CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd.

331 ITR 192High Court2011#652 most cited

What is CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. authority for?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer has taken one of two possible views on a debatable issue during assessment proceedings.

152

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. · Section 263 · revisional jurisdiction · debatable issue · two possible views · AO's accepted view · PCIT powers · erroneous assessment · lack of enquiry · 331 ITR 192

Also reported as

198 Taxmann 1049 Taxmann.com 104

Sections most often in play

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

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 acquisitionsection 264lack of enquirysection 143(3a)

Judgments citing CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd.

Mange Ram, Gurugram vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Mange Ram, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income H. No. 261, Main Pataudi Tax, Faridabad, Road, Near Hanuman Temple, Village Garoli Khurd, P.O.- Basai, Gurugram, Haryana Pan: Amwpr7462B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Suraj Bhan Nian, Adv., Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, Ca Department By Ms. Amish S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 15.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [In Short, The “Pcit”], Faridabad’S Order Dated 04.12.2023 Having Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1058449758(1), Involving Proceedings Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Herd 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

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 SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Mange Ram, Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income H. No. 261, Main Pataudi Tax, Faridabad, Road, Near Hanuman Temple, Village Garoli Khurd, P.O.- Basai, Gurugram, Haryana PAN: AMWPR7462B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Suraj Bhan Nian, Adv., Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, CA Department by Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 15.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 15.01.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for ass…

Lakhi Ram, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Gurgaon, Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2028/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Amitabh Shuklaita No. 2028/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2019-20 Lakhi Ram, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 70, Village- Dhanwapur, Ward-1(4), Daultabad, Gurugram, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 Haryana-122001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Awzpr6814L Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2019-20 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1061566876(1) Dated 27.02.2024, In Proceedings U/S 144 R.W.S. 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, 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)

…le issue on which two views are possible and the Ld. AO accepts one of the views. In this view of the matter too, the Ld. PCIT cannot assume revisional jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 192 (Del.) 17. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as set out above, we hold that the order of the Ld. PCIT is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 6. We adopt the above extracted detailed reason…

Sh. Amrish Singh, Sirsa vs. ACIT/DCIT- Int. Tax, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 590/CHANDI/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Karan Jeet Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Acgps7292E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Kabal Jeet Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Acgps7934M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.390/Chandi/2021 & 590/Chandi/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Amrish Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Aszps6911K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Lalit Mohan, Adv. Sh. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

…le issue on which two views are possible and the Ld. AO accepts one of the views. In this view of the matter too, the Ld. PCIT cannot assume revisional jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 192 (Del.) 9 | P a g e ITA Nos.391/Chandi/2021, 424/Chandi/2021, 390/Chandi/2021 & 590/Chandi/2022 17. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as set out above, we hold that the order of the Ld. PCIT is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT. 18. In the r…

Shri Kabal Jeet Singh, Sirsa vs. DCIT/ACIT-Int.-Tax, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Karan Jeet Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Acgps7292E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Kabal Jeet Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Acgps7934M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.390/Chandi/2021 & 590/Chandi/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Amrish Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Aszps6911K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Lalit Mohan, Adv. Sh. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

…le issue on which two views are possible and the Ld. AO accepts one of the views. In this view of the matter too, the Ld. PCIT cannot assume revisional jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 192 (Del.) 9 | P a g e ITA Nos.391/Chandi/2021, 424/Chandi/2021, 390/Chandi/2021 & 590/Chandi/2022 17. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as set out above, we hold that the order of the Ld. PCIT is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT. 18. In the r…

Shri Karan Jeet Singh, Sirsa vs. DCIT/ACIT- Int.Tax, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Karan Jeet Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Acgps7292E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Kabal Jeet Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Acgps7934M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.390/Chandi/2021 & 590/Chandi/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Amrish Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Aszps6911K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Lalit Mohan, Adv. Sh. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

…le issue on which two views are possible and the Ld. AO accepts one of the views. In this view of the matter too, the Ld. PCIT cannot assume revisional jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 192 (Del.) 9 | P a g e ITA Nos.391/Chandi/2021, 424/Chandi/2021, 390/Chandi/2021 & 590/Chandi/2022 17. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as set out above, we hold that the order of the Ld. PCIT is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT. 18. In the r…

Sh. Amrish Singh, Sirsa vs. DCIT/ACIT, Int. Tax., Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 390/CHANDI/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Karan Jeet Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Acgps7292E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Kabal Jeet Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Acgps7934M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Ita Nos.390/Chandi/2021 & 590/Chandi/2022 Assessment Year: 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Amrish Singh, Vs. Dcit/Acit, 1, Hisar Road, Vpo- Intl. Taxation, Khairpur, Ward-4, Sirsa, Gurgaon Haryana Pan: Aszps6911K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Lalit Mohan, Adv. Sh. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Department By Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

…le issue on which two views are possible and the Ld. AO accepts one of the views. In this view of the matter too, the Ld. PCIT cannot assume revisional jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 192 (Del.) 9 | P a g e ITA Nos.391/Chandi/2021, 424/Chandi/2021, 390/Chandi/2021 & 590/Chandi/2022 17. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as set out above, we hold that the order of the Ld. PCIT is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT. 18. In the r…

Sharp Business System Thr. Finance Director Mr. Yoshihisa Mizuno vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

C.A. No.-004072-004072 - 2014Supreme Court19 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Section 32(1)(ii)

…ese are positive rights, brought into existence by experience and/or reputation, granted either under a statute or under a contract and capable of being used or put to use for the purpose of business. 11 (2007) 4 SCC 476 12 (1979) 1 SCC 568 13 (2011) 331 ITR 192 40 14.8. He further submits that the right acquired by the payer on payment of non-compete fee does not fall in this category. It is a negative covenant that imposes an obligation on the recipient of the fee to desist from doing something and as such, it cannot be ‘used’ by the payer for the purpose of its business. Such a negative co…

M/S Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. PCIT (Central), Pune

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

ITA 1053/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…e Act. 11. Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of 334-337 Smifs Securities Ltd. 348 ITR 302 (SC) 12. Judgment in Xerox India Ltd. 55 taxmann.com 29 338-346 (Delhi Tribunal) 13. Judgment of the High Court in Hindustan Coca 347-356 Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. 331 ITR 192 (Delhi) 14. Judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of 357-360 Hewlett Packard India Sales (P) Ltd. 463 ITR 329 (Karnataka) 15. Judgment of Supreme Court in Hewlett Packard 361-362 India Sales (P) Ltd. (2024) 161 taxmann.com 46 (SC) 9 M/s Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd. 16. Judgment of Hon’ble Jaipur Tribunal in Utsav 363-374 Cold Storage (P)…

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)

…le issue on which two views are possible and the Ld. AO accepts one of the views. In this view of the matter too, the Ld. PCIT cannot assume revisional jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 192 (Del.) 17. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as set out above, we hold that the order of the Ld. PCIT is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 7. We adopt the above extracted detailed reason…

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

…ssue on which two views are possible and the Ld. AO accepts one of the views. In this view of the matter too, the Ld. PCIT cannot assume 14 revisional jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 192 (Del.) 17. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as set out above, we hold that the order of the Ld. PCIT is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 5. I adopt the above extracted detailed reasoni…

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)

…le issue on which two views are possible and the Ld. AO accepts one of the views. In this view of the matter too, the Ld. PCIT cannot assume revisional jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 192 (Del.) 17. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as set out above, we hold that the order of the Ld. PCIT is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 13 5. I adopt the above extracted detailed rea…

Viacom 18, Media Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-8, Mumbai

ITA 2591/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Madhur Agarwal/Ms. MokshaFor Respondent: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 32

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 2591/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd., One Unity Centre, Tower 4, Sanapati Babat Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400013. PAN No. AAACM 9164 E Appellant Vs. Pr. CIT-8, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Madhur Agarwal/Ms. Moksha Mehta Revenue by : Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR Date of Hearing Date of pronouncement : 15/09/2025 : 27/11/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM 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

…le issue on which two views are possible and the Ld. AO accepts one of the views. In this view of the matter too, the Ld. PCIT cannot assume revisional jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 192 (Del.) 17. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as set out above, we hold that the order of the Ld. PCIT is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 5. I adopt the above extracted detailed reason…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment 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 Date of hearing 25.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 25.11.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN…

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)

…le issue on which two views are possible and the Ld. AO accepts one of the views. In this view of the matter too, the Ld. PCIT cannot assume revisional jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 192 (Del.) 17. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as set out above, we hold that the order of the Ld. PCIT is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 7. We adopt the above extracted detailed reason…

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)

…le issue on which two views are possible and the Ld. AO accepts one of the views. In this view of the matter too, the Ld. PCIT cannot assume revisional jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 192 (Del.) 17. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as set out above, we hold that the order of the Ld. PCIT is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 9 Sanjay 6. I adopt the above extracted detail…

Diwantham Tollway Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -6, Mubmai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 3711/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Diwantham Tollway Private Limited Pcit – 6, Mumbai Unit No. 603B, 6Th Floor, Godrej Bkkc, Room No. 501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Vs Plot No. C-68, G Block, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400051. [Pan: Aagcd6193G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 254(1)Section 263Section 32

…usible and legally sustainable and even otherwise if two views are possible on such issue, the revision proceedings are not permissible. To support of his views, the ld. AR relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs Hindustan Coco Cola Beverages P. Ltd. (331 ITR 192)  Delhi Airport Metro Express P. Ltd. Vs PCIT (88 taxmann.com 767)  ACIT vs Delhi Metro Express Ltd. (ITA No. 5660/Del/2019 (Delhi-Trib)  Kerala Transport Development Finance vs PCIT (ITA No. 443/Coch/2023)  IRCON Soma Tollway P. Ltd. vs PCIT (ITA No. 3389/Del/2017 and ors. 6. Once the depreciation is allowed in earlier assessment years, it c…

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)

…le issue on which two views are possible and the Ld. AO accepts one of the views. In this view of the matter too, the Ld. PCIT cannot assume revisional jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 192 (Del.) 17. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as set out above, we hold that the order of the Ld. PCIT is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 6. We accordingly adopt the above extracted det…

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)

…le issue on which two views are possible and the Ld. AO accepts one of the views. In this view of the matter too, the Ld. PCIT cannot assume revisional jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 192 (Del.) 17. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as set out above, we hold that the order of the Ld. PCIT is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 6. We accordingly adopt the above extracted det…

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)

…le issue on which two views are possible and the Ld. AO accepts one of the views. In this view of the matter too, the Ld. PCIT cannot assume revisional jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 192 (Del.) 17. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as set out above, we hold that the order of the Ld. PCIT is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the impugned order of the Ld. PCIT. 18. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 6. We accordingly adopt the above extracted det…