CIT v. New Delhi Television Ltd.

360 ITR 44High Court2014#2264 most cited

What is CIT v. New Delhi Television Ltd. authority for?

An assessment order is 'erroneous' under Section 263 only if it is contrary to law or based on a mistaken application of legal principles. Revision orders are unsustainable if they are not founded on such an error in the original assessment.

51

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. New Delhi Television Ltd. · 360 ITR 44 · Section 263 · revision order quashed · scope of erroneous · deficient revision order · unsustainable revision order · Commissioner's power of revision · CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd.

Also reported as

39 Taxmann.com 135

Sections most often in play

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

Issues it is cited on

section 141section 282a(1)section 194lasection 145a(b)section 145bsection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 10(37)enhanced compensationdoctrine of mergersection 197

Judgments citing CIT v. New Delhi Television Ltd.

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…3 ITR 329 (Del) ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. at pages 339 v) 341 ITR 166 (Del) CIT vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vi) 212 Taxman 184 (Del) CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. vii) 341 ITR 180 (Del) CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd. viii) 360 ITR 44 (Del) CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. ix) 236 CTR 476 (Del), CIT vs. Vikas Polymers “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" means "one rendered…

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…3 ITR 329 (Del) ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. at pages 339 v) 341 ITR 166 (Del) CIT vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vi) 212 Taxman 184 (Del) CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. vii) 341 ITR 180 (Del) CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd. viii) 360 ITR 44 (Del) CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. ix) 236 CTR 476 (Del), CIT vs. Vikas Polymers “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" means "one rendered…

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…3 ITR 329 (Del) ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. at pages 339 v) 341 ITR 166 (Del) CIT vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vi) 212 Taxman 184 (Del) CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. vii) 341 ITR 180 (Del) CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd. viii) 360 ITR 44 (Del) CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. ix) 236 CTR 476 (Del), CIT vs. Vikas Polymers “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" means "one rendered…

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…3 ITR 329 (Del) ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. at pages 339 v) 341 ITR 166 (Del) CIT vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vi) 212 Taxman 184 (Del) CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. vii) 341 ITR 180 (Del) CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd. viii) 360 ITR 44 (Del) CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. ix) 236 CTR 476 (Del), CIT vs. Vikas Polymers “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" means "one rendered…

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…3 ITR 329 (Del) ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. at pages 339 v) 341 ITR 166 (Del) CIT vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vi) 212 Taxman 184 (Del) CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. vii) 341 ITR 180 (Del) CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd. viii) 360 ITR 44 (Del) CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. ix) 236 CTR 476 (Del), CIT vs. Vikas Polymers “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" means "one rendered…

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…3 ITR 329 (Del) ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. at pages 339 v) 341 ITR 166 (Del) CIT vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vi) 212 Taxman 184 (Del) CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. vii) 341 ITR 180 (Del) CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd. viii) 360 ITR 44 (Del) CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. ix) 236 CTR 476 (Del), CIT vs. Vikas Polymers “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" means "one rendered…

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…3 ITR 329 (Del) ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. at pages 339 v) 341 ITR 166 (Del) CIT vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vi) 212 Taxman 184 (Del) CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. vii) 341 ITR 180 (Del) CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd. viii) 360 ITR 44 (Del) CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. ix) 236 CTR 476 (Del), CIT vs. Vikas Polymers “10. As regards the scope and ambit of the expression "erroneous", a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bombay), held with reference to Black's Law Dictionary that an "erroneous judgment" means "one rendered…

GAURAV KUMAR ARYA,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT -20, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2000/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Gaurav Kumar Arya, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income 3-P, Pocket-4, Tax, Delhi-20, Kondly Gharoli-Ii, Mayur New Delhi. Vihar, Delhi-1100 96 Pan: Airpa0102C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath & V. RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

…er of Revision has to be held to be deficient and unsustainable in law. On similar ground, the Delhi High Court quashed the Revision orders passed by the Commissioners in DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation (2013) 357 ITR 388 and CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 44. 6. Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue submitted that regarding explanation to Section 263 of the Act, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgement in PCIT vs. Paramount Propbuild (P) Ltd. 161 taxmann.com 85 (Delhi) [2024] has held as under: 6 ".......23. Therefore, in light of the findings which are unravelled from the DDIT invest…

BRIJ EDUCATIONAL TRUST,MEERUT vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1498/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2011-12 Brij Educational Trust, Vs. Cit (Exemption), Lucknow A-162, Defence Colony, C.R. Building, Ito, Meerut-250001 (Up) I.P. Estate, (Pan: Aabtb4074C) New Delhi - 110 002 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. RajkumarFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 14(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 26Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.YR. : 2011-12 BRIJ EDUCATIONAL TRUST, VS. CIT (EXEMPTION), LUCKNOW A-162, DEFENCE COLONY, C.R. BUILDING, ITO, MEERUT-250001 (UP) I.P. ESTATE, (PAN: AABTB4074C) NEW DELHI - 110 002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajkumar, Adv. Respondent by : Ms. Nidhi Singh, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 27.06.2024 Date of pronouncement : 08.07.2024 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the Order of the Ld.…

M/S. CORPORATE LEISURE & PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD. ,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 652/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Shantilal G., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…ecorded, as merely forming different opinion than that of the assessing officer on the matter is insufficient to establish such error. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, reported in 360 ITR 44. 3.9 He further submitted that the learned assessing officer conducted thorough inquiries before reaching a conclusion, as evident from the facts of the case. Hence, the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act are not warranted, as both the conditions mentioned earlier have not been fulfilled in the present case. Reliance is placed on the decisio…

DCIT, HISAR CIRCLE, HISAR vs. VIDYAWATI, HISAR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 76/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: The Hon'Ble High Court Of P&H Against The Order Of The Hon'Ble Itat.

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajakumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…d the assessee being dissatisfied, has filed SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is still pending, it cannot be considered as income. Respectfully following the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High court in the case of CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. 39 Taxmann.com 135(Del), relied upon by the Ld. A.R. and on the basis of facts and circumstances of the present case, the reopening made by Ld. CIT u/ s 263(1) of the Act is not sustainable in the eyes of law." 5.2 Respectfully following the decision of Jurisdictional ITAT, Delhi, vide which the Hon'ble ITAT has quashed the order of CIT, Hisar passed u/s 263…

M/S. CORETECH VENTURES (BANGALORE) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BANGALORE

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

ITA 746/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Coretech Ventures (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Divyasree Chambers’ Commissioner Of Wing-A, O Shaugnessy Income Tax, Road, Bengaluru – 2, Langford Town, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aafcc2775E Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2021 Passed By Ld.Pcit, Bangalore -2 U/S. 263 Of The Act For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru -2, Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 30/03/2021, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar
Section 143Section 263Section 80Section 801A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/s. Coretech Ventures (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Divyasree Chambers’ Commissioner of Wing-A, O Shaugnessy Income Tax, Road, Bengaluru – 2, Langford Town, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 025. PAN: AAFCC2775E APPELLANT RESPONDENT : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee by Advocate : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, CIT- Revenue by DR Date of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29-07-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal is…

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/727/2017HC Karnataka09 Apr 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 260A

…aning of the term ‘Engineering and Design’ and the 33 appellant was certainly entitled for deduction under Section 10B of the IT Act. 41. The Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, [2017] 398 ITR 452 (Delhi), has held that the assessee engaged in production of news software Television Programme was able to demonstrate that the Television Programme produced by it answered the description of computer software under clause (b) to Explanation to Section 80HHE. It was held that the Television News software produced and exported by the asses…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S.GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY

ITA/12/2014HC Karnataka09 Apr 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 260A

…aning of the term ‘Engineering and Design’ and the 33 appellant was certainly entitled for deduction under Section 10B of the IT Act. 41. The Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, [2017] 398 ITR 452 (Delhi), has held that the assessee engaged in production of news software Television Programme was able to demonstrate that the Television Programme produced by it answered the description of computer software under clause (b) to Explanation to Section 80HHE. It was held that the Television News software produced and exported by the asses…

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/725/2017HC Karnataka09 Apr 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 260A

…aning of the term ‘Engineering and Design’ and the 33 appellant was certainly entitled for deduction under Section 10B of the IT Act. 41. The Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, [2017] 398 ITR 452 (Delhi), has held that the assessee engaged in production of news software Television Programme was able to demonstrate that the Television Programme produced by it answered the description of computer software under clause (b) to Explanation to Section 80HHE. It was held that the Television News software produced and exported by the asses…

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/206/2018HC Karnataka09 Apr 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 260A

…aning of the term ‘Engineering and Design’ and the 33 appellant was certainly entitled for deduction under Section 10B of the IT Act. 41. The Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, [2017] 398 ITR 452 (Delhi), has held that the assessee engaged in production of news software Television Programme was able to demonstrate that the Television Programme produced by it answered the description of computer software under clause (b) to Explanation to Section 80HHE. It was held that the Television News software produced and exported by the asses…

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/728/2017HC Karnataka09 Apr 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 260A

…aning of the term ‘Engineering and Design’ and the 33 appellant was certainly entitled for deduction under Section 10B of the IT Act. 41. The Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, [2017] 398 ITR 452 (Delhi), has held that the assessee engaged in production of news software Television Programme was able to demonstrate that the Television Programme produced by it answered the description of computer software under clause (b) to Explanation to Section 80HHE. It was held that the Television News software produced and exported by the asses…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S.GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY

ITA/11/2014HC Karnataka09 Apr 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 260A

…aning of the term ‘Engineering and Design’ and the 33 appellant was certainly entitled for deduction under Section 10B of the IT Act. 41. The Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, [2017] 398 ITR 452 (Delhi), has held that the assessee engaged in production of news software Television Programme was able to demonstrate that the Television Programme produced by it answered the description of computer software under clause (b) to Explanation to Section 80HHE. It was held that the Television News software produced and exported by the asses…

M/S. MARMON FOOD AND BEVERAGE TECHNOLOGIES INDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA/726/2017HC Karnataka09 Apr 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 260A

…aning of the term ‘Engineering and Design’ and the 33 appellant was certainly entitled for deduction under Section 10B of the IT Act. 41. The Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. New Delhi Television Ltd, [2017] 398 ITR 452 (Delhi), has held that the assessee engaged in production of news software Television Programme was able to demonstrate that the Television Programme produced by it answered the description of computer software under clause (b) to Explanation to Section 80HHE. It was held that the Television News software produced and exported by the asses…

CHARBUJA MARMO (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 2 , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 4749/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

…8 ITA.No.4749/Del./2019 M/s. Charbuja Marmo (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. hold and records reasons why it is erroneous.” Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd., (2014) 360 ITR 44 (Del.) in which it was held that “once the claim was considered and examined by the A.O, Commissioner cannot set aside the Order without recording contrary finding. This will be contrary to Section 263 of the I.T. Act.” The CIT did not make any investigation by Ltd., vs. Pr. CIT, Central-II, New Delhi 2016-(5)-TMI-1290- ITAT-Delhi. He has also…

Showing 1–20 of 51 · Page 1 of 3

CIT v. New Delhi Television Ltd. (360 ITR 44) — Cited in 51 Judgments | BharatTax