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)

Sewa Sahkari Sammittee Maryadit, Beed, Mundi Khandwa vs. PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

ITA 44/IND/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 143(3)Section 263

…for want of an enquiry, then it is incumbent upon the ld. PCIT to give a concluding finding and reasons that the order is not sustainable in law. An identical issue was considered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Vishnoi, 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) in para 7 to 12 as under :- " 7. In this connection, it would be relevant to refer to the material which was relied by the Tribunal to set aside the order of the CIT. The Tribunal noticed that as per the record of the proceedings; on 16-10- 1995, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to produce documents or material in relation to 1…

Manish Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.192/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Manish Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Pcit -1, Gantiwala Compound, Near A S Surat Motors, A. K. Road, Surat - 395008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm6018Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri S. M. Keshkamat, Cit(Dr) 13/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 801Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.192/SRT/2023 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Manish Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The PCIT -1, Gantiwala Compound, Near A S Surat Motors, A. K. Road, Surat - 395008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCM6018Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by Shri S. M. Keshkamat, CIT(DR) 13/09/2023 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 26/09/2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: By way of this appeal, the assessee has challenged the correctnes…

Gayatri Devi, Jaipur vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 405/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 405/JPR/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2019-20 cuke Gayatri Devi Pr. CIT Vs. Rathunath Puri Daba Takhta Tonk Central, Jaipur Tonk 304 001 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ALJPD 4796 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Mahendra Gargieya Advocate & Ms. Veshnawi Joshi, Ad…

Shree Navkar Realinfra Private Limited, Bhilwara vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur24 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of This Appeal.”

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

…lso noted that in the show cause notice also ld. PCIT has not invoked that which clause of explanation 2 to section 263 is attracted in the case. The bench also noted that the jurisdiction Rajasthan high court in the case of CIT vs Ganpat Ram Vishnoi (2008) 296 ITR 292 (Raj) held that the jurisdiction under s. 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 AO, the CIT can cancel that order and require the concerned AO to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after holding a detailed…

Career Point Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 242/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…has held that in a case where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has adopted one view, such a decision, which might be plausible and it has resulted in loss of Revenue, such an order is not revisable u/s 263. (c) CIT vs Ganpat Ram Vishnoi (2008) 296 ITR 292 (Raj) Held:- Undoubtedly, the jurisdiction under s. 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 AO, the CIT can cancel that order and require the concerned AO to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after holding a…

Nimita Soni Prop. Swaranlata Traders, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 41/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ourt further note that is has to be remembered that evey loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Even the jurisdiction Rajasthan high court in the case of CIT Vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi [ 296 ITR 292 ] has held that due revenue out to reach the public treasury and if it does not reach on account of some mistake of law or fact committed by the AO, the CIT can cancel that order and require the concerned AO to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law after holding a detailed enquiry. But when enquiry in fact has been conducted and the AO ha…

Pratap Technocrats Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 225/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80J

…to any level by forcing the AO to go through the assessment process again and again, however, this proposition is not authorised by the law. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi, 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) wherein at para 11 of the Hon'ble Court held as under: "Jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be invoked for making short enquiries or to go into the process of assessment again and again 14 Pratap Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. merely on the basis that more enquiry ought to have been conducted to find something." 4.7 Assessment order can be re…

Pataka Industries Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-7(1)., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

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

…ion and such a conclusion cannot be considered erroneous simply because the ld. PCIT does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. In this regard, we take into consideration the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Ganpat Ram Vishnoi, 296 ITR 292. Even otherwise, provisions of Section nowhere allow to challenge the judicial wisdom of the AO or to replace the wisdom in the guise of revision unless the view taken by the AO is not at all sustainable in law. We are of the view that extent of enquiry cannot be stretched to any level by forcing the AO to go through the assessment process again…

Maa Narmada Agrotech and Infrastures Ltd, Indore vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 117/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimaa Narmada Agrotech & Pcit Infrastructures Limited Indore -1 Ug-47, Trade Centre, Vs. Kanchan Bagh Main Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcm6285 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Goyal & Shri Pranay Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.07.2023

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…for want of an enquiry, then it is incumbent upon the ld. PCIT to give a concluding finding and reasons that the order is not sustainable in law. An identical issue was considered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Vishnoi, 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) in para 7 to 12 as under :- " 7. In this connection, it would be relevant to refer to the material which was relied by the Tribunal to set aside the order of the CIT. The Tribunal noticed that as per the record of the proceedings; on 16-10- 1995, the Assessing Officer required the assessee to produce documents or material in relation to 1…

Kgk Homes, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

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

ITA 223/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DR

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

…ched to any level by forcing the NFAC/AO to go through the assessment process again and again this proposition is not authorised by the law. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Vishnoi, 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) wherein at para 11 of the Hon'ble Court held as under: "Jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be invoked for making short enquiries or to go into the process of assessment again and again merely on the basis that more enquiry ought to have been conducted to find something." 9. Above factual and legal position was submitted before ld. PCIT,…

Shri. Nagaraj Vinayak Joshi, Karawar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 239/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 133ASection 263Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.238 and 239/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2017-18 and 2018-19 Nagaraj Vinayak Joshi, The Principal Commissioner of Income Civil Engineer and Contractor, Tax (Central), H. No.4038, Joshiwada, Vs. Bengaluru. Nandangadda, North Kanara, Karawar – 581 301. PAN : ABXPJ 3854 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 22.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023 O…

Shri. Nagaraj Vinayak Joshi, Karawar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 133ASection 263Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.238 and 239/Bang/2023 Assessment Years : 2017-18 and 2018-19 Nagaraj Vinayak Joshi, The Principal Commissioner of Income Civil Engineer and Contractor, Tax (Central), H. No.4038, Joshiwada, Vs. Bengaluru. Nandangadda, North Kanara, Karawar – 581 301. PAN : ABXPJ 3854 B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 22.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28.06.2023 O…

Sri. Gireeshshastri Shankarshastri Jeere, Gajendragad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 305/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Gireeshshastri Shankarshastri Jeere, The Principal Commissioner Of Prop : Fakeeresh Fuels, Income Tax (Central), Kustagi Road, Main Road, Vs. Bengaluru. Gajendragad – 582 114. Pan : Agupj 2460 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. R. Chandrashekar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. D. K. Mishra, Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri. R. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri Gireeshshastri Shankarshastri Jeere, The Principal Commissioner of Prop : Fakeeresh Fuels, Income Tax (Central), Kustagi Road, Main Road, Vs. Bengaluru. Gajendragad – 582 114. PAN : AGUPJ 2460 M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. R. Chandrashekar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. D. K. Mishra, CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 15.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 16.06.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Judicial Member: Th…

Dharmendra Mehta, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 201/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Avadhesh Kumar (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 44A

…sessee relied upon the various judgment on the issue on hand and considering the relevant judgment as applicable in the present case the hon’ble jurisdictional high court has quashed the proceeding u/s. 263 of the Act in the case of CIT Vs. Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj). The relevant observation of the jurisdictional high court is reiterated for the sake of convenience:- “11. 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 AO, the CIT can ca…

Om Sai Housing & Development Co. P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 635/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.635/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2015-16) Om Sai Housing & Development Co. Private Limited v. Pr.CIT – 8 B/27, Suprabhat Society Room No. 611, Aayakar Bhavan Dyanmandir Road, Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400028 M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AAACO8560E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Vishnu Agarwal Department Represented by : Shri K.C. Salvamani Date of Hearing : 23.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 15.02.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMA…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 70/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…(2010) 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (18) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) (19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 0008 (Delhi) (20) CIT Vs Jain Construction Co. 257 CTR 336 (Raj) (21) CIT Vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj) (22) CIT Vs JL Morrisons India Ltd. 366 ITR 593 (Cal.) (23) R. Srinivasan Vs ACIT (2014) 360 ITR 471 (Madras) (24) Abha Bansal Vs PCIT (2021) 132 taxmann.com 231 (Delhi –Trib) (25) Shanti Krupa Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA 1252/Ahd/2015 (Ahd Trib) (26) JRD Tata Trust Vs DCIT 122 taxmann.com 275 (Mum Trib) (27) Narayan Tatu Rane Vs ITO 70 ta…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 69/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…(2010) 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (18) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) (19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 0008 (Delhi) (20) CIT Vs Jain Construction Co. 257 CTR 336 (Raj) (21) CIT Vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj) (22) CIT Vs JL Morrisons India Ltd. 366 ITR 593 (Cal.) (23) R. Srinivasan Vs ACIT (2014) 360 ITR 471 (Madras) (24) Abha Bansal Vs PCIT (2021) 132 taxmann.com 231 (Delhi –Trib) (25) Shanti Krupa Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA 1252/Ahd/2015 (Ahd Trib) (26) JRD Tata Trust Vs DCIT 122 taxmann.com 275 (Mum Trib) (27) Narayan Tatu Rane Vs ITO 70 ta…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 68/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…(2010) 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (18) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) (19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 0008 (Delhi) (20) CIT Vs Jain Construction Co. 257 CTR 336 (Raj) (21) CIT Vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj) (22) CIT Vs JL Morrisons India Ltd. 366 ITR 593 (Cal.) (23) R. Srinivasan Vs ACIT (2014) 360 ITR 471 (Madras) (24) Abha Bansal Vs PCIT (2021) 132 taxmann.com 231 (Delhi –Trib) (25) Shanti Krupa Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA 1252/Ahd/2015 (Ahd Trib) (26) JRD Tata Trust Vs DCIT 122 taxmann.com 275 (Mum Trib) (27) Narayan Tatu Rane Vs ITO 70 ta…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 67/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…(2010) 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (18) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) (19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 0008 (Delhi) (20) CIT Vs Jain Construction Co. 257 CTR 336 (Raj) (21) CIT Vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj) (22) CIT Vs JL Morrisons India Ltd. 366 ITR 593 (Cal.) (23) R. Srinivasan Vs ACIT (2014) 360 ITR 471 (Madras) (24) Abha Bansal Vs PCIT (2021) 132 taxmann.com 231 (Delhi –Trib) (25) Shanti Krupa Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA 1252/Ahd/2015 (Ahd Trib) (26) JRD Tata Trust Vs DCIT 122 taxmann.com 275 (Mum Trib) (27) Narayan Tatu Rane Vs ITO 70 ta…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 66/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…(2010) 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (18) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) (19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 0008 (Delhi) (20) CIT Vs Jain Construction Co. 257 CTR 336 (Raj) (21) CIT Vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj) (22) CIT Vs JL Morrisons India Ltd. 366 ITR 593 (Cal.) (23) R. Srinivasan Vs ACIT (2014) 360 ITR 471 (Madras) (24) Abha Bansal Vs PCIT (2021) 132 taxmann.com 231 (Delhi –Trib) (25) Shanti Krupa Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT ITA 1252/Ahd/2015 (Ahd Trib) (26) JRD Tata Trust Vs DCIT 122 taxmann.com 275 (Mum Trib) (27) Narayan Tatu Rane Vs ITO 70 ta…

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

Sewa Sahkari Sammittee Maryadit, Beed, Mundi Khandwa vs. PCIT-1, Indore

Manish Packaging Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Surat

Gayatri Devi, Jaipur vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

Shree Navkar Realinfra Private Limited, Bhilwara vs. PCIT, Udaipur

Career Point Limited, Kota, Rajasthan vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan

Nimita Soni Prop. Swaranlata Traders, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

Pratap Technocrats Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

Pataka Industries Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-7(1)., Kolkata

Maa Narmada Agrotech and Infrastures Ltd, Indore vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

Kgk Homes, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jaipur

Shri. Nagaraj Vinayak Joshi, Karawar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

Shri. Nagaraj Vinayak Joshi, Karawar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

Sri. Gireeshshastri Shankarshastri Jeere, Gajendragad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

Dharmendra Mehta, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

Om Sai Housing & Development Co. P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 8, Mumbai

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat