CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills

296 ITR 238High Court2008#532 most cited

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.

180

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills · Sohana Woollen Mills · Section 263 · revisional jurisdiction · mere audit objection · erroneous and prejudicial · prejudicial to revenue · CIT revision · PCIT revision

Sections most often in play

Section 57(iv)Section 56(2)(viii)Section 263Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 45(5)Section 142(1)Section 145B

Issues it is cited on

section 145bsection 45(5)section 145a(b)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 10(37)section 145b(1)enhanced compensationsection 145acompulsory acquisitionlack of enquirysection 143(3a)

Judgments citing CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills

Dilbag Singh, Rohtak vs. Income Tax Officer, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3909/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
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

…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…

Mulkh Raj Mehta and Sons HUF, Hisar vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2406/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2406/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Mulkh Raj Mehta & Sons Huf, Vs Pr. Cit, 374, Sector-15A, Hisar, Rohtak, Haryana-125001 Haryana-124001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaihm9927L Assessee By : Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, Ca & Sh. Surajh Bhan Nain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Order Of Pcit, Rohtak Dated 18.03.2024 In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023-24/1062878615(1), In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, CA &For Respondent: Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member ITA No. 2406/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Mulkh Raj Mehta & Sons HUF, Vs Pr. CIT, 374, Sector-15A, Hisar, Rohtak, Haryana-125001 Haryana-124001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAIHM9927L Assessee by : Sh. Mahfuzur Rahman, CA & Sh. Surajh Bhan Nain, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. B. S. Anand, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 10.12.2024 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises…

Nishant Choudhary, Fatehabad vs. ITO, Ward-1, Fatehabad

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 2863/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2863/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Nishant Choudhary, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O Sh. Vijay Choudhary, Choudhary Ward-1, Niwas, G.T. Road (Opp. Ratia Fatehabad, Crossing), Fatehabad, Haryana-125050 Haryana-125050 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aempc0965Q Assessee By : Sh. Raj Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16, Arises Against The Order Of Cit(A)-5, Ludhiana Dated 13.02.2019 In Case No. 255/Rot/It/Cit(A)-5/Ldh/2018-19, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145B(1)Section 263Section 28

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member ITA No. 2863/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Nishant Choudhary, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/o Sh. Vijay Choudhary, Choudhary Ward-1, Niwas, G.T. Road (Opp. Ratia Fatehabad, Crossing), Fatehabad, Haryana-125050 Haryana-125050 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AEMPC0965Q Assessee by : Sh. Raj Kumar, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 05.12.2024 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This ass…

Mylan Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Circle-5 (1), Hyderabad

In the result, the ground no

ITA 206/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR
Section 263Section 37

…y assessee has rightly been treated as revenue expenditure deductible under the provisions of section 37 of the Act." [Copy of the order noting sheet and revenue audit objection – Page 1095 and 1102 respectively of PB] 3.9 In CIT v. Sohana Wollen Mills [2008] 296 ITR 238 (P&H), it was held that a mere audit objection cannot lead to an inference that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, where there was no indication that the Commissioner notes was himself satisfied about it prior to issue of notice, so that his order in pursuance of a notice based on an au…

The Mullanpur Garibdas Co-Op Multipurpose Society, Mohali vs. DCIT, C-6(1), Mohali

ITA 645/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT, DR
Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…revisionary proceedings initiated u/s 263 were vitiated in law. While holding so, the decisions in ‘CIT Vs Chandan Magrag Parmar’, (2022) 445 ITR 674 (Bom), ‘A.G.Mannesmann Demag Vs Dy. CIT’ (1995) 53 ITD 533 (Del); and ‘CIT Vs Sohana Woollen Mills’ (2008) 296 ITR 238 (P&H) were relied on. 23.1 Further still, in 'Sh. Narain Singla Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Ludhiana', 62 taxman.com 255, the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal has held that if there was an enquiry, even inadequate, that would not, by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner ITA 515/CHD/2017 ITA 569/CHD/2018 & ITA…

The Mullanpur Garibdas Co-Op Multipurpose Society, Mullanpur vs. Pr. CIT-II, Chandigarh

ITA 569/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT, DR
Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…revisionary proceedings initiated u/s 263 were vitiated in law. While holding so, the decisions in ‘CIT Vs Chandan Magrag Parmar’, (2022) 445 ITR 674 (Bom), ‘A.G.Mannesmann Demag Vs Dy. CIT’ (1995) 53 ITD 533 (Del); and ‘CIT Vs Sohana Woollen Mills’ (2008) 296 ITR 238 (P&H) were relied on. 23.1 Further still, in 'Sh. Narain Singla Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Ludhiana', 62 taxman.com 255, the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal has held that if there was an enquiry, even inadequate, that would not, by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner ITA 515/CHD/2017 ITA 569/CHD/2018 & ITA…

The Mullanpur Garibdas Co-Op Multipurpose Society, Mohali vs. Pr. CIT-II, Chandigarh

ITA 515/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT, DR
Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…revisionary proceedings initiated u/s 263 were vitiated in law. While holding so, the decisions in ‘CIT Vs Chandan Magrag Parmar’, (2022) 445 ITR 674 (Bom), ‘A.G.Mannesmann Demag Vs Dy. CIT’ (1995) 53 ITD 533 (Del); and ‘CIT Vs Sohana Woollen Mills’ (2008) 296 ITR 238 (P&H) were relied on. 23.1 Further still, in 'Sh. Narain Singla Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Ludhiana', 62 taxman.com 255, the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal has held that if there was an enquiry, even inadequate, that would not, by itself, give occasion to the Commissioner ITA 515/CHD/2017 ITA 569/CHD/2018 & ITA…

Om Prakash, Fatehabad vs. Pr. CIT, Rohtak

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1674/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi19 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh.Shamim Yahya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Om Prakash Vs. Principal Cit 45 Matana Majra, Rohtak Fatehabad, Haryana Haryana Pan: Cmspp7173D Appellant Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 263

…e 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.” 9. Thus, considering the above, we find no merit in the contention of the Ld. D.R. Further, the taxability of interest received by the Assessee on the enhanced compensation u/s 28 of the Land Acqu…

Sh. Pardeep Kumar, Ambala vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 72/CHANDI/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 263

…ng been issued on the basis of audit objection and, therefore, the proceedings having been initiated on the basis audit objection, the same is bad in law as per the Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sohana Woollen Mill reported in 296 ITR 238 and which have been followed by the Hon’ble Chandigarh Bench of the ITAT in the case of Sh.Surinder Pal Singh, reported in 94 ITR (Trib) 458 and other cases. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 7. Briefly the facts of the case are that the case of the assess…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ent to be influenced by matters not disclosed to the assessee. The following decisions are also decisions to the same effect: ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 53 i) 290 ITR 395 (Gau) B & A Plantation & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 296 ITR 238 (P&H) CIT vs. Sohana Woolen Mills iii) ITA No. 690/Chd/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 dated 9.3.2012 Sh. Jaswinder Singh vs. CIT v) ITA No. 367/Chd/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 dated 7.3.2013 Aarti International vs. CIT vi) 384 ITR 147 (Del) CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. vii) ITA No. 7785/2015 (Del) dated 13.10.2015 Pr. CIT vs. Rakam Money Matters (P) Ltd. 15.3 It is a…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ent to be influenced by matters not disclosed to the assessee. The following decisions are also decisions to the same effect: ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 53 i) 290 ITR 395 (Gau) B & A Plantation & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 296 ITR 238 (P&H) CIT vs. Sohana Woolen Mills iii) ITA No. 690/Chd/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 dated 9.3.2012 Sh. Jaswinder Singh vs. CIT v) ITA No. 367/Chd/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 dated 7.3.2013 Aarti International vs. CIT vi) 384 ITR 147 (Del) CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. vii) ITA No. 7785/2015 (Del) dated 13.10.2015 Pr. CIT vs. Rakam Money Matters (P) Ltd. 15.3 It is a…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…ent to be influenced by matters not disclosed to the assessee. The following decisions are also decisions to the same effect: ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 53 i) 290 ITR 395 (Gau) B & A Plantation & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 296 ITR 238 (P&H) CIT vs. Sohana Woolen Mills iii) ITA No. 690/Chd/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 dated 9.3.2012 Sh. Jaswinder Singh vs. CIT v) ITA No. 367/Chd/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 dated 7.3.2013 Aarti International vs. CIT vi) 384 ITR 147 (Del) CIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. vii) ITA No. 7785/2015 (Del) dated 13.10.2015 Pr. CIT vs. Rakam Money Matters (P) Ltd. 15.3 It is a…

Pawan Kumar, Fatehabad vs. Prcit, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1655/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19 Pawan Kumar Vs. Prcit, Near Aggarsain Chowk, Rohtak Prince Plywood Home, Fuwara Chowk, Fatehabad, Haryana 125050 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Surajbhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 203Section 263Section 28

…e 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 L…

Anil Nachrani, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 47/RPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 47/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

…al), Bhopal u/s 263 is bad-in- law as the action u/s 263 has been taken on the basis of audit objection which is contrary to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sohana Woollen Mills (2007) 207 CTR (P&H) 178: (2008) 296 ITR 238 (P&H). 8. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned PCIT (Central), Bhopal has grossly erred in invoking the Explanation 2 to Section 263, since the Learned AO has applied his mind fully to the issues taken by the Learned PCIT (Central), Bhopal u/s 263(1). 9. Without prejudice to t…

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 104/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH: RAIPUR "ी रवीश सूद , "याियक सद"य, एवं "ी अ"ण खोड"पया, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/RPR/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) v. Hitesh Golchha ACIT, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [PAN: AGJPG 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri B. Subramanya…

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 103/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH: RAIPUR "ी रवीश सूद , "याियक सद"य, एवं "ी अ"ण खोड"पया, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/RPR/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) v. Hitesh Golchha ACIT, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [PAN: AGJPG 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri B. Subramanya…

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 102/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH: RAIPUR "ी रवीश सूद , "याियक सद"य, एवं "ी अ"ण खोड"पया, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/RPR/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) v. Hitesh Golchha ACIT, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [PAN: AGJPG 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri B. Subramanya…

Hitesh Golchha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 101/RPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/Rpr/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) V. Hitesh Golchha Acit, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [Pan: Agjpg 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri B. Subramanyam, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri S. K. Meena, Cit-D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Subramanyam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 153ASection 263Section 43C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH: RAIPUR "ी रवीश सूद , "याियक सद"य, एवं "ी अ"ण खोड"पया, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.101, 102, 103 & 104/RPR/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) v. Hitesh Golchha ACIT, Prop. Of Mouli Investment, Central Circle-1 Jeevan Ganga, Near Dani Bada, Raipur Budha Para, Raipur – 492 001 Chhattisgarh [PAN: AGJPG 7698 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri B. Subramanya…

Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Amritsar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 65/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

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

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

…and the CIT was not justified in passing the order under s. 263—Findings of the Tribunal quashing the order of the CIT passed under s. 263 do not warrant any interference" I.T.A. No. 65/Asr/2022 5 Assessment Year: 2017-18 CIT V Sohana Woollen Mills,[2008] 296 ITR 238 (Punjab & Haryana) “Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Revision - Of orders prejudicial to interest of revenue - Mere objection and merely because a different view could be taken, are not enough to say that order of Assessing Officer was erroneous or prejudicial to interest of revenue”. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhiin case ofCIT vs. S…

Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Central- 3, New Delhi

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

ITA 3088/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: The Due Date Of Itr Should Have Been Disallowed U/S 43B.”

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271BSection 37Section 43BSection 44A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘E’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3088/Del./2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., vs. Pr.CIT, Central 3, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 002. (PAN : AAACM7158E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 07.08.2023 Date of Order : 10.08.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee is directed agai…