What is CIT v. R.K.Construction Co. authority for?

When the Assessing Officer conducts inquiries and accepts the assessee's explanation, the PCIT cannot invoke revisional powers under Section 263 solely due to a difference of opinion with the conclusion drawn by the AO.

How many judgments cite CIT v. R.K.Construction Co.?

86 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. R.K.Construction Co. (313 ITR 65), spanning 2016 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. R.K.Construction Co. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 263, Section 144B, Section 68, Section 142A, Section 144.

CIT v. R.K.Construction Co. (313 ITR 65)

M/S. PARISHRAM BUILDERS,,VERAVAL vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1,, RAJKOT

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

ITA 98/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.98/Rjt/2021 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Parisharam Builders The Pr. Commissioner Of बनाम Krunal Complex, Income Tax, Rajkot-1, 1St Floor, Junagadh Road, Veraval Vs. Rajkot Gujarat-362266 Pan : Aacfp5403G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR

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

…on'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v/s. Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502). (e) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC), CIT vs. Jagson International Limited 214 CTR (Del) 227. (g) CIT vs. SakSoft Ltd. 298 ITR 63 (Mad.) (h) CIT vs. R.K. Construction Co. 313 ITR 65 (Guj.) 6. However, Ld. PCIT rejected the above contention of the assessee and observed that in some cases, the payments have been made in cash in various instalment, less than Rs. 20,000/-. This fact coupled with absence of PAN and complete address of such recipient made these transactions completely unverifiable. The assessing officer has not ma…

VITTHALDAS NATHUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 823/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Vitthaldas Nathubhai Shah Vs. The Pr.Cit-3 1St Floor, Tax Planning House Vejalpur Above Usmanpura Underbridge Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad 380013. Pan : Acwps 4622 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Mukesh Patel, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…order is “erroneous” and “prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue,” must be satisfied before the revisional power u/s. 263 can be exercised. Further, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Arvind Jewellers (259 ITR 502) and CIT v. R.K. Construction Co. (313 ITR 65) has consistently held that where the AO has conducted enquiries and accepted the assessee’s explanation, the PCIT cannot invoke section 263 merely because he does not agree with the conclusion drawn by the AO. 7.4 Recently, the Coordinate Bench in Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. v. PCIT [2025] 176 taxmann.com 227 (Ahd-Trib.) has rei…

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 490/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM] I.T.A. Nos. 487 to 489/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2016-17 & I.T.A No. 490/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sushil Mitruka Vs. Pr. CIT, Siliguri G-208, City Centre, Office Block, P.O. Matigara-734010, Siliguri, Darjeeling (PAN: ACCPA9340F) Appellant Respondent Date of conclusion of Hearing 19.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.07.2025 For the Appellant Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Madanappa Raghuvir, CIT DR ORDER Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM The captioned four a…

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 489/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM] I.T.A. Nos. 487 to 489/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2016-17 & I.T.A No. 490/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sushil Mitruka Vs. Pr. CIT, Siliguri G-208, City Centre, Office Block, P.O. Matigara-734010, Siliguri, Darjeeling (PAN: ACCPA9340F) Appellant Respondent Date of conclusion of Hearing 19.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.07.2025 For the Appellant Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Madanappa Raghuvir, CIT DR ORDER Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM The captioned four a…

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 488/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM] I.T.A. Nos. 487 to 489/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2016-17 & I.T.A No. 490/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sushil Mitruka Vs. Pr. CIT, Siliguri G-208, City Centre, Office Block, P.O. Matigara-734010, Siliguri, Darjeeling (PAN: ACCPA9340F) Appellant Respondent Date of conclusion of Hearing 19.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.07.2025 For the Appellant Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Madanappa Raghuvir, CIT DR ORDER Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM The captioned four a…

SUSHIL MITRUKA,SILIGURI vs. P.C.I.T., SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 487/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM] I.T.A. Nos. 487 to 489/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2016-17 & I.T.A No. 490/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sushil Mitruka Vs. Pr. CIT, Siliguri G-208, City Centre, Office Block, P.O. Matigara-734010, Siliguri, Darjeeling (PAN: ACCPA9340F) Appellant Respondent Date of conclusion of Hearing 19.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.07.2025 For the Appellant Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate For the Respondent Shri Madanappa Raghuvir, CIT DR ORDER Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM The captioned four a…

BALUBHAI KIKABHAI PATEL,VALSAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, VALSAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 461/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.461/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Balubhhai Kikabhai Patel Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ Nahuli, Karmbele, Umbergon, Income-Tax, Valsad, Room No. Vs. Surat-396 105 301, 3Rd Floor, Palak Arcade, Shanti Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad-396 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Akqpp 2563 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 13/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

…in case of CIT vs. Meshana District Co-Op. Milk Producers Union Ltd. 263 ITR 645 (Guj) and CIT vs. Shashi Theater (P.) Ltd. 248 ITR 126 (Guj); CIT vs. Amit Corporation 81 CCH 69 (Guj); CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Guj); CIT vs. R.K. Construction Co. 313 ITR 65 (Guj) and Rayon Silk Mills vs. CIT 221 ITR 155 (Guj). ITA No.461/SRT/2024/AY.18-19 Balubhai K Patel 5. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue supported the order of Ld.PCIT. He submitted that the order of AO is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials availabl…

NATURE COMMERCIAL PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 853/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2008-09

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA\n[Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, JM]\nI.T.A. No. 853/Kol/2024\n Assessment Year: 2008-09\nM/s Nature Commercial Pvt. Ltd.\nH. No. 175, Ground Floor, Gali No. 4,\nNear Shamsham Bhumi, East Delhi-\n110032. (PAN: AACCN6158K)\nAppellant\nVs.\nITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata.\nRespondent\nDate of conclusion of Hearing\n14.05.2025\nDate of Pronouncement\n22.05.2025\nFor the Appellant\nShri Soumitra Choudhury &\nShri Pranabesh Sarkar, Advocates\nFor the Respondent\nShri P. N. Barnwal, CIT DR\nORDER\nPer Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM\nTh…