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 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 367,154 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 263 Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 45(5)Section 142(1)Section 145B

Issues it is cited on

section 145b section 45(5)section 145a(b)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 10(37)section 145b(1)enhanced compensation section 145a compulsory acquisition lack of enquiry section 143(3a)

Judgments citing CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills

Manohar Lal Sarraf and Sons Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2015-16 Manohar Lal Sarraf and Sons Vs. Pr. CIT Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad. B-81, Bhishm Pitamah Marg, Defence Colony, New Delhi – 110 024 PAN AAECM0243Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate Shri Vinay Sahni, CA Shri Shivang Bansal, Advocate Department by: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 20.03.2023 Date of 23.05.2023 pronouncement: O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against t…

Sh. Gurjinder Singh, Amritsar vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT DR

Section 194CSection 263

…—AO taking a possible view—AO having taken a possible view, CIT cannot acquire revisional jurisdiction under s. 263 merely because another view is also possible—No substantial question of law arises warranting admission of appeals” CIT V Sohana Woollen Mills 296 ITR 238 (2008) “Revision—Erroneous and prejudicial order—AO taking possible view—Mere audit objection, and merely because a different view can be taken are not enough to hold that the order of the AO is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue—AO accepted the case of the assessee that out of sale consideration of the machinery sold by it,…

Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 68/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…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. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

Shri Sukhjit Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 67/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

Smt Harneet Kaur Juneja, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 66/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

Smt. Rajinder Kaur, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Dasuya

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

…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. 171/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Rajinder Kaur V. Income Tax Officer, W/o Sh. Ravinder Singh, Ward Dasuya, Dasuya Vill. Dhamian Khurd, PO Sirhala Mundian, Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BAJPK 5740B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA Respondent by : Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 02.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22.03.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the as…

Teleperformance Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-5, Mumbai

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 976/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 976 & 977/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Teleperformance Global Vs. The Pr.Cit-5 Services Pvt Ltd., Room No. 515, 5Th Teleperformance Tower, Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Plot Cst No. 1406 Mk Road, A/28 Mindspace Mumbai – 400020. Goregaon West Mumbai– 400 064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcv2572L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal.Ar Respondent By : Shri H.N Singh.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Pr.Cit)-5 Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Shri H.N Singh.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…dit Party. 24. Reliance is also placed on following judicial proceedings in support of our view: ITA Nos. 976 & 977/Mum/2021 Teleperformance Global Services, Mumbai. Jaswinder Singh vs CIT ITA No. 690/Chd/2020, ITAT Chandigarh; CIT vs Sonhana Woollen mills [296 ITR 238 (P&H)]; 25. Consequently and imperatively, it is humbly submitted that based on the above facts and law, the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act cannot be said to be erroneous and thereby prejudicial to the interest of revenue, which is a sine qua non for invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. In li…

Ajay Grover, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- I(1), Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 532/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaajay Grover, Vs. Ito, Prop. Of M/S. R.R. Enterprises, Ward-1(1), Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Faridabad Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Agxpg6032B Ajay Grover, Vs. Pr. Cit, Prop. Of M/S. R.R. Enterprises, Faridabad Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Agxpg6032B

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveeen Sidhrath, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Ajay Grover, Vs. ITO, Prop. Of M/s. R.R. Enterprises, Ward-1(1), RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Faridabad Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AGXPG6032B Ajay Grover, Vs. Pr. CIT, Prop. Of M/s. R.R. Enterprises, Faridabad RRA Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AGXPG6032B Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv Revenue by: Shri P. Praveeen Sidhrath, CIT DR Date of Hearing 17/11/2022 Date of pr…

Sh. Ajay Grover, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4113/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveeen Sidhrath, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

ITA 248/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…ellant relies upon the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society vs CIT (1979) AIR 1960 (SC) (ii) Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of CIT v. Sohana Woollen Mills [2018] 296 ITR 238 (Punjab HC), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that – ITA No.415/Bang/2020 & M/s. ETA Star Infopark, Bangalore Page 19 of 73 “Mere audit objection and merely because a different view could be taken, are not enough to say that the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The jurisdiction c…

M/S. Eta Star Infopark, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bengaluru

ITA 415/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Annamalai, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

Shri Amrit Parkash Sehgal (HUF), Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(1), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 12/ASR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amlendu Nath Misra, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263

…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. 12/Asr/2020 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amrit Parkash Sehgal HUF Vs. Income Tax Officer Prop. M/s Jagdambey Engg. Ward-2(1), Jalandhar & Welding Works, A-6 Industrial Focal Point, Bye Pass, Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AABHA 6745H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA Respondent by: Sh. Amlendu Nath Misra, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 05.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 24.08.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, A.M.: The appeal has…

Smt. Kumari Shiwangi, Solan vs. Chief CIT (OSD), Shimla

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1380/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1380/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-15 Smt. Kumari Shiwangi, The Chief Cit((Osp), बनाम Mc Complex, Shimla Near Mohan Park, Solan Hp "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Cvhps4283H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sarabjeet Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80CSection 80I

…been held that no valid proceedings u/s 263 can be initiated on the basis of audit objection and while giving this finding, reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sohana Woollen Mills [2008] 296 ITR 238 (P&H) and a further reference has also been made to the order of Chandigarh Bench of the ITAT in the case of Surinder Pal Singh reported in [2022] 94 ITR (Trib) 458 (Chd). 3.3 On the allegation of non-application of mind, it was submitted that in Assessment Year 2013-14 the claim u/s 80IC had been first made and referring to the Assessment O…

Sandeep Hooda, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT - 7, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 30

ITA 397/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasandeep Hooda, Vs. Pr. Cit-7, C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacph5453J

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

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 27Section 48Section 50Section 500(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 50c(2)

…dated 21.03.2012 (Mum), ITO Vs. Shri Haresh Chand Agarwal, HUF ITA No. 282/2012 dated 20.12.2013 (Agra), Smt Shere Banoo Kajani Vs. DCIT ITA No. 243/2013 dated 28.03.2014 (Hyd). 5.3 He also relied on the judgment in case of CIT Vs. Sohana Woolen Mills, (2008) 296 ITR 238 (P&H), Paramjit Singh Vs. Pr. CIT (2016) 48 CCH 0199 (Chd), M/s. Refex Industies Ltd Vs. DCIT ITA No. 972/2014 dated 09.09.2014 (Chennai). Sartaj Singh Vs. Pr. CIT (2016) 179 TTJ 17 (Asr) (UO), Jaswinder Singh Vs. CIT (2012) 150 TTJ 33 (Chd), Vikram Kaswan Vs. CIT (2016) 46 CCH 0561 (Chd) to contend that audit objection cannot be basis of exercis…

M/S Bhaktvastal Sadguru Yogiraj Vasantrao Gopalrao Ghonge Maharaj Nyas, Wardha vs. Dy. C.I.T. Centrl Cir.-1(1), Nagpur

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 40/NAG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am 1) Ita No.: 040/Nag/2017 - A.Y. 2011-12 2) Ita No.: 036/Nag/2017 - A.Y. 2007-08 3) Ita No.: 037/Nag/2017 - A.Y. 2008-09 4) Ita No.: 151/Nag/2017 - A.Y. 2009-10 5) Ita No.: 152/Nag/2017 - A.Y. 2010-11 6) Ita No.: 038/Nag/2017 - A.Y. 2009-10 (143 R.W.S. 263) 7) Ita No.: 039/Nag/2017 - A.Y. 2010-11 (143 R.W.S. 263) Bhaktvastal Sadguru Yogiraj Vasantrao Vs. The Dcit Gopalrao Ghonge Maharaj Nyas Central Circle 2(2) Mukteshwar, Behind Rashtrabhasha Nagpur Gharpure Layout, Nagri Bank Colony Wardha Pan No.:Aabtb 2675 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri K.P. Dewani, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(1)(d)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM 1) ITA No.: 040/Nag/2017 - A.Y. 2011-12 2) ITA No.: 036/Nag/2017 - A.Y. 2007-08 3) ITA No.: 037/Nag/2017 - A.Y. 2008-09 4) ITA No.: 151/Nag/2017 - A.Y. 2009-10 5) ITA No.: 152/Nag/2017 - A.Y. 2010-11 6) ITA No.: 038/Nag/2017 - A.Y. 2009-10 (143 r.w.s. 263) 7) ITA No.: 039/Nag/2017 - A.Y. 2010-11 (143 r.w.s. 263) Bhaktvastal Sadguru Yogiraj Vasantrao Vs. The DCIT Gopalrao Ghonge Maharaj Nyas Central Circle 2(2) Mukteshwar, Behind Rashtrabhasha Nagpur Gharpure Layout, Nagri Bank Colony Wardha PAN No.:AA…

Shri Nitin A Shirgurkar, Belgavi vs. Pr. CIT, Hubbali

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe

ITA 77/PAN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 May 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 194A(3)(iv)Section 263Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 77/PAN/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Nitin A. Shirgurkar Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubballi 17, Tridal 2nd Cross, Hindwadi Belagavi Karnataka - 590011 [PAN: AGVPS5635G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Pramod Vaidhya, Advocate Respondent by Rajan Kumar, CIT, D/R Date of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 13.05.2022 ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, J.M.: The captioned appeal is filed against the order of the Learned Principal Commission…

M/S. Bhagabati Build & Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Cuttack vs. Principal CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. M/S. Bhagbati Bhagbati Build Build & & Vs. Pr. Cit,-1, Bhubaneswar 1, Bhubaneswar Constructions Pvt Ltd., At: Constructions Pvt Ltd., At: Madhupatna, Po: Link Road, Ps: Madhupatna, Po: Link Road, Ps: Madhupatna, Cuttack Madhupatna, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aaecb 1801 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena Sandeep Kumar Jena, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 8/3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 / /3/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Kumar JenaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 44A

…that the proceedings u/s.263 of the Act has been initiated at the behest of audit objection, which is against the provisions of the Act. Ld A.R. referred to the judgement of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Shoana Woollen Mills (2007) 296 ITR 238 (P&H), wherein, it is held that mere audit objections and merely because different view could be taken were not enough to hold that the order of the AO was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 7. Ld A.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer has not committed any error by allowing depreciation after estimation of profit @8%. F…

Sh. Sher Singh Rana, Solan vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 91/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt.Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआदेश/Order

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

…17 11. Further, the Ld. AR has relied upon the Coordinate Bench decision in the case of Abhimanyu Gupta Vs. Pr.CIT, ITA No.771/Chd/2017, dated 09.04.2018 and the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sohana Woollen Mills, 296 ITR 238. 12. Per contra, the Ld. CIT DR relied upon the findings of the Ld. Pr.CIT and our reference was drawn to two specific findings of the Ld. Pr.CIT. Firstly, regarding the balance confirmation of M/s Rana Wines, L-1, Solan amounting to Rs.1,83,04,731/-, it was submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings though the AO has called fo…

Sh. Surinder Pal Singh, Ludhiana vs. Pr.CIT-1, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT

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

…d by the Ld. PCIT under section 263 is bad in law as the action under 263 has been taken on the basis of audit objection which is contrary to the decision of Jurisdiction Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sohana Woollen Mills as reported in 296 ITR 238 5. That the Pr. CIT has grossly erred in invoking the explanation-2 to section 263, since the Ld. Assessing Officer has applied his mind fully to the issues taken by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 (1). 6. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 3. From the aforesaid grounds…

Shree Balkrishna Commercial Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. PCIT-I, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1168/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O. P. Kant & Ms. Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sujeet Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

…e grounds of appeal are as under :- 1.“Audit party had raised objection on two points in assessment order and the AO responded defending his decision. Using the exact language, the show cause notice under sec 263 by Pr. CIT only on those two points in view of 296 ITR 238(P&H), 119 ITR 996 (SC) and 108 ITR 407 (Cal) is not justified. Use of section 263 in place of sec 147 or 154 is not correct. CIT has not answered this objection in order under appeal. 2. Rule of consistency be followed, if the facts are same. In earlier years in scrutiny assessments, the declared version was accepted for both the points. For no…