CIT v. Sunil Sankhla

411 ITR 437High Court2019#15821 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,254 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 153ASection 263

Judgments citing CIT v. Sunil Sankhla

Parasmal Saremal Gogad, Pali vs. ITO, Pali

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 301/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 May 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 263

…ut of various expenses. There was no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal reversing the revision order of the Principal Commissioner and restoring the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. 12. In another case, CIT vs. Sunil Sankhla (2019) 411 ITR 437 (Raj) the Hon'ble Rajasthan High court held that the proceedings u/s 148 are not justified by observing as under: The assessee was in real estate business. During the assessment proceedings it was found that the assessee had sold two properties for a sum of Rs. 53 Lakhs out of his business stock of Rs. 57,51,720, that the properties were not show…

Roop Kumar Chopra, Jaipur vs. PCIT Jaipur 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Him By The Assessee In Compliance To The Notice Notices Issued To Him U/S 142(1) As Well As U/S 143(2) Of The Act By The Ao As Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue For The Purpose Of Section 263 Of The Act & Consequently Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed Dated 01-01-2021 To Be Made Afresh Made Is Most Arbitrarily, Unjust, Untenable & Liable To Be Vacated.’’

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…g erroneous. In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind- 6. That the hum’ble appellant craves leave to refer to and rely upon the case of CIT v/s. Sunil Sankhla reported in (2019) 411 ITR 437 (Rajasthan High Court) wherein the hon’ble jurisdictional high court observed that the commissioner passed the revision order on the ground that the A.O. has passed the order without verification. The Tribunal had held that the A.O. has passed the order after examining the details and the financial statements and on that basis had accepted the bu…

Mayur Khara, Yavatmal vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

In the result, Both the appeals of above mentioned assessee’s are allowed

ITA 64/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mayur Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8869 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Amit Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8868 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Above Mentioned Assessees Against Two Different Orders Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Nagpur- 2 Dated 17-02-2017 & 16-02-20217 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Respectively. The Grounds Of Raised By The Above Mentioned Assessees Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…l the facets of the transactions have been verified. The AR pleaded that the observation of the Ld. PCIT, that the AO has not conducted any enquiry is nothing less than conjecture and surmises. The ld. AR further relied on the case CIT v. Sunil Sankhla (2019) 411 ITR 437 (Raj.)(HC), the High court where it was observed that theLd. Commissioner passed the revision order on the ground that 8 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur the Ld. AO has passed the order without verification. Tribunal held that the Ld. AO has passed the order after examining the details and the financial statements had accepted the business…

P I Industries Limited, Udaipur vs. Pr. CIT, Udaipur

ITA 4/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Pi Industries Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, Udaisagar Road, Udaipur. Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aabcp 2183 M

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 35(1)(iv)Section 80ISection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year:2016-17 PI Industries Limited, Vs. Pr.CIT, Udaisagar Road, Udaipur. Udaipur-313001. PAN No. AABCP 2183 M Assessee by Shri Amit Kothari, CA& Shri Abhinav Kothari, CA Revenue by Smt. Sanchita Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 10/08/2021 Date of Pronouncement 08/09/2021 O R D E R PER:SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Pr.CIT, Udaipur dated 05/03/2021 for A.Y. 2016-17 passed u/s 263 of the…

Secure Meters Limited, Udaipur vs. Pr. CIT, Udaipur

ITA 2/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Sept 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year:2016-17 Secure Meters Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, E-Class, Pratap Nagar Udaipur. Industrial Area, Udaipur-313001. Pan No. Aaccs 8785 M

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 43ASection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year:2016-17 Secure Meters Limited, Vs. Pr.CIT, E-Class, Pratap Nagar Udaipur. Industrial Area, Udaipur-313001. PAN No. AACCS 8785 M Assessee by Shri Amit Kothari, CA& Shri Abhinav Kothari, CA Revenue by Smt. Sanchita Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 10/08/2021 Date of Pronouncement 07/09/2021 O R D E R PER:SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Pr.CIT, Udaipur dated 25/02/2021 for A.Y. 2016-1…

Virendra Singh Bhadauria, Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-3, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 255/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Virendra Singh Bhadauriya, Cuke Pr.Cit-3, Vs. 71, Mansa Nagar, Shirsi Road, Jaipur. Jaipur-302012. Pan No.: Aaepb 0767 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) & Shri Rajiv Pandey (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/03/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-3, Jaipur Dated 16/03/2020 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Jaipur Erred In:- Ground No.1:- In Holding That The Assessment Order Dt.26.12.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) By Assessing Officer To Be Erroneous In So Far As Is Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue On Issues Of 2

For Appellant: Ms. Datyani Pandey (Adv) &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…O sought to be revised is not erroneous 15 ITA 255/JP/2020_ Virendra Singh Bhadauriya Vs Pr.CIT b) That it is not prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. He relied on the following judicial pronouncements: Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) 411 ITR 437 (Raj) CIT Vs. Sunil Sankhla SLP of the Department dismissed 407 ITR (St) 25 (SC) 402 ITR 117 (Raj) Laxmi Narain Vs. CIT 414 ITR 485 (Mad) Pr. CIT V. Abhijit Bhandari CIT Vs. Escorts Ltd. 338 ITR 0435 (Del) CIT Vs. Deepak Mittal 324 ITR 411 (P & H) CIT Vs. Nirmal Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd. 309 ITR 0067(Guj) Gupta International Vs. ITO 002 ITR (Trib)…

CIT v. Sunil Sankhla (411 ITR 437) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax