What is CIT v. Software Consultants authority for?

For exercising power under Section 263, an assessment order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The validity of initiating reassessment under Sections 147 and 148 is a distinct matter from the scope of additions permissible after a valid reopening.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Software Consultants?

59 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Software Consultants (341 ITR 240), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Software Consultants come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 143(3), Section 151, Section 263, Section 10(37).

CIT v. Software Consultants (341 ITR 240)

Usha K Jolly Charitable Trust, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 174/PUN/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.174/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Usha K. Jolly Charitable Vs. Cit (Exemption), Pune. Trust, 23, Jolly Villa, Bund Garden Road, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaatu1384R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune [‘The Cit (Exemption)’] Dated 30.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit (Exemptions) Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking The Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The It Act, 1961, Since Issues

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…hich could not have been disallowed in the reassessment proceedings in respect of which the 263 proceedings were initiated. In this connection, reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Software Consultants, 341 ITR 240 (Delhi). Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the assessment order cannot be termed as “erroneous” amenable for jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Thus, the ld. CIT (Exemption) ought 7 not to have exercised the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed. 9. In the result, the…

M/S Sunil Chetndas Katariya, HUF, Nashik vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Nashik

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

ITA 261/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.261/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Sunil Chetandas Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Nashik. Katariya, 649, Sai Villa, Lam Road, Deolali Camp, Nashik- 422401. Pan : Aaths6634R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari Date Of Hearing : 10.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Nashik [‘Pcit’] Dated 12.03.2021 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Pcit Erred In Holding That The Asst. Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 In The Case Of The Assessee For A.Y.2011 - 12 Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & Thereby

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269S

…hich could not have been disallowed in the reassessment proceedings in respect of which the 263 proceedings were initiated. In this connection, reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Software Consultants, 341 ITR 240 (Delhi). Therefore, we are of the 10 considered opinion that the assessment order cannot be termed as “erroneous” amenable for jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Thus, the ld. PCIT ought not to have exercised the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed. 12. In the result, the appeal fi…

Aj Energy Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1190/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manvendra Goel, CIT(DR)

Section 142(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

…147 of the Act to make an addition on any other issue not included in the reasons to believe for reopening the assessment. No substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed." (ii) Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Software Consultants [2012] 341 ITR 240 "As the AO did not make any addition for the reasons recorded at the time of issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act. This position is not disputed and disturbed by the Commissioner of Income Tax in his order under Section 263 of the Act. Sequitur is that the Assessing Officer could not have made an addition on account of share application…

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

…ON II; THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CANNOT SIMPLY ASK THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER. HE CAN DO SO ONLY AFTER FINDING ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO INTERST OF REVENUE i) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. ii) 341 ITR 240 (Del) CIT vs. Software Consultants PROPOSITION III: ERROR SHOULD BE ONE WHICH DEPENDED ON FACT OR LAW AND NOT MERE POSSIBLITY OR GUESS WORK i) 167 ITR 129 (Jaipur) CIT vs. Trustees Anupam Charitable Trust PROPOSITION IV: ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MERELY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WITHOUT GIVING REASONS IS A VITIATED ORDER ii…

DCIT, CC-06, New Delhi vs. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 79/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A) & Put

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ess or reassess the income in respect of any issue which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course, of the proceedings under the section. " 4.11 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Software Consultants [2012] 341 ITR 240 (Delhi) held that where Assessing Officer did not make any addition on issue in respect of which reasons were recorded at time of issuing notice under section 148, sequitur is that Assessing Officer could not have made an addition on account of said issue and, thus, Commissioner could not have exercised revisional jurisdiction. The operative part…

Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer vs. CIT(Exemption)/ ITO (Exemption), Jaipur / Jodhpur

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/JODH/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…t him with the jurisdiction, to subject to tax, any other income, chargeable to tax, which the AO may find to have escaped assessment, and which may come to his notice subsequently in the course of proceedings under s. 147." 7.3.4 CIT Vs. Software Consultants 341 ITR 240 (DEL.) (DPB 59- 62) In that case pursuant to a notice u/s 148 ROI was filed declaring loss however, the reassessment order was made on 28.03.2002 making no addition and accepting the source of the 33 | P a g e investment in the FDR of Rs. 20 Lakhs which was the alleged escaped income in the reasons recorded. The Ld. CIT u/s 263 directed the AO t…

Tata Nyk Shipping Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. CIT International Taxation-3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1067/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Tata Nyk Shipping Pte. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ltd., International Taxation-3, 6, Shenton Way, #18-08B, New Delhi Oue Downtown 2, Singapore Pan :Aadct9945P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 263Section 92C

…ni Venkata Naga Annavarapu Vs. PCIT, ITA No.1817/Del/2020, dated 16.06.2021 (Del.- Trib.) 6. Gift Land Handicraft Vs. CIT, 108 TTJ 312 (Del.) 15 AY: 2016-17 7. Aryadeep Complex (P.) Ltd. Vs. PCIT, [2022] 219 TTJ 735 (Raipur) 8. CIT Vs. Software Consultants, 341 ITR 240 (Delhi) 9. Simbhaoli Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 78 ITD 161 (SB). 8. He submitted, the CIT has committed gross jurisdictional error in invoking powers under section 263 of the Act in respect of issues which are beyond the scope of limited scrutiny for which the assessment proceedings were initiated. Thus, he submitted, the Revision Order passed i…

Smt Kiran Anil Shah, Mumbai vs. Prin. Comm of Income Tax -27, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 686/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhsmt. Kiran Anil Shah Vs. Pcit-27, 3Rd Floor, B-14, Plot No. R. No. 401, 4Th Floor, 33/34, Yogakshema Chs Tower No. 6, Vashi Ltd, Nathpai Nagar, Railway Station Ghatkopar- East, Commercial Complex, Mumbai – 400 077 Vavhi, Navi Mumbai 400 703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Anrps9911N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Tejinder Pal Singh

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ITA No.686/Mum/2022 A.Y. 2012-13 1 Smt. Kiran Anil Shah Vs. PCIT-27 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Smt. Kiran Anil Shah Vs. PCIT-27, 3rd Floor, B-14, Plot No. R. No. 401, 4th Floor, 33/34, Yogakshema CHS Tower No. 6, Vashi Ltd, Nathpai Nagar, Railway Station Ghatkopar- East, Commercial Complex, Mumbai – 400 077 Vavhi, Navi Mumbai 400 703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: ANRPS9911N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Vijay Mehta Respondent by : Tejinder Pal Singh Date of Hearing 29.08.2022…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh Vikramaditya Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 269/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…ries Ltd. v. CIT f2Q111 336 ITR 136 iii. CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [20111 331 ITR 236 iv. CIT v. Shri Ram Singh [2008] 306 ITR 343 (Raj.) v. CIT vs Devendra Gupta reported in 174 Taxman 438 (Raj) vi. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Software Consultants [2012] 341 ITR 240 (DELHI) vii. Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [2014] 272 CTR 56 (Delhi) viii. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mohmed Juned Dadani[2014] 355 ITR 172 (Gujarat) 40.1 So far as the argument of the Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue that judgment in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT 120111 336 ITR 136 is no…

ACIT, Cir-II, Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laxmi, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 268/ASR/2007[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…ries Ltd. v. CIT f2Q111 336 ITR 136 iii. CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [20111 331 ITR 236 iv. CIT v. Shri Ram Singh [2008] 306 ITR 343 (Raj.) v. CIT vs Devendra Gupta reported in 174 Taxman 438 (Raj) vi. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Software Consultants [2012] 341 ITR 240 (DELHI) vii. Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [2014] 272 CTR 56 (Delhi) viii. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mohmed Juned Dadani[2014] 355 ITR 172 (Gujarat) 40.1 So far as the argument of the Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue that judgment in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT 120111 336 ITR 136 is no…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Dr Karan Singh, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2007[1998-99\u005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005cu005c]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…ries Ltd. v. CIT f2Q111 336 ITR 136 iii. CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [20111 331 ITR 236 iv. CIT v. Shri Ram Singh [2008] 306 ITR 343 (Raj.) v. CIT vs Devendra Gupta reported in 174 Taxman 438 (Raj) vi. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Software Consultants [2012] 341 ITR 240 (DELHI) vii. Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [2014] 272 CTR 56 (Delhi) viii. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mohmed Juned Dadani[2014] 355 ITR 172 (Gujarat) 40.1 So far as the argument of the Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue that judgment in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT 120111 336 ITR 136 is no…

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh M.K. Ajat Shatru, Jammu

In the result, all the fours appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the three Cross Objections as well as the ground as per Rule 27 are allowed

ITA 263/ASR/2003[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2022AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Aggarwal, SrFor Respondent: Shri S.D. Kapila, Spl

Section 139(9)Section 147Section 148

…ries Ltd. v. CIT f2Q111 336 ITR 136 iii. CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [20111 331 ITR 236 iv. CIT v. Shri Ram Singh [2008] 306 ITR 343 (Raj.) v. CIT vs Devendra Gupta reported in 174 Taxman 438 (Raj) vi. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Software Consultants [2012] 341 ITR 240 (DELHI) vii. Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax [2014] 272 CTR 56 (Delhi) viii. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mohmed Juned Dadani[2014] 355 ITR 172 (Gujarat) 40.1 So far as the argument of the Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue that judgment in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT 120111 336 ITR 136 is no…

Sunayana Commercial P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -City-3, Mumbai

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

ITA 900/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Promod Kumar ()And Ms. Suchitra Kamble () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sunayana Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 609, 6Th Floor, Inizio, Cardial Vs. City-3, Room No. 612, 6Th Floor, Gracious Road, Opp. P & G Plaza, Andheri (East), Aayakarbhavan, Maharshikarve Mumbai-400099. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aajcs 4896 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Harendra Narayan Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/01/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Harendra Narayan Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 263d

…he Assessing Officer and the same was properly examined and therefore was never doubted by the Assessing Officer as the assessee has explained the transactions as per the law. Thus the Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: CIT v. Software Consultants [(341 ITR 240 (Del-HC)] Sunayana Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 5 Gigabyte Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT Tax Appeal No. 77 of 2015 Westlife Development Ltd. v. PCIT-5, 88 taxmann.com 439 (Mum-ITAT) Krishan Kumar Saraf v. CIT ITA No. 4562/Del/2011 Inder Kumar Bachani (HUF) v. ITO 94 ITD 131 (Coch-ITAT) CIT v. Shri Ram Singh (2008) 217 CTR 345 (Rajasthan-HC) …

M/S Karmae Garchen Trust, Kangra vs. JCIT, Palampur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 624/CHANDI/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shrir.L Negiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.624 /Chd/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years :2011-12 M/S Karmaegarchen Trust, The Jcit, बनाम Gyutoromoche Tantric Palampur Range, University, Sidhbari, Palampur (Hp) Dharmsala, Distt. Kangra (Hp) Pan No: Aabtk2394L अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT

Section 12Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 263o

…urther relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar ITA No.624-Chd-2019- M/s KarmaeGarchan Trust, Distt. Kangra 5 Industries Co Ltd.vs CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC), Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Software consultants 341 ITR 240 (Del) and the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of Crystal Pharmaceuticals vs. CIT ITA No 439/Chd/2013 to substantiate his contentions. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. departmental representative supporting the order passed by the Ld CIT(E) submitted that since the Ld. JC had passed the assessment order without making proper enquiry o…

Anjali Jewellers, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Central-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

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

…T reported in 259 CTR 281 (Raj) and the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Paul John, Delicious Cashew Co. reported in 200 Taxman 154 (Ker) and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Software Consultants, reported in 341 ITR 240 (Del). Thus according to Ld AR, when the AO has taken the same view which were up-held by the aforesaid binding judicial precedents, the Ld. PCIT could not have invoked his revisional jurisdiction without validly holding that the AO’s order as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the revenue. And according to him, even if the Ld. PCIT had differen…

M/S Suraj Pulses Processors Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 3012/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…h 13, 1987, is without jurisdiction. Accordingly, and in view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the reference against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.” 21. Further, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Software Consultants reported in 341 ITR 240 has held as under: 39 ITA. No.3009 to 3012/DEL/2017 “14. For exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act, it is mandatory that the order passed by the Assessing Officer should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not make any addition for the reasons recorded at the time…

M/S Suraj Buildmart India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 3011/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…h 13, 1987, is without jurisdiction. Accordingly, and in view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the reference against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.” 21. Further, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Software Consultants reported in 341 ITR 240 has held as under: 39 ITA. No.3009 to 3012/DEL/2017 “14. For exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act, it is mandatory that the order passed by the Assessing Officer should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not make any addition for the reasons recorded at the time…

M/S Suraj Pulses Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 3010/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…h 13, 1987, is without jurisdiction. Accordingly, and in view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the reference against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.” 21. Further, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Software Consultants reported in 341 ITR 240 has held as under: 39 ITA. No.3009 to 3012/DEL/2017 “14. For exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act, it is mandatory that the order passed by the Assessing Officer should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not make any addition for the reasons recorded at the time…

M/S Suraj Pulses Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 3009/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…h 13, 1987, is without jurisdiction. Accordingly, and in view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the reference against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.” 21. Further, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Software Consultants reported in 341 ITR 240 has held as under: 39 ITA. No.3009 to 3012/DEL/2017 “14. For exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act, it is mandatory that the order passed by the Assessing Officer should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not make any addition for the reasons recorded at the time…

Mikado Realtors (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Gurugram

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 50/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. & Shri LalitFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT-D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153BSection 153CSection 153C(1)Section 263

…h 13, 1987, is without jurisdiction. Accordingly, and in view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the reference against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.” 15. Further, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Software Consultants reported in 341 ITR 240 has held as under: “14. For exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act, it is mandatory that the order passed by the Assessing Officer should be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the present case, the Assessing Officer did not make any addition for the reasons recorded at the time of issue of notice under Section 14…

CIT v. Software Consultants

What is CIT v. Software Consultants authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Software Consultants

Usha K Jolly Charitable Trust, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Exemption), Pune

M/S Sunil Chetndas Katariya, HUF, Nashik vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Nashik

Aj Energy Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Delhi

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

DCIT, CC-06, New Delhi vs. Jaguar Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Ajmer Development Authority, Ajmer vs. CIT(Exemption)/ ITO (Exemption), Jaipur / Jodhpur

Tata Nyk Shipping Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. CIT International Taxation-3, New Delhi

Smt Kiran Anil Shah, Mumbai vs. Prin. Comm of Income Tax -27, Mumbai

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh Vikramaditya Singh, Jammu

ACIT, Cir-II, Jammu vs. Smt. Yashorajya Laxmi, Jammu

ACIT, Jammu vs. Dr Karan Singh, Jammu

ACIT, Jammu vs. Sh M.K. Ajat Shatru, Jammu

Sunayana Commercial P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -City-3, Mumbai

M/S Karmae Garchen Trust, Kangra vs. JCIT, Palampur

Anjali Jewellers, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Central-1, Kolkata

M/S Suraj Pulses Processors Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

M/S Suraj Buildmart India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

M/S Suraj Pulses Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

M/S Suraj Pulses Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-8, New Delhi

Mikado Realtors (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Gurugram