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 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 263 Section 143(3)Section 45(5)Section 145A Section 28

Issues it is cited on

section 145b section 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 145a(b)section 10(37)enhanced compensation section 145a compulsory acquisition lack of enquiry section 264 section 143(3a)

Judgments citing CIT v. Ganpat Ram Bisnoi

M/S. Naresh Pharmaceutical Agencies, Cuttack vs. Principal CIT, Cuttack

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

ITA 180/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…the 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 (Ra])] The Orders of the A.O may be brief and Cryptic, but that by itself is not sufficient reason to brand the Assessment orders as erroneous and prejudicial to the Interest of Revenue. Writing an Order in detail may be a legal requirement, but the Order not fulfilling this requirement can not be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the inte…

Prathama Bank, Moradabad vs. CIT, Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2316/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 2316/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Prathma Bank, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ram Ganga Vihar, Phase-Ii, Moradabad-244001 Moradabad-244001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaajp0988Q Assessee By : Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Paramita Tripathy, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.02.2013 Of Ld. Cit, Moradabad.

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…claim of the assessee. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 332 ITR 167 (Del) " CIT Vs New Delhi Television Ltd. (2013) TIOL 776 HC Del " CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) " CIT Vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj.) " CIT Vs International Travel House Ltd. 344 ITR 554 (Del) " CIT Vs Ashish Rajpal 320 ITR 674 (Del) " A2Z Maintenance & Engineering Services Ltd. Vs CIT (2015) TIOL-1894-ITAT-DEL " Sardhana Papers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (2015) TIOL-2016 (ITAT Del) " ITO Vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del) " Director of Income Tax Vs Jyoti Foundation 35…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6786/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)

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

…ITA NOS. 6785&6786/DEL/2015 (AYRS. 2010-11 & 2011-12) KRISHAK BHARATI CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED VS. ACIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 6785 & 6786/Del/2015 A.Yrs. : 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s Krishak Bharati Cooperative VS. ACIT, Circle 30(1), Ltd., New Delhi A-60, Kailash Colony, New Delhi – 110 048 (PAN: AAAAK0203G) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. Vartik Choksi, CA & Sh. KVR Krishna, CA De…

M/S. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6785/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Ranjan, Adv. Sh. VartikFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Mohan Govil, CIT(DR)

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

M/S Subex Ltd., Bangalore vs. CIT, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 689/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jun 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Radhakrishna, CIT-III(DR)

Section 115JSection 263Section 35D

…it can be said that the AO has arrived at a conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be simply be termed erroneous because the Commissioner does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. 2.18 Reliance can be placed in the case of CIT v Ganpat Rain Bishnoi (2008) 296 ITR 292 (Raj), wherein it was held that where it is found that the assessing officer has made the assessment after making relevant enquiries and considering all aspects of the matter, then invoking of any proceedings under Page 17 of 38 section 263 is unsustainable. (A copy of the decision is enclosed herewith as Annexure 9). 17. The Assessee gave comp…