How many judgments cite CIT v. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd.?

93 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. (341 ITR 166), spanning 2014 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 263, Section 147, Section 10(37), Section 145A(b), Section 148.

CIT v. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd.

341 ITR 166High Court2012#1216 most cited

What is CIT v. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. authority for?

An Assessing Officer's order is deemed prejudicial to the interests of the revenue under Section 263 if, due to its erroneous nature, the revenue suffers a loss of lawfully payable tax. This principle applies where the Assessing Officer fails to conduct proper enquiry.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. · 341 ITR 166 · Section 263 · revisionary power · erroneous order · prejudicial to interest of revenue · lack of enquiry · inadequate enquiry · loss of tax · Commissioner's jurisdiction · Delhi High Court

Also reported as

46 DTR 97

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

section 141 section 282a(1)section 194la section 145a(b)section 145b section 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)inadequate enquiry doctrine of merger lack of enquiry section 263(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd.

Shri Rajeev Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…2 AY 2007-08 dated 7.3.2013 Aarti International v. CIT 5.8 It was submitted by the Ld. AR that section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked to make a deeper enquiry. Reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of CIT v. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. reported in 341 ITR 166. It was also submitted that for holding that the assessment order passed by the AO is not only prejudicial to the interest of revenue but is also erroneous, the action of the Ld. Pr. CIT has to be preceded by some minimal enquiry. It was submitted that mere issuance of a show cause notice dated 18.3.2021 and, thereafter, mechanical passing of…

Auto Engineers Services Centre, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1104/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Roy Chauduri, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…6 I.T.A. No.1104/DEL/2020 “erroneous”. If due to an erroneous order of the AO the revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it would be certainly prejudicial to the interest of revenue, as held in the case of CIT Vs Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 166 (Del.). In case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 87 (SC) Hon’ble Apex Court held that there was no material to support the claim of appellant and yet AO accepted the entry in the statement of account in absence of any supporting material and without making any inquiry. It is incumbent on the officer to investigate the facts st…

Shrimati Ravinder Bawa, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 703/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar14 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 703/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Ravinder Bawa Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/s Ramco Auto Ward-2(3), Industries, Preet Nagar, Jalandhar Jalandhar [PAN: AAMPB 2811N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Surinder Mahajan, Sh. Kuldeep Bhagat, C.A. & Sh. Vikas Bhagat, Adv. Respondent by Sh Anupam Kant Garg CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 09.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 14.07.2021 ORDER Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. This appeal of the assessee is direct…

M/S Nilkanth Stone Industries, Valsad vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 386/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.386/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Nilkanth Stone Industries, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Shop No.A-1/2/3, Nilkanth Of Income Tax, Valsad. Residency, B/H Old Jakarta Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad. [Pan: Aajfn 5653 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Surji Chheda - Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 27.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (Act) By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Pcit” Passed Under Section 263 Of Income-Tax Act (Act) Dated 27.03.2018, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Vide His Application Dated 16.08.2018 Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit Has Erred In Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Which Was Without Jurisdiction & The Cit Erred In Holding That The Assessment Order Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue On All Issues Discussed In Revision Order & Has Erred In Setting It Aside For Fresh

Section 253Section 263

…Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR632 (Bombay HC),  CIT Vs Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537 (Delhi HC),  ITO Vs DG Housing Projects [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi HC),  Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 3858 (Delhi HC.),  CIT – Vs. Leisure wear Exports Ltd., 341 ITR 166 (Delhi HC.),  CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Delhi HC),  CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd. 329 ITR 289 (Delhi HC),  CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC),  ITA NO.3206/DEL/2017 Amira Enterprises ltd Vs PCIT,  CIT Vs Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502 GUJ HC),  CIT Vs R. K. Construction Co. (313 ITR 65),  Indus Best Hospitality ITA No. 3125/MUM/2…

Shringar Marketing Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-4, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 637/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

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

…made out for invoking jurisdiction under made out for invoking jurisdiction under s. 263. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LEISURE WEAR EXPORTS LTD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LEISURE WEAR EXPORTS LTD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LEISURE WEAR EXPORTS LTD. 341 ITR 166 (Del) The prerequisite to the ex (Del) The prerequisite to the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction under ercise of suo motu jurisdiction under s. 263 by the CIT is that the order of the AO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest CIT is that the order of the AO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest CIT is that t…

Ankit Gupta, Kolkata vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 233/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…se was made out for invoking jurisdiction under case was made out for invoking jurisdiction under s. 263. 13 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ankit Gupta COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LEISURE WEAR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LEISURE WEAR EXPORTS LTD EXPORTS LTD. 341 ITR 166 (Del) The prerequisite to the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction under (Del) The prerequisite to the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction under (Del) The prerequisite to the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction under s. 263 by the CIT is that the order of the AO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest CIT is that the order of the AO is…

Hill Queen Investment Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 643/KOL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Hon’Ble & Sri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Hill Queen Investment (P) Ltd...……………………....................................……………..…….............Appellant Surobala Apartments Flat No. 202 3Rd Floor Block-B Rekhjuani, Bhatinda Rajarhat Kolkata – 700 135 [Pan : Aaacj 2324 P] Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata..................…………...............................…......Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Devi Sharan Singh, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 6Th, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 21St, 2021 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 20/03/2020, For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is A Delay Of 223 (Two Hundred Twenty Three) Days In Filing Of This Appeal By The Assessee. After Perusing The Petition For Condonation For Delay, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause In Filing The Appeal In Time. Hence, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal. 3. The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.20,40,470/- On 28/09/2015. The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny For The Following Reasons:- “(I) Mismatch In Sales Turnover Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Ii) Mismatch In Amount Paid To Related Persons U/S 40A(2)(B) Reported In Audit Report & Itr (Iii) Suspicious Sale Transaction In Shares (Penny Stock Tab In Its)”

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…error in the view taken by the AO and no case was made out for there was no error in the view taken by the AO and no case was made out for invoking jurisdiction under invoking jurisdiction under s. 263. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LEISURE WEAR EXPORTS LTD. 341 ITR 166 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LEISURE WEAR EXPORTS LTD. 341 ITR 166 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LEISURE WEAR EXPORTS LTD. 341 ITR 166 (Del) The prerequisite to the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction under s. 263 by the (Del) The prerequisite to the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction under s. 263 by the (Del) The prerequisite to the exercise of…

Satish Kumar Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 260/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…I.T.A No. 260/Kol/2019 Satish Kumar Lakhmani, AY 2014-15 आयकर अपीलीय अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम")Before "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/and "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 260/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Satish Kumar Lakhmani Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income- (PAN: ABYPL4427B) tax-10, Kolkata. Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing (Virtual) 08.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement 21.04.2021 For the Appellant Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent John Vincent Donkupar…

Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3285/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 17(2)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…yan Tatu Rane vs. ITO 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mumbai Trib.); xi) Jeewanlal Ltd. vs. Addl. ICT, 108 ITR 407 (Cal); xii) B&A Plantation & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT, 290 ITR 395 (Gau); xiii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Del); xiv) CIT vs. Wear Exports Ltd., 341 ITR 166 (Del); xv) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers, 341 ITR 537 (Del); xvi) M/s Klaxon Trading (P) Ltd. vs. PCIT, ITA No.7265/Del/2017. 21 12. The ld. Counsel submitted that even otherwise in a case where two views are possible and the AO has taken a view with which the PCIT does not agree the said order cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the int…

Smt. Usha Devi Modi, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-10(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 874/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S. S.Godara)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…e consideration, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was to be received for sale of permit. If that is so, there was no error in the view taken by the AO and no case was made out for invoking jurisdiction under s. 263. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LEISURE WEAR EXPORTS LTD. 341 ITR 166 (Del) The prerequisite to the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction under s. 263 by the CIT is 12 I.T.A. No. 874/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Usha Devi Modi that the order of the AO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Two conditions are to be satisfied, namely, (i) the order of the AO sought to be revis…

Nitson & Amitsu Private Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 160/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey)

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

…e consideration, a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was to be received for sale of permit. If that is so, there was no error in the view taken by the AO and no case was made out for invoking jurisdiction under s. 263. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LEISURE WEAR EXPORTS LTD. 341 ITR 166 (Del) The prerequisite to the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction under s. 263 by the CIT is that the order of the AO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Two conditions are to be satisfied, namely, (i) the order of the AO sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) the error committed by the AO in the order is…