How many judgments cite CIT v. Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd.?

49 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd. (372 ITR 310), spanning 2015 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115JB, Section 135, Section 135(5), Section 142(1), Section 144, Section 144B.

CIT v. Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd.

372 ITR 310High Court2015#2377 most cited

What is CIT v. Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd. authority for?

The Commissioner cannot invoke revisionary powers under Section 263 solely on the grounds of 'inadequate enquiry' by the Assessing Officer. The AO's assessment order is presumed to be with application of mind, and a mere lack of detailed discussion does not automatically imply non-application of mind.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Krishna Capbox · section 263 · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · revisionary jurisdiction · application of mind · assessment order

Sections most often in play

Section 115JB Section 135 Section 135(5)Section 142(1)Section 144 Section 144B Section 147 Section 148

Issues it is cited on

national tax tribunal section 293 section 65a section 65b(4)section 153b(1)(b)section 74 section 2(28a)section 73 section 153(2a)inadequate enquiry section 153b(1)project completion method

Judgments citing CIT v. Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd.

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, SECTOR 17

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 339/CHANDI/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

For Appellant: \nSh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 263

…this case, whatever was going through in the\nmind of the Assessing Officer at that time, it is a\nfact that he has reached to a correct conclusion.”\n(Emphasis supplied by us)\nc)\nIn the High Court of Allahabad, in the case\nof CIT v. Krishna Capbox (2015) 60 Taxmann.com 243, Hon'ble\nCIT held that AO had not enquired into certain matters and the order\nhas been passed without application of mind. Appellant has\nsubmitted his reply stating that the AO has enquired into the matters\naddressed by CIT to which reply has been duly filed by Appellant.\nThe order of CIT was challenged by Appellant in ITA No.\n3340/D…

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 338/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 263

…is case, whatever was going through in the\nmind of the Assessing Officer at that time, it is a\nfact that he has reached to a correct conclusion.\"\n(Emphasis supplied by us)\n\nc)\nIn the High Court of Allahabad, in the case\nof CIT v. Krishna Capbox (2015) 60 Taxmann.com 243, Hon'ble\nCIT held that AO had not enquired into certain matters and the order\nhas been passed without application of mind. Appellant has\nsubmitted his reply stating that the AO has enquired into the matters\naddressed by CIT to which reply has been duly filed by Appellant.\nThe order of CIT was challenged by Appellant in ITA No.\n3340/D…

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 63/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: \nSh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 263

…his case, whatever was going through in the\nmind of the Assessing Officer at that time, it is a\nfact that he has reached to a correct conclusion.”\n(Emphasis supplied by us)\n\nc)\nIn the High Court of Allahabad, in the case\nof CIT v. Krishna Capbox (2015) 60 Taxmann.com 243, Hon'ble\nCIT held that AO had not enquired into certain matters and the order\nhas been passed without application of mind. Appellant has\nsubmitted his reply stating that the AO has enquired into the matters\naddressed by CIT to which reply has been duly filed by Appellant.\nThe order of CIT was challenged by Appellant in ITA No.\n3340/D…

HARYANA BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD,PANCHKULA vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION, CHANDIGARH

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee stands dismissed

ITA 337/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: \nSh. Nikhil Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal, CIT DR

Section 263

SITA RAMA RAJU SAGI,BHIMAVARAM vs. ITO WARD 1 BHIMAVARAM, BHIMAVARAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.154/Viz/2025 (धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) Sita Rama Raju Sagi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhimavaram – 534202. Ward-1, Pan: Egapa3925J Bhimavaram. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mrs. Hema Latha K, Ca प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of : 20/05/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Mrs. Hema Latha K, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…आयकर अपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVN” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री धिजय पाल राि, उपाध्यक्ष एिं श्री एस बालाकृष्णन, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI S BALAKRISHNAN, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.154/Viz/2025 (धनिाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-21) Sita Rama Raju Sagi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhimavaram – 534202. Ward-1, PAN: EGAPA3925J Bhimavaram. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mrs. Hema Latha K, CA प्रत्यार्थी की ओर से / Revenue by…

SBS BIOTECH UNIT II,SIRMOUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 801CSection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी परेश म. जोशी, "याियक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM &SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 413/Chd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम SBS Biotech Unit II The Pr. CIT-1 Nahan road Mauza Rampur Chandigarh Jattan, Kala Amb, Himachal Pradesh-173030 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABOFS6830P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ajay Jain, C.A राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri…

MILLENNIUM DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1847/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanmillennium Developers Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-3, Ground Floor, Ceejay House, Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Bhavan, M. K. Road, Road, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aabcm6404C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri B. V. Jhaveri, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Anurag Tripathi, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 18.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2025

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 253Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

…mind. In this regard the Ld. Counsel referred decisions of Hon‟ble High Courts in case of CIT v/s Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) (Bom. HC), CIT v/s Mr. Jayeek Nag (ITA No. 408 of 2014), Moil v/s CIT (396 ITR 244) (Bom HC), CIT v/s Krishna Capbox Pvt. Ltd. (372 ITR 310) (All. HC) Millennium Developers Pvt. Ltd. 10. The Ld. Counsel has also referred decision of ITAT Mumbai In the case of (B) Naik Sea Food Pvt. Ltd. v/s PCIT [ITA No. 490/Mum/2020] on the proposition that expenditure incurred on CSR is claimed as deduction for the purpose of section 80G and allowed by the AO then section 263 cannot be invoked. 1…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Horizon 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 PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A) This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Incom…

NIRAV CHANDRAKANTBHAI BHALANI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1041/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 1041/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year :2016-17 Nirav Chandrakantbhai The Pr.Cit,Ahmedabad-1 Bhalani बनाम/ Ahmedabad-380 015 Plot No.9, Vibhapark Society V/S. Adhewada, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar – 364 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bcipb 8197 E (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 27/03/2024 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Pcit” In Short] In Exercise Of His Revisionary Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” In Short) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. Nirav Chandrakantbhai Bhalani Vs. The Pcit Asst. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…d, hence, not erroneous. He also placed reliance on following additional judicial pronouncements: 1. CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del-HC). 2. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC). 3. CIT Vs. Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 310 (All.). 4. Rajendrakumar Kantilal Patel Vs. PCIT – ITA No. 354/SRT/2018 (ITAT Surat). 5. Gabrial India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom). 2.7. The Ld.PCIT, however, set aside the order of the AO and directed the AO to pass a fresh assessment order. While doing so, he produced the details of documents seized during the course of search and drew infer…

EXOTIC REALTORS AND DEVELOPERS,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 189/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

…ted his mind specifically on this aspect and then concluded that the expenditure was in the revenue field. Reliance was placed on  Ashish Rajpal [2009] 320 ITR 674 (Del) 11  Vikash Polymers [ 2010] 194 Taxmann.com 57 (Del)  Krishna Cop Box (P) Ltd. (2015) 60 Taxmann.com 243 (All) The Ld. AR thus concluded that where the AO has made necessary enquiry and applied his mind, Commissioner or PCIT cannot exercise his revisional powers under section 263 of the Act. 13.9 The Ld. AR then contended that non passing of elaborate order does not tentamount to non application of mind by the AO. The High Court in case of…

SHRI LEELAHAR PALASIYAWALA,INDORE vs. THE ITO 4(4), INDORE

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 346/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Leeladhar Palasiyawala, Pr.Cit-1, Village Kalariya, Post Indore बनाम/ Kalariya, Vs. Indore. (Assessee / Appellant) (Revenue / Respondent) Pan: Bqdppo511K Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca & Shri N. D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54B

…explain the difference between ‘lack of enquiry’ and ‘inadequate enquiry’. He submitted that revisionary-jurisdiction u/s 263 can be invoked only in case of ‘lack of enquiry’ but not in case of ‘inadequate enquiry’. (b) He relied upon CIT Vs. Krishna Capbox 372 ITR 310 (All), Nirav Modi 241 Taxman 255 (Bom) and CIT Vs. J.L. Morrison (India) Ltd. (2014) 46 taxmann.com 215 (Cal) and contended that if the AO Page 10 of 16 Leeladhar Palasiawala, Indore, vs. Pr. CIT –I, Indore. ITA No. 346/Ind/2022 – AY 2015-16 has passed assessment-order after certain queries from assessee, mere non-discussion or non-mention the…

RAJ KUMAR KARANWAL,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. PR.CIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 644/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

…ill not entitle the Ld. PCIT to exercise justification under section 263 of the Act. Decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del) and decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Krishna Capbox (P) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 310 (All.) may be referred to. 17. Placing on record by the Ld. CIT(DR) the fresh assessment order framed by the Ld. AO consequent to order under section 263 of the Act before us is of no value in so far as the present appeal is concerned. 18. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and reasons set out above, we have reached the conclusio…

M/S. BLUE CROSS LABORATORIES PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-3 , MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1806/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhblue Cross Laboratories Vs. Pcit-3 Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 612, 6 Th Floor, 1, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Peninsula Chambers, M. K. Road, Peninsula Corporate Mumbai-400020 Park, G. K. Marg, Mumbai-400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacb1549G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa R. Gandhi &For Respondent: Shri. S. Sribivasu, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80G

…mind. In this regard the Ld. Counsel referred decisions of Hon‟ble High Courts in case of CIT v/s Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) (Bom. HC), CIT v/s Mr. Jayeek Nag (ITA No. 408 of 2014), Moil v/s CIT (396 ITR 244) (Bom HC), CIT v/s Krishna Capbox Pvt. Ltd. (372 ITR 310) (All. HC) 10. The Ld. Counsel has also referred decision of ITAT Mumbai In the case of (B) Naik Sea Food Pvt. Ltd. v/s PCIT [ ITA No. 490/Mum/2020] on the proposition that expenditure incurred P a g e | 8 AY 2018-19 M/s Blue Cross Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT-3 on CSR is claimed as deduction for the purpose of section 80G and allowed by the…

DRISTI TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. PR. CIT, GHAZIABAD

ITA 3813/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3813 /DEL/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dristi Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. CIT, CH. No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam, Ghaziabad. RDC, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad. PAN- AAECD4670Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Akhilesh Kumar Adv. & Shri Pushkar Pandey, Adv. Department represented by Shri Shankar Lal Verma, Sr. DR Date of hearing 29.05.2023 Date of pronouncement 03.08.2023 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The assessee has come in appea…

M/S. CARNATION AGRO ESTATE PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT -1 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 437/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 263Section 68

…1 ITA 437/Mum/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A No.437/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2011-12) M/s Carnation Agro Estate Pvt Ltd vs The Principal Commissioner of Shop 21, Anuradha Society, Near Fire Income-tax-1, Mumbai Room No.330, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Brigade Station, IRLA Bridge, S.V. Road Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 058 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 PAN : AADCC8897M 020 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Vishnu Agarwal & Gaurav Bansal Department represented by Shri Soumendu Kuma…

ATUL KUMAR ANCHALIA,JAORA vs. PCIT-1 , INDORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 63/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Dafaria, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri B.M. Biyani, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2017-18 Atul Kumar Anchalia The P.C.I.T.-1, Indore 108, Jawahar Path Jaora 457226, (Respondent) Vs Madhya Pradesh PAN No: ABOPA3513F (Appellant) Appellant by : Shri Manish Dafaria, C.A. Respondent by : Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 04-11-2022 Date of pronouncement : 03-01-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the Revision…

DINESH KUMAR SINGH,MIRZAPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALLAHABAD

ITA 11/ALLD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad04 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma, CIT-DR and Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R

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

…ble Bombay High Court judgment and order in the case of CIT v. Fine Jewellery(India) Limited , reported in (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom. HC) 9. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court judgment and order in the case of CIT v. Krishna Capbox Private Limited, reported in (2015) 372 ITR 310 (All.HC) 10. ITAT, Kolkatta Bench- Sadhna Stocks and Securities Private Limited v. PCIT, Kolkatta, reported in (2018) 168 ITD 499(Kol.-trib.) 11. Hon’ble Bombay High Court judgment and order in the case of CIT v. Neerav Modi, reported in (2016) 138 DTR(Bom) 81 12. Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment and order in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.…

TIMECITY REAL ESTATES(INDIA) LIMTED,LUCKNOW vs. PCIT-1, LUCKNOW, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 67/LKW/2021[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Aug 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2015-2016

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…was placed on the following case laws: (1) Judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT and Another, 406 ITR 306 (All) (2) Judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 310 (All) (3) I.T.A.T. Delhi Bench order in the case of MAXPAK Investment Limited vs. ACIT 104 TTJ 881 (Del) 4. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. The assessee is engaged in the business of real estate development. During the year under consideration, the assessee purchased certain lands for developm…

M/S BASTI WINE CO. (ENGLISH),KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, KANPUR

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

ITA 683/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 263

…proceedings were initiated and order was passed u/s 263, were already assessed/examined during the assessment proceedings and reliance in this respect was placed on the order of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 310 (All). It was argued that it is not a case where no inquiry was made and it is also not a case of lack of inquiry and therefore, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be revised u/s 263. Reliance in this respect was placed on the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2009] 289 Taxman 436…

M.P. STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,BHOPAL vs. PR CIT-1, BHOPAL

ITA 158/IND/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Bhopal PAN:AACCM0327M : Appellant V/s Pr. CIT -1, Bhopal : Respondent Appellant by S/Shri Girish Agrawal, Ajay K. Chhajed & Ms. Nisha Lahoti, ARs Revenue by Shri Rajeeb Jain, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 18.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement 08.10.2021 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of the As…

Showing 1–20 of 49 · Page 1 of 3