What is CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills authority for?

A mere audit objection, by itself, is insufficient to infer that an Assessing Officer's order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the purpose of initiating revisional proceedings.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills?

180 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills (296 ITR 238), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 57(iv), Section 56(2)(viii), Section 263, Section 10(37), Section 143(3), Section 45(5).

CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills (296 ITR 238)

DAYA RAM SUKHALA (HUF),ROHTAK vs. ITO WARD-3, ROHTAK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1255/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21 Vs. Income Tax Officer Shri Daya Ram Shukla (Huf) Ward-3 83A/22, Kishan Pura, Zila Parishad Building Rohtak- 124001 Rohtak Haryana Haryana Pan: Aaihd7643E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ca Department By Sh. Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…le Supreme Court in Mahender Pal's case by the Revenue is not of any legal assistance to it. 15. Record reveals that the order of the Ld. PCIT was prompted solely by the audit objection. Hon'ble P & H High Court has held in CIT vs. Sohana Woollen Mills (2008) 296 ITR 238 (P&H) that mere audit objection cannot lead to an inference that the order of the Ld. AO is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 16. Since the order of the Ld. AO is based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam HUF (supra) on the issue of taxability of interest received by the assessee under section 28 of La…

BADAM SINGH SUKHALA (HUF),ROHTAK vs. I T O WARD -3 , ROHTAK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1250/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21 Vs. Income Tax Officer Badam Singh Shukla (Huf) 83 C 22, Ran Singh Lane, Ward-3 Kishan Pura Zila Parishad Building Rohtak-124001 Rohtak Haryana Haryana Pan: Aajhb4611H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ca Department By Sh. Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. Dr

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…le Supreme Court in Mahender Pal's case by the Revenue is not of any legal assistance to it. 15. Record reveals that the order of the Ld. PCIT was prompted solely by the audit objection. Hon'ble P & H High Court has held in CIT vs. Sohana Woollen Mills (2008) 296 ITR 238 (P&H) that mere audit objection cannot lead to an inference that the order of the Ld. AO is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 16. Since the order of the Ld. AO is based on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghanshyam HUF (supra) on the issue of taxability of interest received by the assessee under section 28 of La…

DHARMBATI,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX INSPECTOR FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5672/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Dharmbati, Vs. Income Tax Inspector, H. No. 523, Chandawali, Faridabad Ballabhgarh, Faridabad Pan: Azipb6400G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.03.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1077406804(1), Dated 23.06.2025 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. He Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision In Pawan Kumar Vs. Pcit (2024) 159 Taxmann.Com 61 (Del.-Trib.) Has Distinguished The Said Case Law As Under:

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dharmbati, Vs. Income Tax Inspector, H. No. 523, Chandawali, Faridabad Ballabhgarh, Faridabad PAN: AZIPB6400G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 05.03.2026 Date of pronouncement 05.03.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short,…