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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi?

145 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi (296 ITR 292), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 57(iv), Section 56(2)(viii), Section 10(37), Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 45(5).

CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi (296 ITR 292)

Ravinder, Gurgaon vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4865/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19

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…

Radhey Shyam Saini, Hisar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2359/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Vs. Pcit, Sh. Radhey Shyam Saini, H. No. 1174/334, Rohtak Ramlila Chowk, Hisar, Haryana Pan: Bxhps4356Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Kuldeep Khera, Ca Sh. Mohit Girdhar, Ca Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15, Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [In Short, The “Pcit”], Rohtak’S Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023- 24/1062878555(1), Dated 18.03.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision In Pawan Kumar Vs. Pcit (2024) 159 Taxmann.Com 61 (Del.-Trib.) Has Distinguished The Said Case Law As Under:

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 4 | P a g e Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- was chargeable to tax under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act and also r…

Shammi Nagpal HUF, Hisar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2358/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Pcit, Shammi Nagpal Huf, H. No. 7, Sector-13, Hissar, Rohtak Haryana Pan: Aazhs3505D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Kuldeep Khera, Ca Sh. Mohit Girdhar, Ca Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.07.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14, Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short “The Pcit”), Rohtak’S Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023- 24/1062887031(1), Dated 19.03.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision In Pawan Kumar Vs. Pcit (2024) 159 Taxmann.Com 61 (Del.-Trib.) Has Distinguished The Said Case Law As Under:

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 4 | P a g e Acquisition Act of Rs. 3,97,56,460/- was chargeable to tax under section 56(2)(viii) of the Act and also r…

ITO, Ward-1(1), Faridabad vs. Chaman, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2774/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Chaman, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), H. No. 437, Sector-9, Faridabad Faridabad Pan: Bfapd6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.103/Del/2024 [Arising Out Of Ita No.2774/Del/2024] Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chaman, H. No. 437, Sector-9, Ward-1(1), Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad Pan: Bfapd6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Gaurav, Adv. Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25.06.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No. 2774/Del/2024 & Assessee’S Cross Objection C.O. No. 103/Del/2024 For Assessment Year 2017- 18, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The

Section 147Section 250(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Chaman, Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), H. No. 437, Sector-9, Faridabad Faridabad PAN: BFAPD6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.103/Del/2024 [Arising out of ITA No.2774/Del/2024] Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Chaman, H. No. 437, Sector-9, Ward-1(1), Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad PAN: BFAPD6698P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Gaurav, Adv. Department by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of…

Hari Singh, Palwal vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4082/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

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

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 t…

Alliance Nirmaan Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 263

…d by the CIT which shows that there was any discrepancy or falsity in the evidence furnished by the assessee, the order of the AO cannot be set aside for making deep enquiry only on the presumption that something new may come out. CIT v. Ganpati Ram Bishnoi, (296 ITR 292) (Raj.); "15. Undoubtedly, the jurisdiction under section 263 is wide and is meant to ensure that due revenue ought to reach the public treasury and if it does not reach on account of some mistake of law or fact committed by the assessing officer, the Commissioner of income tax can cancel that order and require the concerned assessing officer to…

Income Tax Officer, Panipat vs. Dinesh Kaushik, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5753/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Sh. Dinesh Kaushik, Income Tax Officer, Panipat Vpo Baljattan, Panipat, Haryana Pan: Awjpk9483E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145BSection 263Section 28Section 45(5)

…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…

Jile Singh, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2223/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2223/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Jile Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 68, Sotai, Near Mahipal Ward-51(3), Nambardar, Ballabgarh, Faridabad, Faridabad, Haryana-121002 Haryana-121004 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fzsps8684G Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.06.2025 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, 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. 2223/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Jile Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 68, Sotai, Near Mahipal Ward-51(3), Nambardar, Ballabgarh, Faridabad, Faridabad, Haryana-121002 Haryana-121004 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. FZSPS8684G Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 02.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2…

Sanakari, Village Bhooda Noida vs. Ward 3(4) Sector 24 Noida, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1533/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 1533/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Sanakari, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 18, Village Bhooda, Noida, Ward-3(4), District Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Uttar Pradesh-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Etcps4927M Assessee By : Sh. Pawan Sharma, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Sharma, CAFor 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. 1533/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Sanakari, Vs Income Tax Officer, H. No. 18, Village Bhooda, Noida, Ward-3(4), District Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Uttar Pradesh-201301 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ETCPS4927M Assessee by : Sh. Pawan Sharma, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 29.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 29.05.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NF…

Baljit Kaur, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Karnal

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4073/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Baljit Kaur, Pcit, 726, Sector-13, U.E., Karnal, Vs. Office Of The Principal Haryana. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aippk7073E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Baljit Kaur, Dcit, H.No.142-B, Model Town Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Sector-12, Extension, Ludhiana, Karnal, Haryana. Punjab. Pan No.Aippk7073E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…. AO did not discuss elaborately in the assessment order but that alone cannot make the order erroneous as held by the Hon 'ble Delhi High Court in CIT V. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) and Hon'ble Raiasthan High Court in CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.). An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC). None of these elements exist in the case at hand. 11. Perusal of the order of the Ld. PCIT shows that he assumed the revi…

Baljit Kaur, Karnal vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1208/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Baljit Kaur, Pcit, 726, Sector-13, U.E., Karnal, Vs. Office Of The Principal Haryana. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Rohtak, Haryana. Pan No.Aippk7073E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Baljit Kaur, Dcit, H.No.142-B, Model Town Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Sector-12, Extension, Ludhiana, Karnal, Haryana. Punjab. Pan No.Aippk7073E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…. AO did not discuss elaborately in the assessment order but that alone cannot make the order erroneous as held by the Hon 'ble Delhi High Court in CIT V. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del) and Hon'ble Raiasthan High Court in CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.). An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC). None of these elements exist in the case at hand. 11. Perusal of the order of the Ld. PCIT shows that he assumed the revi…

Sukhbir Singh, Bahadurgarh, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 68(5), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 313/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 781/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Devinder Kumar, Vs Pcit, 59, Gurjar Mohalla, Vpo Faridabad, Machhgarh, Ballabgarh, Haryana-121001 Faridabad-121004 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djipk4264C

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT-DR

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 ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member ITA No. 781/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Devinder Kumar, Vs PCIT, 59, Gurjar Mohalla, VPO Faridabad, Machhgarh, Ballabgarh, Haryana-121001 Faridabad-121004 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. DJIPK4264C ITA No. 786/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Vinod, Vs PCIT, 59, Gurjar Mohalla, VPO Faridabad, Machhgarh, Ballabgarh, Haryana-121001 Faridabad-121004 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AUEPV7196E Assessee by : Sh. R. S. Poonia, CA Revenue by : Ms. Pooja Swaroop…

Vinod, Faridabad vs. PCIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 786/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 781/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Devinder Kumar, Vs Pcit, 59, Gurjar Mohalla, Vpo Faridabad, Machhgarh, Ballabgarh, Haryana-121001 Faridabad-121004 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djipk4264C

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT-DR

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 ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member ITA No. 781/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Devinder Kumar, Vs PCIT, 59, Gurjar Mohalla, VPO Faridabad, Machhgarh, Ballabgarh, Haryana-121001 Faridabad-121004 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. DJIPK4264C ITA No. 786/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Vinod, Vs PCIT, 59, Gurjar Mohalla, VPO Faridabad, Machhgarh, Ballabgarh, Haryana-121001 Faridabad-121004 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AUEPV7196E Assessee by : Sh. R. S. Poonia, CA Revenue by : Ms. Pooja Swaroop…

Devinder Kumar, Faridabad vs. Principal Commissioner, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 781/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 781/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Devinder Kumar, Vs Pcit, 59, Gurjar Mohalla, Vpo Faridabad, Machhgarh, Ballabgarh, Haryana-121001 Faridabad-121004 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Djipk4264C

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT-DR

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 ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member ITA No. 781/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Devinder Kumar, Vs PCIT, 59, Gurjar Mohalla, VPO Faridabad, Machhgarh, Ballabgarh, Haryana-121001 Faridabad-121004 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. DJIPK4264C ITA No. 786/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Vinod, Vs PCIT, 59, Gurjar Mohalla, VPO Faridabad, Machhgarh, Ballabgarh, Haryana-121001 Faridabad-121004 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AUEPV7196E Assessee by : Sh. R. S. Poonia, CA Revenue by : Ms. Pooja Swaroop…

Kharak Singh, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 776/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi26 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

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…

Kharak Singh, Noida vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 775/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi26 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

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…

Chander Bhan, Hansi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hisar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4112/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Chander Bhan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 566/14, Jind Road, Ward-1, Hisar, Saniyan Mohalla, Haryana Hansi Distt., Hisar, Haryana Pan: Ayypb8380N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Lalit Mohan, Ca Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, 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: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Chander Bhan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 566/14, Jind Road, Ward-1, Hisar, Saniyan Mohalla, Haryana Hansi Distt., Hisar, Haryana PAN: AYYPB8380N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA Department by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of hearing 26.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 26.05.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commission…

Subhash Chander, Hisar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2356/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanita No. 2356/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Subhash Chander, Vs Pcit, House No. 1476, Vivek Nagar, Rohtak, Hisar, Haryana-125001 Haryana-124001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Axlpc0177G Assessee By : Sh. Kuldip Khera, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Jitender Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.05.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2019-20, Arises Against The Pcit, Rohtak’S Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023–24/1062890142(1) Dated 19.03.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Kuldip Khera, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-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 ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA No. 2356/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Subhash Chander, Vs PCIT, House No. 1476, Vivek Nagar, Rohtak, Hisar, Haryana-125001 Haryana-124001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AXLPC0177G Assessee by : Sh. Kuldip Khera, CA Revenue by : Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.05.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2019-20, arises against the PCIT, Rohtak’s…

Pushp Raj Bohra, Jalore vs. Pr. CIT – 1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 374/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…rder passed by the AO could not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. In support, he placed reliance on the following case laws:- i. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) ii. CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi (2008) 296 ITR 292 (Raj) iii. CIT(Addl.) vs. UP. State Agro Industrial Corporation [1981] 121 ITR 97 (All) iv. CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) v. CIT vs. Parmanad, D. B. Income Tax Appeal No. 137/2014 vi. CIT vs. M/s. Jain Construction, D. B. Income Tax Appeal No. 60/2012 6. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative supported th…

Daya Ram, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2268/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwaldaya Ram, Vs. Pcit, Village Patauda Khera, Rohtak Po Patauda, Distt-Jhajjar, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Avrpr0237L Assessee By : Shri Jai Bhagwan Saini, Adv Revenue By: Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Jai Bhagwan Saini, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, 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)

…e s s e e , th e o rd e r c o u ld n o t b e h e l d t o b e e rro n e o u s . 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. Daya Ram 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 ref…

CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi

What is CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi

Ravinder, Gurgaon vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

Radhey Shyam Saini, Hisar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

Shammi Nagpal HUF, Hisar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

ITO, Ward-1(1), Faridabad vs. Chaman, Faridabad

Hari Singh, Palwal vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Faridabad

Alliance Nirmaan Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

Income Tax Officer, Panipat vs. Dinesh Kaushik, Panipat

Jile Singh, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Faridabad

Sanakari, Village Bhooda Noida vs. Ward 3(4) Sector 24 Noida, Noida

Baljit Kaur, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, Karnal

Baljit Kaur, Karnal vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

Sukhbir Singh, Bahadurgarh, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 68(5), Delhi

Vinod, Faridabad vs. PCIT, Faridabad

Devinder Kumar, Faridabad vs. Principal Commissioner, Faridabad

Kharak Singh, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer, Noida

Kharak Singh, Noida vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Noida

Chander Bhan, Hansi vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hisar

Subhash Chander, Hisar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

Pushp Raj Bohra, Jalore vs. Pr. CIT – 1, Jodhpur

Daya Ram, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Rohtak