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.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd.?

152 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. (331 ITR 192), spanning 2011 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. 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 145A(b).

CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd. (331 ITR 192)

Amit Sharma, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3231/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, 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…

Lal Chand, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 1(4), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4479/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4479/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Lal Chand, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Ca R.S. Poonia, Ward-1(4), D-83-B, Siwad Area, Krishna Marg, Gurugram, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur-302015 Haryana-122016 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agkpl7795F Assessee By: Sh. Rajat Chaudhary, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.08.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Rajat Chaudhary, AdvFor Respondent: 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

…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. I adopt the above extracted detailed reasoni…

Balvinder Singh, Karnal, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Karnal, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4346/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

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 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Balvinder Singh, 455, Village-Gobindgarh, Ward-1, Karnal Post Officer- Dacher, Karnal, Haryana PAN: FAFPS2585Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Rajat Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Payal Jhorar, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 20.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 20.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short…

Leelu Ram, Gurugram vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurugam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 896/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2018-19 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Leelu Ram, S/O-Mangal Singh, C/O-Ysr Gurugram & Associates, Plot No. 214, Basement, Sector-47, Haryana Pan: Apspr3189Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. M.R. Sahu, 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 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Leelu Ram, S/o-Mangal Singh, C/o-YSR Gurugram & Associates, Plot No. 214, Basement, Sector-47, Haryana PAN: APSPR3189Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. M.R. Sahu, CA Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 20.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 20.08.2025 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”],…

Komal Adlakha, Gurugram vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Gurugram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3652/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2019-20 Vs. Ito, Komal Adlakha, A06, Parsvnath Green Ville, Ward-2(2), Sohna Road, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Autpa5180C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, 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 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Vs. ITO, Komal Adlakha, A06, Parsvnath Green Ville, Ward-2(2), Sohna Road, Gurgaon Gurgaon PAN: AUTPA5180C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, CA Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 18.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 18.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2019-20, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFA…

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

…1 Ravinder v. NFAC A.Y. 2018-19 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: 2018-19 Ravinder, Vs National e-Assessment H. No. 346/1, Bhim Garg Kheri, Centre, Delhi. Near Railway Station, Gurgaon-122001. PAN: AHVPR 9454 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Jai Bhagwan Saini, Adv. Department represented by Shri Rajesh Kumar dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of hearing 04.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 04.08.2025 O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M: This assessee’s appeal for as…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment 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 sho…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment 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”),…

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)

…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.” 17 | P a g e ITA No.2774/Del/2024 & C.O. No. 1…

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

…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…

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)

…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: 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 Date of hearing 05.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 05.06.2025 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short,…

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)

…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. I adopt the above extracted detailed reasoni…

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)

…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. I adopt the above extracted detailed reasoni…

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

…ble 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 held by the Hon ’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Hindustan Coca ’Cola Beveraces 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. PCT 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.” 7.2. We further find that the facts and circumst…

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

…ble 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 held by the Hon ’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Hindustan Coca ’Cola Beveraces 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. PCT 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.” 7.2. We further find that the facts and circumst…

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

…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…

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

…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…

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

…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…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.775, 776 & 758/Del/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Kharak Singh, HN 183, Gali No. 01, Near Ward-1(1), Shiv Mandir, Vill. -Chhalera, Noida Sector-44, Noida PAN :AQGPS7007R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Raghuraj Singh, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 26.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 26.05.2025 ORDER These assessee’s three appeals ITA Nos.775, 776 & 758/Del/2025 for assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17,…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.775, 776 & 758/Del/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Kharak Singh, HN 183, Gali No. 01, Near Ward-1(1), Shiv Mandir, Vill. -Chhalera, Noida Sector-44, Noida PAN :AQGPS7007R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Raghuraj Singh, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 26.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 26.05.2025 ORDER These assessee’s three appeals ITA Nos.775, 776 & 758/Del/2025 for assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17,…

CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P Ltd.

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

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

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

Amit Sharma, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Gurugram

Lal Chand, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 1(4), Gurgaon

Balvinder Singh, Karnal, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Karnal, Haryana

Leelu Ram, Gurugram vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurugam

Komal Adlakha, Gurugram vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Gurugram

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

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