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 366,314 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

Jasbir Singh, Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-20, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 422/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Gunjan Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…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. Nirav Modi, [2016] 71 Taxmann.com 272 (Bombay). 19. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd. 309 ITR 67 has observed as under: “if assessment order were to incorporate the reasons for upholding the claim made by an assessee, the result would be an epitome and not an assessment order. In this case, during the assessment proceedings…

M/S Rani Sati Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 68

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 85/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s. Rani Sati Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(3), 20, Maharshi Debendra Road Vs Kolkata Fourth Floor Room No. 10, Burrabazar Kolkata - 700007 [PAN : AABCR2446R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sunil Surana, FCA Revenue by : Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 09/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronounceme…

M/S Roy and Sahani Company, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward 24(1), Hooghly

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 169/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 169/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Roy and Sahani Company Income Tax Officer, Ward-24(1), Boinchee Bilsara Road Vs Hooghly Pandua Hooghly - 712134 [PAN : AAGFR6501F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 12/06/2023 आदेश/O R D…

Jagdeep Bhargava, Hisar vs. Pr. CIT, Hisar

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

ITA 1279/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271Section 50C

…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. Nirav Modi, [2016] 71 Taxmann.com 272 (Bombay). 14. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd. 309 ITR 67 has observed as under: “if assessment order were to incorporate the reasons for upholding the claim made by an assessee, the result would be an epitome and not an assessment order. In this case, during the assessment proceedings f…

Sanjay Gupta, Panipat vs. Pr, CIT, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 587/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 587/DEL/2022 [A.Y 2017-18] Shri Sanjay Gupta Vs. The Pr.C.I.T. 16, Amar Bhawan Chowk Rohtak Ward – 5 Panipat, Haryana PAN: ACYPG 6979 Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Deepak Garg, Adv Department By : Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR Date of Hearing : 04.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 18.05.2023 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is directed towards the order of t…

Kaur Kookies (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-4, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1119/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263Section 36

…3391 /D/2018 dated 8.1.2019 Arun Kumar Garg HUF vs. PCIT iv) ITA No. 2799/D/2018 dated 21.6.2019 Champ Info Software vs. PCIT v) ITA No. 3097/D/2014 dated 1.7.2019 Dwarkadhis Buildwell (P) ltd. vs. CIT 10.3 Reliance is placed on CIT vs. NiravModi reported in 390 ITR 292 (Bom) further SLP has been dismissed against the aforesaid order in SLP No. (C) 22149/2016 reported in 244 Taxman 194 (SC) where in it has been held 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 c…

Garud Credit & Holding Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1270/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 35DSection 68

…ITA No. 1270/KOL/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 1270/KOL/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [PAN: AAACG9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances by: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, CA, appeared on behalf of the assessee…

Bonjour Estates (P) Limited, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-1, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 732/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Bonjour Estates (P) Ltd., The Pcit (1), C-444, Defence Colony, New New Delhi 110002 Delhi 110024 Vs. Pan Aaecn 4851 H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca For Revenue : Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…in the case of CIT vs. DLF Ltd. reported as 350 ITR 555 (Del). The Page 15 of 21 learned counsel as also placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Communication Ltd. 396 ITR 217 (Bom) and CIT vs. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bom). 14. Replying to the above the learned CIT(DR) drawing our attention towards impugned notice and order u/s. 263 of the Act submitted that the assessment order was rightly alleged as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the shares were allotted by the assessee company as huge premium, the assessee was not able to discharg…

K.R.Overseas Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-(Central)-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 185/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'ए' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A” BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजपाल यादव, उपाध्यक्ष (कोलकाता क्षेत्र) एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 185/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-16 K. R. Overseas Pvt. Ltd.....…………............................Appellant [PAN: AACCK 0101 B] Vs. Pr. CIT, Kolkata-2, Kolkata...................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. N.S. Saini, A/R, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT (D/R), appeared on b…

M/S. Pearl Tracom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-4, Kolkata

ITA 495/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'बी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री राजपाल यादव, उपाध्यक्ष (कोलकाता क्षेत्र) एवं डॉ. मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 495/KOL/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/s. Pearl Tracom Pvt. Ltd....………….......................Appellant [PAN: AABCP 9934 G] Vs. PCIT-4, Kolkata....................................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. Siddharth Jhajharia, FCA, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Sudipta Guha, CIT, (D/R), appeared on…

Shrimati. Lata Narang, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rajinder Kaur, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 5(2)Section 6

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 35/Asr/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Lata Narang V. Principal Commissioner of 271, Nizatam Nagar, Income Tax, Jalandhar-1. Backside KGS Palace, Basti Nau, Jalandhar, Punjab [PAN: AEYPN 0415J] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by : Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA Respondent by : Smt. Rajinder Kaur, CIT- DR Date of Hearing : 16.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 02.03.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee a…

M/S. Thalia Akshar Developers, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax `, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 634/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Us, The Only Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld. Pcit

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…for ‘lack of enquiry’. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329 (Del) and the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nirav Modi reported in 390 ITR 292 (Bom). 3.6. Further, the ld. DR before us vehemently argued that provisions of Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act would come to the rescue of the Revenue and therefore, the ld. PCIT was justified in invoking his revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. We find that the entire show-cause notice issued by the ld. PCIT is reproduced in pages…

Sh Kelkar & Co. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1611/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sh Kelkar & Company Principal Commissioner Of Limited, Income-Tax-4, Devkaran Mansion, 36, Vs. Room No. 629, 6Th Floor, Mangaldas Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacs 9778 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate & Shri Harsh Kothari Revenue By : Dr. Kishor Dhule, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 13/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2023

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…bay. He further relied on the . He further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Central (III) v. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 Bombay and submitted Central (III) v. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 Bombay Central (III) v. Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 Bombay that the Ld. PCIT is not justified in setting aside the assessment that the Ld. PCIT is not justified in setting aside the assessment that the Ld. PCIT is not justified in setting aside the assessment order where the Assessing Office…

Saif Partners India IV Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Int. Taxation-3(1)(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1138/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Singh – CIT-DR

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…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. Nirav Modi, [2016] 71 Taxmann.com 272 (Bombay). 20. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd. 309 ITR 67 has observed as under: “if assessment order were to incorporate the reasons for upholding the claim made by an assessee, the result would be an epitome and not an assessment order. In this case, during the assessment proceedings f…

Rakshita Patel, Delhi vs. AO Ward 49(2), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 647/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri VedJain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri T.P. Kipgen, CIT- DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 54

…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. Nirav Modi, [2016] 71 Taxmann.com 272 (Bombay). 15. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd. 309 ITR 67 has observed as under: “if assessment order were to incorporate the reasons for upholding the claim made by an assessee, the result would be an epitome and not an assessment order. In this case, during the assessment proceedings f…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 70/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…ma Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. 309 ITR 67 (Guj) (7) CIT Vs R.K. Construction Co. 313 ITR 65 (Guj) (8) CIT Vs Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) (9) CIT Vs Minalben S. Parikh 215 ITR 0081 (Guj) (10) Moil Ltd. Vs CIT 396 ITR 244 (Bom) (11) CIT Vs Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bom) (12) CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (13) ITO Vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del) (14) Gee Vee Enterprises Vs ACIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) (15) CIT Vs Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) (16) CIT Vs Anilkumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) (17) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (18) CIT Vs Kelvinator of…