145acompulsory acquisitionlack of enquirysection 264section 143(3a)

Judgments citing CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi

Mawasi, Haryana vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5020/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT-DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member ITA No. 5020/Del./2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Mawasi, Vs CIT(A)/NFAC, 10, Nawada, Bhud (194), Delhi Faridabad, Haryana-121004 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BBOPM5239H Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 02.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 02.12.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/20…

Raj Singh, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6710/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2Section 263Section 28Section 3

…the explanation of the assessee, the order could not be held to be erroneous. In support the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) and decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) were cited. 6.2 The Ld. AR invited our attention to Audit Memo at pages 399-402 of Paper Book in the case of the assessee wherein ITO (Audit) Hisar raised an audit objection observing that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- was chargeable to tax under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act and also referred to t…

Rajpal, Jhajjar vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Unit

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6697/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 3Section 56(2)(viii)

…the explanation of the assessee, the order could not be held to be erroneous. In support the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) and decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) were cited. 6.2 The Ld. AR invited our attention to Audit Memo at pages 399-402 of Paper Book in the case of the assessee 5 wherein ITO (Audit) Hisar raised an audit objection observing that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- was chargeable to tax under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act and also referred t…

Tara Vati, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Circle 3(1) Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6552/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…the explanation of the assessee, the order could not be held to be erroneous. In support the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) and decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) were cited. 6.2 The Ld. AR invited our attention to Audit Memo at pages 399-402 of Paper Book in the case of the assessee wherein ITO (Audit) Hisar raised an audit objection observing that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- was chargeable to tax under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act and also referred to…

Charanjeet Singh, Panipat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6387/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Charanjeet Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 115, Baholi, Ward-1, Panipat Refinery, Panipat Panipat, Haryana Pan: Ddaps7473H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Suresh Gupta, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…the explanation of the assessee, the order could not be held to be erroneous. In support the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) and decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) were cited. 6.2 The Ld. AR invited our attention to Audit Memo at pages 399-402 of Paper Book in the case of the assessee wherein ITO (Audit) Hisar raised an audit objection observing that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- was chargeable to tax under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act and also referred to t…

Lucknow Educational and Social Welfare Society, Lucknow vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 314/LKW/2025[2020-21]Status: FixedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Shri Brahma Prakash Singh, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 94, Vaishali Enclave, Sector-9, Indira Income Tax-2, Lucknow Nagar, Lucknow Pan: Ajmps4451L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dharmendra Kumar, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pcit-2, Lucknow Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act On 14.03.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That Revision Proceeding Initiated U/S 263 Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Learned Pr. Cit-2. Lucknow Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 2. That Since Assessment Order Passed By The Ao Was Not Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue, Hence Revision Order Passed By Ld. Pr. Cit-2, Lucknow Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 3. That Ld.Ao Had Examined The Issue & After Being Satisfied By The Documentary Evidences & Explanations Furnished By Appellant, Passed Assessment Order, Hence Revision Order, Cancelling The Assessment Order Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 4. That Where An Order Passed By Ao Is Subject To An Appeal That Had Been Filed, Then Commissioner Cannot Invoke Power Under Section 263 In Such Matters, Which Are Agitated In Such Appeal. Since Issue Under Appeal Before Commissioner (Appeals) & Revision Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Same, Hence, Revision Order Passed By Commissioner Is Illegal & Without Jurisdiction. 5. That The Appellant Seeks Permission To Modify And/Or Add Any Other Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal As The Circumstances Of The Case Might Require Or Justify.”

For Appellant: Sh. Dharmendra Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 263

…/s K. Sera Sera Productions v. CIT [ITA No.3024/Mum/2012](Mumbai Bench of ITAT) c. CIT v. International Travel House Ltd [ITA 94/2010] (Delhi High Court) d. Small Wonder industries v. CIT [ITA No.2464/Mum/2013] (ITAT- Mumbai) e. CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi [2008-296 ITR 292] (Rajasthan High Court) f. CIT v. Amit Corporation [Tax Appeal No.2583 of 2010] (Gujarat High Court) g. CIT v. Hotz Industries Ltd [2014-226 Taxman 252] (Delhi High Court) h. CIT v. Anand Food Products [ITA No.382 of 2013] (Andhra Pradesh High Court) i. Meerut Roller Flour Mills (P.) Ltd v. CIT [2019] 110 taxmann.com 170 (Allahabad)” It was, ther…

Ganga Bishan, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2179/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA No. 2179/Del./2025 : Asstt. Year: 2019-20 Ganga Bishan, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 26, Pataudi Road, Ward-1(3), Bhangrola, B.O. Dhorka (12), Gurgaon, Gurgaon, Haryana-122505 Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BGGPB3314K Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 17.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 17.11.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2019-20, arise…

Sanjay, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 4(1)-Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5952/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5952/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Sanjay Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca, M. R. Sahu, Ward-4(1), House No. 651, 1St Floor, Sector- Gurgaon, 10A, Near G. D. Goenka Public Haryana-122050 School, Gurgaon-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Eqsps3018G Assessee By : Sh. M. R. Sahu, Ca & Sh. Sudhir Yadav, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. M. R. Sahu, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 5952/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Sanjay Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o CA, M. R. Sahu, Ward-4(1), House No. 651, 1st Floor, Sector- Gurgaon, 10A, Near G. D. Goenka Public Haryana-122050 School, Gurgaon-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. EQSPS3018G Assessee by : Sh. M. R. Sahu, CA & Sh. Sudhir Yadav, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17, arises against the CIT(A…

Neetu Yadav, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon

ITA 845/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 4095/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4229/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 845/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neetu Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, 164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abfpy2785C Assessee By : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 4095 & 4229/Del/2024 & Ita No. 845/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1066728710(1) & 1067097100(1) & 1066774096(1) Dated 15.07.2024, 16.07.2024 & 29.07.2024 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member ITA No. 4095/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ITA No. 4229/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 ITA No. 845/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neetu Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, 164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABFPY2785C Assessee by : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025…

Neetu Yadav, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon

ITA 4229/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 4095/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4229/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 845/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neetu Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, 164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abfpy2785C Assessee By : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 4095 & 4229/Del/2024 & Ita No. 845/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1066728710(1) & 1067097100(1) & 1066774096(1) Dated 15.07.2024, 16.07.2024 & 29.07.2024 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member ITA No. 4095/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ITA No. 4229/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 ITA No. 845/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neetu Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, 164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABFPY2785C Assessee by : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025…

Neetu Yadav, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Gurgaon

ITA 4095/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 4095/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4229/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 845/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neetu Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, 164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abfpy2785C Assessee By : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 4095 & 4229/Del/2024 & Ita No. 845/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1066728710(1) & 1067097100(1) & 1066774096(1) Dated 15.07.2024, 16.07.2024 & 29.07.2024 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member ITA No. 4095/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 ITA No. 4229/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 ITA No. 845/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neetu Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, 164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABFPY2785C Assessee by : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025…

Amit Sharma, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3231/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA No. 3231/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2019-20 Amit Sharma, Vs Income Tax Officer, 231/50, Basai, Near Badi Chopal, Ward-1(1), Gurugram, Guragaon-122001 Gurgaon-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BOAPS5304A Assessee by : Sh. Yogesh Yadav, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 25.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 25.09.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2019-20, arises against the…

Pradeep Kumar Rochwani, Jodhpur vs. Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 567/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain, Adv. (throughFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 263

…without application of mind. In this view of the matter, we cancel the order under section 263 passed by the ld. CIT.” The ld. AR further relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi, 296 ITR 292 (Raj.). Revision – Erroneous and prejudicial order – Lack of proper enquiry – Tribunal has found that the AO framed the assessment after due application of mind and holding enquiries into all aspects which according to the CIT, have not been enquired into – 18 Pradeep Kumar Rochwani, Jodhpur. This is a finding of fact – No presumption can be dr…

Sha Pratapchand Pukharaj and Company, Vijayapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2547/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 253Section 253(5)Section 263

…he order of Assessment, it was apparent from the record, without anything to show how and why the enquiry conducted by the A.O was not in accordance with the Law, the invocation of jurisdiction by the Commissioner was unsustainable.[ CIT Vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj)]. 9.5 Further, we also observed that on the same issue of depositing Rs.55,00,000/- in current account, the ld. ADIT(Inv.) Unit-I, Belgaum had also issued summons u/s. 131 of the Act in which assessee in its reply dated 29.11.2018& filed on 03/12/2018 submitted the details as per the proforma along with the copy of the audit report, copy o…

Vanigota Sugar Trading Company, Vijapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Bijapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2545/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 253(5)Section 263

…e order of Assessment, it was apparent from the record, without anything to show how and why the enquiry conducted by the A.O was not in accordance with the Law, the invocation of jurisdiction by the Commissioner was unsustainable. [ CIT Vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj)] 9.5 Further, we also observed that on the same issue of the depositing Rs.45,00,000/- in current account of State Bank of India, the ld. Assistant director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit-2, Belagavi had also issued summons u/s. 131 of the Act in which the assessee in its reply dated 31.12.2018 submitted the details as per the proform…

Anil Kumar Batar, Sikar vs. PCIT-Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 263

…nding of the Tribunal was found perverse. Considering the material on record, it could be said that finding of the Tribunal was perverse. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in cancelling the order under section 263." 9.2 Also refer CIT v/s Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292(Raj.)The record of proceedings clearly shows that the AO has framed his assessment after due application of mind and holding enquiries into all areas, which, according to the CIT have not been at all enquired into and the AO has acted merely on furnishing evidence on one single date. The Tribunal noticed that as per the record of the proceedings,…

Lal Chand, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4479/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4479/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Lal Chand, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca R.S. Poonia, Ward-1(4), D-83-B, Siwad Area, Krishna Marg, Gurugram, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur-302015 Haryana-122016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agkpl7795F Assessee By: Sh. Rajat Chaudhary, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.08.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Chaudhary, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 4479/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Lal Chand, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o CA R.S. Poonia, Ward-1(4), D-83-B, Siwad Area, Krishna Marg, Gurugram, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur-302015 Haryana-122016 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AGKPL7795F Assessee by: Sh. Rajat Chaudhary, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 27.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFA…

Balvinder Singh, Karnal, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Karnal, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4346/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…tion of the assessee, the order could not be held to be erroneous. In support the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) and 4 | P a g e decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) were cited. 6.2 The Ld. AR invited our attention to Audit Memo at pages 399-402 of Paper Book in the case of the assessee wherein ITO (Audit) Hisar raised an audit objection observing that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- was chargeable to tax under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act and also referred to t…

Leelu Ram, Gurugram vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurugam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 896/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Leelu Ram, S/O-Mangal Singh, C/O-Ysr Gurugram & Associates, Plot No. 214, Basement, Sector-47, Haryana Pan: Apspr3189Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. M.R. Sahu, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…the explanation of the assessee, the order could not be held to be erroneous. In support the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) and decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) were cited. 6.2 The Ld. AR invited our attention to Audit Memo at pages 399-402 of Paper Book in the case of the assessee wherein ITO (Audit) Hisar raised an audit objection observing that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- was chargeable to tax under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act and also referred to t…

Komal Adlakha, Gurugram vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3652/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2019-20 Vs. Ito, Komal Adlakha, A06, Parsvnath Green Ville, Ward-2(2), Sohna Road, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Autpa5180C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, Ca Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…the explanation of the assessee, the order could not be held to be erroneous. In support the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) and decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) were cited. 6.2 The Ld. AR invited our attention to Audit Memo at pages 399-402 of Paper Book in the case of the assessee wherein ITO (Audit) Hisar raised an audit objection observing that interest under section 28 of Land Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- was chargeable to tax under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act and also referred to t…