CIT v. Nirav Modi

390 ITR 292High Court2017#272 most cited

What is CIT v. Nirav Modi authority for?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) cannot invoke revisionary powers under Section 263 merely on the ground of "inadequate enquiry" by the Assessing Officer (AO) if the AO has conducted an enquiry, examined evidence, and formed a possible view. For Section 263 to apply, the PCIT must demonstrate that the assessment order is both erroneous (contrary to law) and prejudicial to the revenue.

286

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Nirav Modi · CIT v Nirav Modi · Section 263 · revisionary power · inadequate enquiry · erroneous and prejudicial · assessment order erroneous · twin conditions · Assessing Officer enquiry · Principal Commissioner

Also reported as

71 Taxmann.com 272241 Taxmann 255138 DTR 81

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 80G

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquirylack of enquirysection 263(1)malabar industrialassessment order erroneousrevision u/s 263erroneous and prejudicialrevision under section 263section 54fsection 263section 26section 54

Judgments citing CIT v. Nirav Modi

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) - 4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 212/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 211/NAG/2025(AY 2015-16) Shree Sant Bhojaji Maharaj CIT(E), Pune at Nagpur Deosthan Ajansara Vs Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Ajansara, Wardha – 442001. Nagpur – 440001. [PAN: AAPTS4528N] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by ShriManoj G Moryani, Adv & Shri Bhavesh M Moryani, Adv Revenue by Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR Date of hearing 23.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 01.04.2026 PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM: 1. These three appeals are filed by assessee against the…

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) -4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 211/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 211/NAG/2025(AY 2015-16) Shree Sant Bhojaji Maharaj CIT(E), Pune at Nagpur Deosthan Ajansara Vs Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Ajansara, Wardha – 442001. Nagpur – 440001. [PAN: AAPTS4528N] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by ShriManoj G Moryani, Adv & Shri Bhavesh M Moryani, Adv Revenue by Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR Date of hearing 23.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 01.04.2026 PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM: 1. These three appeals are filed by assessee against the…

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE AT NGP, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

ITA 186/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 211/NAG/2025(AY 2015-16) Shree Sant Bhojaji Maharaj CIT(E), Pune at Nagpur Deosthan Ajansara Vs Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Ajansara, Wardha – 442001. Nagpur – 440001. [PAN: AAPTS4528N] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by ShriManoj G Moryani, Adv & Shri Bhavesh M Moryani, Adv Revenue by Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR Date of hearing 23.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 01.04.2026 PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM: 1. These three appeals are filed by assessee against the…

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

…ANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORISE OR GIVE UNFETTERED POWER TO COMMISSIONER TO REVISE EACH AND EVERY ORDER AND, IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE TO THE PRECONDITION U/S 263(1) OF THE ACT. i) 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum – Trib.) Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO ii) 390 ITR 292 (Bom) CIT v. Nirav Modi affirmed by Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi reported in [2017] 77 taxman.com 78 (SC) iii) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 M/s Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. v. PCIT PROPOSITION XII: THAT NO MECHANICAL SET ASIDE PERMISSIBLE IN ABSENCE OF ENQUIRY BY PCIT i) 394 ITR 758 (Del) PCIT v. Vinita Chaurasia ii) ITA No. 705/Del/2017 PC…

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

…ANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORISE OR GIVE UNFETTERED POWER TO COMMISSIONER TO REVISE EACH AND EVERY ORDER AND, IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE TO THE PRECONDITION U/S 263(1) OF THE ACT. i) 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum – Trib.) Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO ii) 390 ITR 292 (Bom) CIT v. Nirav Modi affirmed by Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi reported in [2017] 77 taxman.com 78 (SC) iii) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 M/s Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. v. PCIT PROPOSITION XII: THAT NO MECHANICAL SET ASIDE PERMISSIBLE IN ABSENCE OF ENQUIRY BY PCIT i) 394 ITR 758 (Del) PCIT v. Vinita Chaurasia ii) ITA No. 705/Del/2017 PC…

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

…ANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORISE OR GIVE UNFETTERED POWER TO COMMISSIONER TO REVISE EACH AND EVERY ORDER AND, IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE TO THE PRECONDITION U/S 263(1) OF THE ACT. i) 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum – Trib.) Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO ii) 390 ITR 292 (Bom) CIT v. Nirav Modi affirmed by Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi reported in [2017] 77 taxman.com 78 (SC) iii) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 M/s Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. v. PCIT PROPOSITION XII: THAT NO MECHANICAL SET ASIDE PERMISSIBLE IN ABSENCE OF ENQUIRY BY PCIT i) 394 ITR 758 (Del) PCIT v. Vinita Chaurasia ii) ITA No. 705/Del/2017 PC…

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

…ANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORISE OR GIVE UNFETTERED POWER TO COMMISSIONER TO REVISE EACH AND EVERY ORDER AND, IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE TO THE PRECONDITION U/S 263(1) OF THE ACT. i) 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum – Trib.) Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO ii) 390 ITR 292 (Bom) CIT v. Nirav Modi affirmed by Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi reported in [2017] 77 taxman.com 78 (SC) iii) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 M/s Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. v. PCIT PROPOSITION XII: THAT NO MECHANICAL SET ASIDE PERMISSIBLE IN ABSENCE OF ENQUIRY BY PCIT i) 394 ITR 758 (Del) PCIT v. Vinita Chaurasia ii) ITA No. 705/Del/2017 PC…

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

…ANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORISE OR GIVE UNFETTERED POWER TO COMMISSIONER TO REVISE EACH AND EVERY ORDER AND, IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE TO THE PRECONDITION U/S 263(1) OF THE ACT. i) 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum – Trib.) Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO ii) 390 ITR 292 (Bom) CIT v. Nirav Modi affirmed by Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi reported in [2017] 77 taxman.com 78 (SC) iii) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 M/s Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. v. PCIT PROPOSITION XII: THAT NO MECHANICAL SET ASIDE PERMISSIBLE IN ABSENCE OF ENQUIRY BY PCIT i) 394 ITR 758 (Del) PCIT v. Vinita Chaurasia ii) ITA No. 705/Del/2017 PC…

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

…ANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORISE OR GIVE UNFETTERED POWER TO COMMISSIONER TO REVISE EACH AND EVERY ORDER AND, IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE TO THE PRECONDITION U/S 263(1) OF THE ACT. i) 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum – Trib.) Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO ii) 390 ITR 292 (Bom) CIT v. Nirav Modi affirmed by Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi reported in [2017] 77 taxman.com 78 (SC) iii) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 M/s Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. v. PCIT PROPOSITION XII: THAT NO MECHANICAL SET ASIDE PERMISSIBLE IN ABSENCE OF ENQUIRY BY PCIT i) 394 ITR 758 (Del) PCIT v. Vinita Chaurasia ii) ITA No. 705/Del/2017 PC…

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

…ANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DOES NOT AUTHORISE OR GIVE UNFETTERED POWER TO COMMISSIONER TO REVISE EACH AND EVERY ORDER AND, IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE TO THE PRECONDITION U/S 263(1) OF THE ACT. i) 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum – Trib.) Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO ii) 390 ITR 292 (Bom) CIT v. Nirav Modi affirmed by Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi reported in [2017] 77 taxman.com 78 (SC) iii) ITA No. 3205/Del/2017 M/s Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. v. PCIT PROPOSITION XII: THAT NO MECHANICAL SET ASIDE PERMISSIBLE IN ABSENCE OF ENQUIRY BY PCIT i) 394 ITR 758 (Del) PCIT v. Vinita Chaurasia ii) ITA No. 705/Del/2017 PC…

BANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

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

ITA 1357/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…ed that once the issue has been examined, the order cannot be revised merely because the Ld. CIT(E) believes that further enquiry was warranted. 23. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs B. Nirav Modi reported in (2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the Assessing Officer after making proper and detailed enquiries, took a view that amount received by the assessee as gift from his relatives was a genuine transaction, impugned revisional order passed by Commissioner directing the Assessing Officer to 16 enq…

DHARAM CHAND AGARWAL,KANPUR (UTTAR PARDESH) vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR- I

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

ITA 358/LKW/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Dharam Chand Agarwal, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 14/75 D Gopal Vihar Civil Lines, Kanpur-I, U.P. Kanpur, U.P. Pan: Aanpa1942L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Pr. Cit, Kanpur-1 On 31.03.2024 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Pcit Has Set Aside The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao On 28.03.2022 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B For The A.Y. 2016-17 & Directing Him To Pass A Fresh Assessment Order. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Dated 28.03.2022, Which Has Been Set Aside U/S 263 Of The Act By The Impugned Order Passed By Pr. Cit, Itself Was Illegal & Was Not Enforceable Due To Various Infirmities In The Initiation & Conclusion Of Re-Assessment Proceedings, The Same Could Not Have Been Subjected To Revision U/S 263 Of The Act & Consequently The Impugned Order Is Bad In Law & Wholly Without Jurisdiction. Without Prejudice To The Aforesaid 2. Because The Pr. Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That The Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer, Nfac U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Is Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & In Setting Aside The Same By Exercising His Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

…hand Agarwal A.Y. 2016-17 power under section 263 was not properly exercised in the matter and no case was made out for revision. We note that a similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the matter of CIT Central-3 vs. Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom). Therefore, we quash the order of the ld. PCIT on this account. Accordingly, ground nos. 2 to 8 are accordingly allowed. Ground No. 9 has not been demonstrated in argument and is therefore dismissed, ground nos. 10 and 11 do not require a decision and are therefore, dismissed as infructuous. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is p…

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

ITA 100/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 263

…e Act\nby the Id. PCIT. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd reported\nin 243 ITR 83; decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the\ncase of Nirav Modi reported in 390 ITR 292; and the decision of the\nHon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case Garbriel India Ltd., reported\nin 203 ITR 108. In our considered opinion, the Id. PCIT is only trying to\ndisturb the possible view taken by the ld. AO by merely making a bald\nallegation that no enquiries were carried out by the Id. AO. All the\naforesaid facts clearly go to…

BE HEALTHY PHARMACY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 41(3)(1), KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

ITA 3666/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Be Healthy Pharmacy Pcit-41 Shop No. 04, Gala Residency Room No. 541 Chsl, Gala Compound, Haji Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Bapu Road, Malad East C-41 To 43 Mumbai-400 097. Bandra-E, Mumbai-51. Pan : Aatfb6476A Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Satyaparkash R. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Ronak Doshi
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194CSection 194HSection 263

…no need of remit the issue back to Ld. AO again and hence the proceedings under section 263 may be quashed by ITAT. The Ld. AR of the appellant company has filed a legal paper book containing cases-law of Malabar Indl. Co. Vs. CIT 247 ITR 83(SC), Nirav Modi, 390 ITR 292(Bom), PCIT Vs. Gujarat Power Co., 138 Taxman.com 60(SC) and others and relied on them for the proposition that where all enquiries were conducted by Ld. AO, then the Ld. PCIT cannot assume the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. 8. The Ld. DR has submitted that the issue of “Listing Fees” was dealt by Ld. AO at para 4.1 of the assessment…

BHARAT SERUMS AND VACCINES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2780/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarbharat Serums & V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Vaccines Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 15(1)(2), 3Rd Floor, Liberty Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra 400708, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacb2431M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Mundra,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr.DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL”B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bharat Serums and v/s. Deputy Commissioner of Vaccines Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 15(1)(2), 3rd Floor, Liberty Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – Airoli, Navi Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra 400708, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACB2431M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Manoj Mundra,AR Respondent by : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (Sr.DR) Date of Hearing 01.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement 18.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E…

SURBHIT IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2570/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram Sr. Adv.& Shri Shashi Bekkal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 263Section 41(1)

…ch ld. CIT does not\nagree the order of A.O, cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial\nto the interest of Revenue unless the view taken by the A.O is\nunsustainable in law. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v.\nNirav Modi reported in [2017] 390 ITR 292 (Bom.) in the light of\nprovisions of Section 263 of the Act, held as under:\nPage 15\nITA No. 2570/Mum/2025\nA.Y. 2018-19\nSurbhit Impex Private Limited\n“It is a settled position of law that powers under Section 263 of the Act can be\nexercised by the Commissioner on satisfaction of twin conditions viz. the\nassessment order should be erroneous…

SUNITA SAINI,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), FARIDABAD, HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1877/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1877/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Sunita Saini, Income Tax Officer, House No.743P, Sector-38, Vs. Ward 1(4), Gurugram, Haryana. Faridabad. Pan No.Awmps2317Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 151Section 263

…of completion of assessment after making inadequate enquiry. The Ld. Pr CIT was not entitled to assume jurisdiction on the basis of inadequate enquiry in view of the decision of CIT vs. Cartier Leafin (P) Ltd. [112 taxmann.com 63 (Bom)], CIT vs. Nirav Modi [390 ITR 292 (Bom)], PCIT vs. Clix Finance India (P) Ltd. [2025] [473 ITR 650 (Delhi)], CIT v. Anil Kumar Sharma [355 ITR 83(Del)], and CIT v. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. [2023] 453 ITR 447 (SC). It is submitted that the above decisions have been considered in the recent decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Procter and Gamble Health Private Limi…

FAIRBRIDGE CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI - 6, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3626/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nMs. Chandni Shah a/w Mr. Hardik Nirmal andFor Respondent: \nShri Vivek Perampurna, CIT, D/R [virtually
Section 143(3)Section 263

…under section 263 of the Act bad in law. In any event, the view taken on fact by the\nAssessing Officer is a possible view and the same is not shown to be bad.”\n12. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in\nthe case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292. The relevant findings read as\nunder:-\n“12. In the present facts, the Assessing Officer was satisfied, consequent to making an\nenquiry and examining the evidence produced by the Assessing Officer, establishing\nthe identity and creditworthiness of the donor as also the genuineness of the gift. The\nCIT in his order of Revision, does not indica…

DEUTSCHE INVESTMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE- 4(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMABI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3764/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Deutsche Investments India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle 4(2)(1) Block B1, Nirlon Knowledge Park, Off 6Th Floor, Room No. Western Express Highway, Goregaon Vs. 642, Aayakar East, Mumbai-400 063. Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaccd1765E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Umashankar PrasadFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Sheth
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…ia P.Ltd. mentioned in the order relied on by the Ld. AR of the appellant (supra). Some of the orders of the ITAT where issue was held in favour of the appellant company are mentioned below :- • CIT v. Nirav Mod/[2016] 71 taxmann.com 272/241 Taxman 255/[2017] 390 ITR 292 (Bombay), • CIT v. Nirav Modi [2017] 77 taxmann.com 15/244 Taxman 194 (SC), • CIT v. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. ([2015] 55 taxmann.com 514/230 Taxman 641/372 ITR 303 (Bombay), • Mo/7 Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 420/396 ITR 244 (Bombay), • Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO [2016] 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mumbai), • JMS Mining Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. CIT [2021]…

RIVAARA LABS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3640/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shankar Prasad, (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35DSection 37Section 37(1)

…ch Id. CIT does not agree\nthe order of A.O cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the\ninterest of Revenue unless the view taken by the A.O is unsustainable in\nlaw. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nirav\nModi reported in [2017] 390 ITR 292 (Bom.) in the light of\nprovisions of Sec.263 of the Act, as held under:\n\"It is a settled position of law that powers under section 263 of the Act can be\nexercised by the Commissioner on satisfaction of twin conditions viz. the\nassessment order should be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. By\nerroneous is meant contrary to law. Thus, t…

Showing 1–20 of 286 · Page 1 of 15

...