CIT v. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust

171 ITR 698High Court1988#2328 most cited

What is CIT v. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust authority for?

A brief or cryptic assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer, without a finding that an erroneous conclusion was reached, is not sufficient ground for the Commissioner to invoke revisional jurisdiction under Section 263. The mere brevity of an order does not automatically render it erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

49

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. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust · Goyal Family Trust · Section 263 · revisional jurisdiction · brief assessment order · cryptic assessment order · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · Commissioner's powers · Section 143(3) assessment

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 147Section 148Section 10(37)Section 145A(b)Section 151Section 56(2)(viii)

Issues it is cited on

section 141section 282a(1)section 194lanational tax tribunalsection 293section 65asection 145a(b)section 145bsection 44afinadequate enquirysection 45(5)revision u/s 263

Judgments citing CIT v. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the added element of "unsustainability" in the order of the Assessing Officer, which clothes the Commissioner with jurisdiction to issue notice, and proceed to make appropriate orders." 11.6 Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 171 ITR 698 (All) CIT vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust ii) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT V. Kashi Nath & Company iii) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT V. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. iv) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v Vikas Polymers (pages 277-285 of JPB) “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel Ind…

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the added element of "unsustainability" in the order of the Assessing Officer, which clothes the Commissioner with jurisdiction to issue notice, and proceed to make appropriate orders." 11.6 Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 171 ITR 698 (All) CIT vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust ii) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT V. Kashi Nath & Company iii) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT V. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. iv) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v Vikas Polymers (pages 277-285 of JPB) “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel Ind…

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the added element of "unsustainability" in the order of the Assessing Officer, which clothes the Commissioner with jurisdiction to issue notice, and proceed to make appropriate orders." 11.6 Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 171 ITR 698 (All) CIT vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust ii) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT V. Kashi Nath & Company iii) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT V. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. iv) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v Vikas Polymers (pages 277-285 of JPB) “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel Ind…

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the added element of "unsustainability" in the order of the Assessing Officer, which clothes the Commissioner with jurisdiction to issue notice, and proceed to make appropriate orders." 11.6 Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 171 ITR 698 (All) CIT vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust ii) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT V. Kashi Nath & Company iii) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT V. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. iv) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v Vikas Polymers (pages 277-285 of JPB) “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel Ind…

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the added element of "unsustainability" in the order of the Assessing Officer, which clothes the Commissioner with jurisdiction to issue notice, and proceed to make appropriate orders." 11.6 Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 171 ITR 698 (All) CIT vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust ii) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT V. Kashi Nath & Company iii) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT V. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. iv) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v Vikas Polymers (pages 277-285 of JPB) “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel Ind…

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the added element of "unsustainability" in the order of the Assessing Officer, which clothes the Commissioner with jurisdiction to issue notice, and proceed to make appropriate orders." 11.6 Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 171 ITR 698 (All) CIT vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust ii) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT V. Kashi Nath & Company iii) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT V. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. iv) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v Vikas Polymers (pages 277-285 of JPB) “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel Ind…

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…the added element of "unsustainability" in the order of the Assessing Officer, which clothes the Commissioner with jurisdiction to issue notice, and proceed to make appropriate orders." 11.6 Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 171 ITR 698 (All) CIT vs. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust ii) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT V. Kashi Nath & Company iii) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT V. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. iv) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v Vikas Polymers (pages 277-285 of JPB) “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel Ind…

INNOVATE DERIVATIVES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 31/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250

…us and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue The above proposition has been upheld in the case of CIT v. Reliance Communication 69 taxmann.com 109 (Bombay), Smt. Anupama Bharat Gupta 1. ΠO in ITA 1685/Ahd/2018, Goyal Private Family Specific Trust (1988) 171 ITR 698, CIT 12 Mahendra Kumar Bansal (2008) 297 ITR 99 (All) (para 10) etc. We thus find no error in the order of Ld. AO so as to justify initiation of 263 proceedings by the Ld Pr. CIT. The Ground of appeal raised by the assessee is thus allowed. 8. Similarly, in the case of Varun Nagainbhai Patel (supra), the Co- ordinate Bench deleted the addition ma…

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

ITA 100/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 263

…stified in setting aside assessment order by invoking his power\nvested by provision of section 263 -Held, yes\nCIT v. Associated Food Products P. Ltd. 280 IIR 377 (MP)\nOrder u/s 143(3) completed in a haste. No jurisdiction u/s 263\nGoyal Family Trust v. CIT 171 ITR 698 (Alld)\nMerely because the AO's order is brief and cryptic that itself would not be\na case for revision.\nHari Iron Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-263 ITR 437\nA bare perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the Commissioner\ncan exercise powers under sub-section (1) of section 263 of the Act only\nafter examining \"the record of…

SH. SUKHVINDER SINGH,KANPUR vs. PR CIT, CENTRAL, KANPUR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 190/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…iated Food Products P. Ltd 280 ITR 377 (MP): it was held by Hon'ble High Court that jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked merely on the ground that the assessment order was completed in a haste. In the case of Goyal Family Trust Vs. CIT 171 ITR 698 (All): it was held by jurisdictional High Court that merely because the assessment is brief and cryptic that itself would not be a case for revisional under section 263 of the Act. In the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. Vs. CIT 263 ITR 437: Hon'ble High Court held that A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the Commissioner can exer…

AZB AND PARTNER ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-8, MUMBAI

ITA 4105/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Shri VinayakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 195Section 263

…diction under section 263-Held YES, (2) CIT v. Jain Uday Fabrics (P) Ltd. [2024] 165 taxmann.com 833 (Punjab & Haryana). (3) Pr. CIT v. Anindita Steels Ltd. [2022] 137 taxmann.com 203 (Calcutta) (4) CIT v. Goyal (P.) Family Specific Trust [1987] 35 Taxman 522/171 ITR 698 (Allahabad) 42. Lastly, it is also observed by us that neither the survey team in course of survey, nor the AO in course of assessment proceedings, has brought any adverse material on record, to prove the fact that the assessee had any income other than the business of cosmetics and the assessee has also explained the source of the income so sur…

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
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ts Ltd. vs. JCIT [2008] 303 ITR (AT)\n278 (Pune)]\n22.\nSaw Pipes Ltd. vs. CIT [2005] 3 SOT 327 (Delhi)\n23.\nBrij Bhushan Agarwal vs. CIT (Agra) 2 SOT 811 (2005)\n24.\nCIT vs. Associated Food Products P. Ltd. 280 ITR 377 (MP)\n25.\nGoyal Family Trust vs. CIT 171 ITR 698 (All)\n26.\nHari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT 263 ITR 437\n27.\nCIT vs. Ashish Rajpal 180 Taxman 623 (Delhi) order dated May\n14, 2009\n28.\nAnil Shah vs. ACIT 162 Taxman 39 (Mum) (Mag) order dated\nApril 21, 2006\n29.\nJashn\nBeneficiary\nTrust vs. ACIT 88 Taxman 824 (Jabalpur-Trib.) order dated\nMarch 15, 2017\n30.\nMetro Development vs. Pr CIT I.T…

HORIZON DWELLINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 77/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 143(3)Section 263

…sessment order was sought to be revised. We, therefore, direct that the said Page 18 of 33 directions pertaining to the years other than the year under consideration as contained in the impugned order be omitted. CIT v. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust, (171 ITR 698) (AIL) “6. There is no finding by the Commissioner that the Income-tax Officer reached an erroneous conclusion and that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the conclusion would have been different. The orders of the Income-tax Officer may be brief and cryptic, but that by itself is not sufficient reason to brand the assessment orders as…

SHRI CHETAN SHARMA,KANPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), KANPUR

In the result, both appeals are allowed

ITA 343/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 153DSection 263

…iated Food Products P. Ltd 280 ITR 377 (MP): it was held by Hon'ble High Court that jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked merely on the ground that the assessment order was completed in a haste. In the case of Goyal Family Trust Vs. CIT 171 ITR 698 (All): it was held by jurisdictional High Court that merely because the assessment is brief and cryptic that itself would not be a case for revisional under section 263 of the Act. In the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. Vs. CIT 263 ITR 437: Hon'ble High Court held that A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the Commissioner can exer…

RACHNA SANJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT, AHMEDABAD -1, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 626/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri/St.R. Senthil Kumar & Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst.Year :2014-2015 Rachana Sanjay Shah The Pr.Cit-1 72, Tapovan Society Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Manekbaug Hall Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380015. Pan : Amdps 6571 P

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, AR and Shri Samir Vora, AFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The above proposition has been upheld in the case of CIT v. Reliance Communication 69 taxmann.com 109 (Bombay), Smt. Anupama Bharat Gupta v. ITO in ITA 1685/Ahd/ 2018, Goyal Private Family Specific Trust [1988] 171 ITR 698, CIT v. 12 Mahendra Kumar Bansal [2008] 297 ITR 99 (All.) (para 10) etc. We thus find no error in the order of Ld. AO so as to justify initiation of 263 proceedings by the Ld. Pr. CIT. The Ground of appeal raised by the assessee is thus allowed. 8. Similarly, in the case of VarunNagainbhai Patel (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench deleted the additi…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH vs. UNIPRO TECHNO INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the order of the ld CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 693/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri A.K. Sood, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 80I

…grounds of appeal of the case.The relevant extract of the ITAT order dated 01.12.2017 is reproduced as under:- A) "5.2 Before parting, we may also refer to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT VsGoyal Private Family Specific Trust 1988) 171 ITR 698, 701-702 (All). A perusal of the said decision would show that the Court has held in unambiguous terms that merely because the orders of the Assessing Officer are brief and cryptic, the said fact by itself cannot be a ground for branding the assessment orders as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Court was careful to o…

PATCHIRAJAN LAKSHMANAN,MADURAI vs. PCIT, MADURAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 597/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 597/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Principal Commissioner Of Patchirajan Lakshmanan, V. Income Tax, No. 102F,/16Z/3, Maduari -1, Dhanasekaran Nagar, Madurai – 625 002. Polepettai (West) – 628 002. [Pan:Aazpl-1396-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘बी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी टी वक", "याियक सद"य एवं "ी एस. आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.: 597/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Principal Commissioner of Patchirajan Lakshmanan, v. Income Tax, No. 102F,/16Z/3, Maduari -1, Dhanasekaran Nagar, Madurai – 625 002. Polepettai (West) – 628 002. [PAN:AAZPL-1396-H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant by : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate ""य…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In this regard, the following decisions are to the same effect : i) CIT Vs Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (S.C.) ii) Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. V CIT 243 ITR 83 iii) 171 ITR 698 (All) CIT v. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT v. Kashnl Nath & Company v) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT v. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. vi) 430 ITR 55 (Kar) CIT vs. Cyber Park Development & Construction Ltd. vii) ITA No.25l9/Kol/2017 dated 18.4.2018 Garg Brothers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT viii) 1TA Nos. 3281-3284/D/2015 dated 11.10.2019 Smt.…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In this regard, the following decisions are to the same effect : i) CIT Vs Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (S.C.) ii) Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. V CIT 243 ITR 83 iii) 171 ITR 698 (All) CIT v. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT v. Kashnl Nath & Company v) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT v. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. vi) 430 ITR 55 (Kar) CIT vs. Cyber Park Development & Construction Ltd. vii) ITA No.25l9/Kol/2017 dated 18.4.2018 Garg Brothers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT viii) 1TA Nos. 3281-3284/D/2015 dated 11.10.2019 Smt.…

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In this regard, the following decisions are to the same effect : i) CIT Vs Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (S.C.) ii) Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd. V CIT 243 ITR 83 iii) 171 ITR 698 (All) CIT v. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust iv) 170 ITR 28 (All) CIT v. Kashnl Nath & Company v) 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT v. Ratlam Coal Asn. & Co. vi) 430 ITR 55 (Kar) CIT vs. Cyber Park Development & Construction Ltd. vii) ITA No.25l9/Kol/2017 dated 18.4.2018 Garg Brothers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT viii) 1TA Nos. 3281-3284/D/2015 dated 11.10.2019 Smt.…

Showing 1–20 of 49 · Page 1 of 3

CIT v. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust (171 ITR 698) — Cited in 49 Judgments | BharatTax