How many judgments cite CIT v. Nirav Modi?

286 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Nirav Modi (390 ITR 292), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Nirav Modi come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 147, Section 148.

CIT v. Nirav Modi

390 ITR 292High Court2017#275 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 366,005 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 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 147 Section 148 Section 151 Section 80G

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiry lack of enquiry section 263(1)malabar industrial assessment order erroneous revision u/s 263 erroneous and prejudicial revision under section 263 section 54f section 263 section 26 section 54

Judgments citing CIT v. Nirav Modi

Hari Krishna Exports Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1858/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40

…gs under section 263 of the Act bad in law. In any event, the view taken on fact by the Assessing Officer is a possible view and the same is not shown to be bad.” 14. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292. The relevant findings read as under:- “12. In the present facts, the Assessing Officer was satisfied, consequent to making an enquiry and examining the evidence produced by the Assessing Officer, establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the donor as also the genuineness of the gift. The CIT in his order of Revision, does not indicate an…

Nirmalkumar Agrawal HUF, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Bhandara

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Loya a/wFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.242/Nag./2025 (Assessment Year : 2018–19) Nirmalkumar Agrawal (HUF) Shiv Sadan, Main Road ……………. Appellant Tumsar 441 912 PAN – AADHN0157N v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–2, Bhandara Assessee by : Shri Rohan Loya a/w Shri Rajesh Loya Revenue by : Shri Pankaj Kumar Date of Hearing – 23/06/2025 Date of Order – 22/09/2025 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 26/03/2025, pas…

Gajanand Financial Consultancy Private Limited, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur, Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…5IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.126/Nag./2025 (Assessment Year : 2013–14) Gajanand Financial Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. N–86, MIDC, Hingna Road ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 016 PAN – AADCG2049R v/s Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent (Central), Nagpur Assessee by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani Revenue by : Shri Pankaj Kumar Date of Hearing – 23/06/2025 Date of Order – 22/09/2025 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. By this appeal, the assessee has challenged the impugned order dated 05/0…

Ashok Nariyani, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1532/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh.Deepak Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR

Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…wer of revision can be exercised only where no enquiry, as required under the law, is done. It is not open to enquire in case of inadequate inquiry. Our view is fortified by the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. NiravModi, [2016] 71 Taxmann.com 272 (Bombay). 29. Considering the facts of the case in hand, in totality, in light of judicial decisions discussed here in above, we set aside the order of the PCIT and restore that of the Assessing Officer dated 23.12.2019 framed under section 143(3) of the Act. 30. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 826/DEL/2022 is allowed.…

Booking.Com India Support & Marketing Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3675/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT D/R

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…9 under section 263 of the Act bad in law. In any event, the view taken on fact by the Assessing Officer is a possible view and the same is not shown to be bad.” 9. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292. The relevant findings read as under:- “12. In the present facts, the Assessing Officer was satisfied, consequent to making an enquiry and examining the evidence produced by the Assessing Officer, establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the donor as also the genuineness of the gift. The CIT in his order of Revision, does not indicate an…

Procter and Gamble Health Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2326/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji & Shri Ajay BhandariFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 40Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)Section 68

…gs under section 263 of the Act bad in law. In any event, the view taken on fact by the Assessing Officer is a possible view and the same is not shown to be bad.” 15. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292. The relevant findings read as under:- “12. In the present facts, the Assessing Officer was satisfied, consequent to making an enquiry and examining the evidence produced by the Assessing Officer, establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the donor as also the genuineness of the gift. The CIT in his order of Revision, does not indicate an…

Indur Thanwerdas Dadlani, Mumbai vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax PCIT, Mumbai-42, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed without any order as to cost

ITA 2476/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarindur Thanwerdas Dadlani Vs. Pr. Cit Flat No. 4604, The Imperial Mumbai – 42 Towers, Mp Mill Compound, Room No. 741, Aayakar Bb Nakashe Marg, Mardeo, Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400034. Mumbai Pan/Gir No. Aacpd5262D (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 57Section 74

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indur Thanwerdas Dadlani Vs. Pr. CIT Flat No. 4604, the Imperial Mumbai – 42 Towers, MP Mill Compound, Room No. 741, Aayakar BB Nakashe Marg, Mardeo, Bhavan, MK Road, Mumbai – 400034. Mumbai PAN/GIR No. AACPD5262D (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Rahul Hakani Revenue by Shri. R.A. Dhyani, CIT (DR) Date of Hearing 09.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.08.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging…

Bajaj Holdings Amd Investment Limited, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai - 3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3678/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Vasantiben Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R.Singh, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

…Stock Broking (P) Ltd 175 Taxmann.com 984 vs. PCIT 6. DCIT v. Hinduja Global Solutions Ltd 1 75 Taxmann.com 411 7. DCIT v. Gabriel Ltd 173 Taxmann.com 21 9 8. MOIL V CIT 396 ITR 244 (Bombay) 9. CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) 10. CIT v. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bombay) 11. CIT v. Nirav Modi 77 Taxmann.com 15 (SC) 12. Axis Securities Ltd v. PCIT 175 Taxmann.com 982 13. Aditya Birla Sun Life AMC Ltd v ACIT ITA 494/Mum/2025 14. Blue Dart Express Ltd. 1101/Mum/2024 4.1 We refer to the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of ACIT vs. Blue Dart Express Ltd. in ITA No. 1101/Mum/2024), whe…

Acc Mineral Resources Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 2687/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am Acc Minerals Resources Limited Principal Commissioner Of Income 121, Cement House, Maharshi Karve Tax, Mumbai – 400 001. Vs. Road, Church Gate, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaact2214N (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saurabh Soparkar (Virtually Appear) Respondent By : Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai -1 (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case, Impugned Order U/S. 263 Of The Act Passed By Pcit-1, Mumbai Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed. 2. In Law & In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case, The Pcit-1, Mumbai Has Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order Dated 20.04.2021 Passed By The Assessing Officer Without Considering The Fact That The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Has Already Gone Through Issue

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, AM ACC Minerals Resources Limited Principal Commissioner of Income 121, Cement House, Maharshi Karve Tax, Mumbai – 400 001. Vs. Road, Church Gate, Mumbai – 400020. PAN/GIR No. AAACT2214N (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Saurabh Soparkar (Virtually appear) Respondent by : Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 29.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Principal…

Avinash Dattatray Muley, Pune vs. PCIT, Pune

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

ITA 624/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 48Section 54B

…ib.) iii) Mind Sports League (P.) Ltd. V. PCIT [2023] 157 taxmann.com 815 (Kolkata - Trib.) iv) Nazare Vikas Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. V/s ITO, Ward-1, Solapur in ITA No 1518/PUN/2018 v) Plastic Concern v. ACIT 61 TTJ (Cal) 87 vi) CIT v. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bombay) vii) CIT Vs. Nirav Modi (2017) 77 taxmann.com 15 (SC) viii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83) 10. The Ld. DR on the other hand drew the attention of the Bench to the findings of the Ld. PCIT while assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and submitted that he has thoroughly examined the issue and has observed that the Asse…

ITO, Ward-2(1), Thane vs. Chalk Farm Ventures Private Limited, Bhayender East

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

ITA 3492/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: The Hon'Ble High Court. 2. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case, Since The Revenue Is In Appeal Before The Hon'Ble High Court On The Itat'S Decision, Which Is Pending As On Date, This Appeal Is Being Filed To Keep The Issue Alive. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Ground/Grounds, Which May Be Necessary.”

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO Ward-2(1) Vs. Chalk Farm Ventures Thane Private Limited Indralok, Near RBK Global School Bhayander East-401105 Thane PAN/GIR No.AAGCC0332A (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Virabhadra S Mahajan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 14/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 22/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue against order dated 12/03/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.14…

Bhagwati Steel Processors, Chandigarh vs. PCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 435/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

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

…igh Court held that the CIT must record specific findings based on independent examination to invoke Section 263. Ο Reliance Communications Ltd. [240 Taxman 655 (Bom)] - held that absence of discussion in the order does not mean lack of inquiry. Ο Nirav Modi [390 ITR 292 (Bom)), Shashi Bhushan Gupta [202 TTJ UO 30], Delhi Airport Metro Express [398 ITR 8], Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [372 ITR 303], Jyoti Foundation [357 ITR 388], Brahma Centre Development (P) Ltd. [437 ITR 285], among others, reiterate that once inquiry is made and a possible view taken by the AO, the same cannot be revised under Section 263 unle…

Ct. Ramanathan (HUF), Pudukkottai vs. PCIT 1, Madurai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 761/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.761/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21 C.T.Ramanathan(Huf), Income Tax Officer, No.7/45, Ct.Rm.S.House, M.St.S. Street Ward-1, Kulipirai, Pudukottai Dist, Pudukottai. Tamil Nadu-622 402. [Pan: Aaahc0701L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.V.Subbarayan, Dcit(Retd.) प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.M.K.Biju, Cir Dr By Virtual. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Mr.V.Subbarayan, DCIT(Retd.)For Respondent: Mr.M.K.Biju, CIR DR by virtual

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3

…pting the income retuned including agricultural income and thereafre, the Ld. Pr CIT as the revisional authority cannot arrive at conclusions merely on the basis of a subjective exercise and thus not justified in invoking powers under section 263 – please see 390 ITR 292(Bom) (Dept.’s SLP dismissed by SC 389 ITR(st) 42]; 396 ITR 217 (Bom); 462 ITR 44 (Guj)’ and 455 ITR 679(Jhar). VII. The Ld. Pr CIT has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V. CIT 243 ITR 83(SC) wherein a resolution passed by the board of the company was not placed before the Assessing officer and it was held…

Dalal and Broacha Stock Broking Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2718/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankar(Physical Hearing) Dalal & Broacha Stock Broking Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pvt. Ltd. Vs Aayakar Bhawan, M.K.Road, 506, Maker Chambers V, 221, Mumbai Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021. [Pan No. Aaacd5662J] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 80G

…urisdiction that assessment order is erroneous and in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue has not been satisfied in the present case. To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision:  CIT vs. Nirav Modi (390 ITR 292),  CIT vs. Nirav Modi (77 taxmann.com 78),  CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (372 ITR 303),  Moil Ltd. vs. CIT (396 ITR 244), 5 DalalAndBroacha Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd.  Narayan TatuRane vs. ITO (70 taxmann.com 227),  JMS Mining Pvt. Ltd. PCIT (91 ITR (T) 80),  SBI DFHI Ltd. vs. ACIT (ITA No. No. 1431/Mum/2023) dated 27.06.2023,  ACIT v…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai vs. Wheelabrator Alloy Castings Limited, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5616/MUM/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2025

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 224Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 79

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 5616/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dy.CIT, CC-4(1), Wheelabrator Alloy Casting Ltd. Room No. 418, 4th Floor, 4th Floor, Runwal and Omkar Esquare Kautilya Bhawan, BKC, Eastern Express Highway, Vs. Mumbai-400051. Opp Sion Chunabhatti Signal, Sion, Maharashtra-400022. PAN: AAACW0462F Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee by : Ms. Vinita Shah, AR Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR : 03.06.2025 Date of Hearing : 06.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement O R D E…

Shri Balbir Singh Verma, Shimla vs. Pr.CIT, Shimla

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 314/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR (Virtual)

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE "ी लिलत कुमार, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 314/Chd/ 2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Balbir Singh Verma बनाम The Pr CIT Plot No. 4, Lane-7, Sector-1, Phase-1 Shimla New Shimla, Shimla-171009 "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAOPV4309H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Rohit Sharma,…

Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2844/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 94(7)

…ts contentions that Page | 5 ITA No. 2844/Mum/2024 Α.Υ. 2019-20 Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited the ld.CIT was not correct in applying the provisions of section 263 of the Act and in cancelling the same for de novo assessment, i.e CIT vs Nirav Modi(2016) 71 Taxmann.com 272(Bom),PCIT vs Shivshahi P.Prakalp Ltd(2023) 155 Taxmann.com 408(Bom),Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs CIT(2000) 109 Taxman 66(SC),CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd(1993) 71 Taxman 585(Bom) and Hariom Iron Trading Co.vs CIT(2003) 131 Taxman 535(P&H). 4.1 Per contra, the ld.CIT, DR has relied on the impugned order stating that there was no enquiry worth…

Shree Auro Iron Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Saraswant, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 263Section 48

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री गगन गोयल, लेखा सदस्य, के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 788/JPR/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shree Auro Iron Limited, बनाम Principal Commissioner of 11, Dudu Bagh, Vs. Income-tax-I, Loha Mandi S.C. Link Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AAECS 0826 R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Pravin Saraswant, CA राजस्व की ओर…

Sanket Jhabak, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 479/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263

…the Act. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Anindita Steel Ltd. (2022) 1387 taxmann.com 203 (Cal.) and that of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Nirav Modi (2017) 390 ITR 292 (Bom). Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid settled position of law, if the A.O after carrying out necessary inquiry and verification had adopted one of the plausible view amongst other, resulting in the loss of the revenue, then on the standalone basis that the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by him would not render the order p…

Sampat Lal Jhabak, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the captioned assessees are allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 478/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, Advocate

Section 1Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 263