CIT v. Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd.

196 Taxmann 368High Court2011#9451 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd.

AARAVI DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 659/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.659/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Aaravi Developers The Pr.Cit-3 बनाम/ A-312, Siddhi Vinayak Tower Ahmedabad B/H. Divya Bhaskar V/S. S.G. Highway, Makarba Ahmedabad – 380 051 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abdfa 5385 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16-03-2024 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit” In Short) In Exercise Of The Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” In Short) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. Aaravi Developers Vs. The Pr.Cit Asst. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…nts establish that revisionary action under Section 263 of the Act is not justified on grounds of inadequate inquiry if the AO has conducted sufficient inquiries and taken a permissible view. In the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd. - 46 DTR 109 (Delhi High Court), it was held that if the AO has made inquiries and the Commissioner believes more inquiries should have been made, it does not justify revision under Section 263 of the Act. Similarly, in the case of Metacaps Engineering & Mahendra Construction Co. (J.V.) vs. CIT - 86 Taxmann.com 128 (ITAT Mumbai), it was held that merely becaus…