What is CIT v. VAM Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Revision under Section 263 by the Principal Commissioner is not permissible if the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view. Once a plausible view is taken by the Assessing Officer, the Principal Commissioner cannot revise the assessment order.

How many judgments cite CIT v. VAM Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd.?

38 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. VAM Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (418 ITR 723), spanning 2021 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. VAM Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 143(2), Section 153C, Section 68.

CIT v. VAM Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (418 ITR 723)

MAHENT BABA ISHWAR SHAH,KALANAUR, ROHTAK vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2297/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2020-21 Mahent Baba Ishwar Shah, Vs. Pcit, Dera Mahent Baba Ishwar Shah, Rohtak, Near Bus Stand, Income Tax Office, Near Pnb Bhiwani Road, Rohtak. Kalanaur, Distt. Rohtak, Rohtak. Pan: Abspi7267G

For Appellant: Shri Navin Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Jitendra Singh, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 263Section 69A

…en by the AO, there was no occasion for the PCIT for revising the order and setting aside the assessment order. The ld. AR of the assessee has referred and relied the following case laws:- (i) Renuka Philip 409 ITR 567 (Mad); 4 Vam Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 418 ITR 723 (All); (iii) Corporate International Financial Services Ltd., ITA No.218, 220, 221, 223, 240, 349 & 243/Del/2024 (ITAT Delhi Benches); (iv) Vandana Jain, ITA No.2341 to 2343/Del/2025 (ITAT Delhi Benches) 6. We have also heard the ld. DR who has supported the impugned order passed by the Ld. PCIT. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and…

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

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

ITA 2218/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

…e is placed upon the judgment in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip vs. ITO (2018) 409 ITR 567 (Mad), the relevant paragraphs of which are extracted hereunder….. Reliance is also placed on the following judgments: - - CIT v. Vam Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., [2019] 418 ITR 723 (All), dt. 20.08.2019, Allahabad High Court - Smt. Sainulaptheen Katheeja Umma v. ITO, I. T.A. No. 2641Chny12022, dt. 15.02.2023, ITAT Chennai - ACC Limited, Cement v. CIT (LTU), ITA No. 35761Mum12019, dt. 08.07.2020, ITAT Mumbai Honourable Delhi High court in [2012] 348 ITR 170 (Del) GURINDER MOHAN SINGH NINDRAJOG v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX h…

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

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

ITA 2217/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

…e is placed upon the judgment in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip vs. ITO (2018) 409 ITR 567 (Mad), the relevant paragraphs of which are extracted hereunder….. Reliance is also placed on the following judgments: - - CIT v. Vam Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., [2019] 418 ITR 723 (All), dt. 20.08.2019, Allahabad High Court - Smt. Sainulaptheen Katheeja Umma v. ITO, I. T.A. No. 2641Chny12022, dt. 15.02.2023, ITAT Chennai - ACC Limited, Cement v. CIT (LTU), ITA No. 35761Mum12019, dt. 08.07.2020, ITAT Mumbai Honourable Delhi High court in [2012] 348 ITR 170 (Del) GURINDER MOHAN SINGH NINDRAJOG v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX h…

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

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

ITA 2216/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

…e is placed upon the judgment in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip vs. ITO (2018) 409 ITR 567 (Mad), the relevant paragraphs of which are extracted hereunder….. Reliance is also placed on the following judgments: - - CIT v. Vam Resorts & Hotels Pvt. Ltd., [2019] 418 ITR 723 (All), dt. 20.08.2019, Allahabad High Court - Smt. Sainulaptheen Katheeja Umma v. ITO, I. T.A. No. 2641Chny12022, dt. 15.02.2023, ITAT Chennai - ACC Limited, Cement v. CIT (LTU), ITA No. 35761Mum12019, dt. 08.07.2020, ITAT Mumbai Honourable Delhi High court in [2012] 348 ITR 170 (Del) GURINDER MOHAN SINGH NINDRAJOG v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX h…

VANDANA JAIN,SONIPAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)-1, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2343/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2341 To 2343/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20 बनाम Vandana Jain Pcit (Central), Veersons Building, Gohana Road, Vs. Delhi-1. Fazilpur B.O. Barwasni (202), Sonipat, Haryana, India. Pan No.Aampj6134E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 154Section 234ASection 263Section 68

…ITA Nos. 2341 to 2343/DEL/2025 VANDANA JAIN IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2341 to 2343/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 to 2019-20 बनाम VANDANA JAIN PCIT (Central), Veersons Building, Gohana Road, Vs. Delhi-1. Fazilpur B.O. Barwasni (202), Sonipat, Haryana, INDIA. PAN No.AAMPJ6134E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Ms. Mansi Jain, CA Shri Tanishq Ahuja, Advocate & Shri Sidharth Bajaj, Advocate Revenue by Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR सुनवाईक"तारीख…

VANDANA JAIN,SONIPAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)-1, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2342/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2341 To 2343/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20 बनाम Vandana Jain Pcit (Central), Veersons Building, Gohana Road, Vs. Delhi-1. Fazilpur B.O. Barwasni (202), Sonipat, Haryana, India. Pan No.Aampj6134E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 154Section 234ASection 263Section 68

…ITA Nos. 2341 to 2343/DEL/2025 VANDANA JAIN IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2341 to 2343/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 to 2019-20 बनाम VANDANA JAIN PCIT (Central), Veersons Building, Gohana Road, Vs. Delhi-1. Fazilpur B.O. Barwasni (202), Sonipat, Haryana, INDIA. PAN No.AAMPJ6134E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Ms. Mansi Jain, CA Shri Tanishq Ahuja, Advocate & Shri Sidharth Bajaj, Advocate Revenue by Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR सुनवाईक"तारीख…

VANDANA JAIN,SONIPAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)-1, DELHI

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2341/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2341 To 2343/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 To 2019-20 बनाम Vandana Jain Pcit (Central), Veersons Building, Gohana Road, Vs. Delhi-1. Fazilpur B.O. Barwasni (202), Sonipat, Haryana, India. Pan No.Aampj6134E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 154Section 234ASection 263Section 68

…ITA Nos. 2341 to 2343/DEL/2025 VANDANA JAIN IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2341 to 2343/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 to 2019-20 बनाम VANDANA JAIN PCIT (Central), Veersons Building, Gohana Road, Vs. Delhi-1. Fazilpur B.O. Barwasni (202), Sonipat, Haryana, INDIA. PAN No.AAMPJ6134E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Ms. Mansi Jain, CA Shri Tanishq Ahuja, Advocate & Shri Sidharth Bajaj, Advocate Revenue by Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR सुनवाईक"तारीख…

SHRI LIKHA SAAYA,NIRJILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- NORTH LAKHIMPUR., LAKHIMPUR.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 50/GTY/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumarand Manmohan Dasita Nos.49 & 50/Gty/2021 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Likha Saaya S/O. Shri Likha Vs. Ito, Ward-North, Lakhimpur Heli, P-Sector, P.O. Nirjuli, Borah Complex, D.K.Road, North District Papumpare, Arunachal Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur, Assam- Pradesh-791109 787001 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Sarala Agarwal. Ar Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Jcit

For Appellant: Sarala Agarwal. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT

Section 10(26)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…c) of explanation 1 to Section 263 of the Act. The case of the assessee is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut vs. Vam Resorts & Hotels (P.) Ltd. [2019] 111 taxmann.com 62 (Allahabad)/ [2019] 418 ITR 723 (Allahabad) dated 20-08-2019, wherein it has been held as under: - 25. As, Clause (c) of Explanation 1 to Section 263 of the Act provides that when an appeal is pending before the Commissioner, the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act by CIT is barred. Thus, in the present case, the CIT wrongly exercised jurisdiction under Secti…

SHRI LIKHA SAAYA,NIRJILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- NORTH LAKHIMPUR., LAKHIMPUR.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 49/GTY/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shriand Rajesh Kumarand Manmohan Dasita Nos.49 & 50/Gty/2021 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Likha Saaya S/O. Shri Likha Vs. Ito, Ward-North, Lakhimpur Heli, P-Sector, P.O. Nirjuli, Borah Complex, D.K.Road, North District Papumpare, Arunachal Lakhimpur, Lakhimpur, Assam- Pradesh-791109 787001 Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Sarala Agarwal. Ar Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Jcit

For Appellant: Sarala Agarwal. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, JCIT

Section 10(26)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…c) of explanation 1 to Section 263 of the Act. The case of the assessee is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut vs. Vam Resorts & Hotels (P.) Ltd. [2019] 111 taxmann.com 62 (Allahabad)/ [2019] 418 ITR 723 (Allahabad) dated 20-08-2019, wherein it has been held as under: - 25. As, Clause (c) of Explanation 1 to Section 263 of the Act provides that when an appeal is pending before the Commissioner, the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act by CIT is barred. Thus, in the present case, the CIT wrongly exercised jurisdiction under Secti…

AMARENDRA FINANCIAL PVT.LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL) KNP , MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2526/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the tribunal. Before us, assessee also take additional grounds of appeal which are admitted as they are purely legal in nature and requires no verification of facts by placing reliance on the judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. reported in 229 ITR 383(SC).

Section 139(1)Section 153CSection 263Section 68

…ct, 1987, subsequently, substituted by the Finance Act, 1988 w.e.f. 01.06.1988. The provisions of aforesaid explanation have been taken into consideration by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of CIT vs VAM Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd reported in 418 ITR 723 where the hon’ble high Court by following the judgment by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip (supra), wherein after considering the facts of case that the issue which is pending before the Ld. CIT(A) has been taken up as the basis by the Ld. PCIT while invoking the powers u/s 263, held as under: 9. “The second limb of ar…

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 126/NAG/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…ing the assessee high and dry. We place reliance on following decision to fortify our contentions. (i) Madras High Court in CIT v. Vam Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. [(2018) 409 ITR 567] (ii) Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Vam Resorts and Hotels P. Ltd. [(2019) 418 ITR 723] It is well-settled law that once the proceedings are before Ld. CIT(Appeals) in respect of certain issues, then the same issue again cannot be re-agitated by taking recourse to proceedings under section 236 of the Act (iii) Smt. Renuka Philip v. ITO 409 ITR 537 (Madras) It is held that when appeal is pending before Commissioner (Appeals), exerci…

M/S. CANVAS DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2416/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Madhumita Roym/S. Canvas Developers Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, C-152, Nirman Vihar, Ward-5(3), New Delhi-92 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcc4708E Assessee By : Shri K. V. S. Gupta, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shankar Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2025

For Appellant: Shri K. V. S. Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54FSection 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Canvas Developers Pvt. Ltd, Vs. ITO, C-152, Nirman Vihar, Ward-5(3), New Delhi-92 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AADCC4708E Assessee by : Shri K. V. S. Gupta, Adv Revenue by: Shri Shankar Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27/06/2025 Date of pronouncement 16/07/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.2416/Del/2017 for AY 2012-13, arises out of the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘…

DINESH BOHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO,W-1, BARMER, BARMER, RAJASTHAN

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 373/JODH/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Hon'Bledinesh Bohra Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Unit 517, Option Primo, Andheri Tax-1, Jodhpur. East, Mumbai-400093 Pan No. Aanpb4468Q Assessee By Shri Gautam Chand Baid, C.A. & Shri Mayank Taparia, Advocate. Revenue By Shri Manoj Kumar Mahar (Cit- D.R.) Date Of Hearing 20.02.2025. Date Of Pronouncement 25.03.2025.

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act was wholly without jurisdiction as the twin tests have not been satisfied. Following this decision, similar ratio has been laid down by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. VAM Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (418 ITR 723). The cited decision of Chennai Tribunal is also on similar lines and supports the case of the assessee. 12. During the proceedings u/s. 263, the assessee relied on these judgments, however, the Id. PCIT observed that these decisions are not applicable to the facts of the case by merely stating that the issue was application of wrong section and…

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PATEL,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

ITA 212/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 212/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 68

…invoke or assume jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the provisions of section 263, when the subject matter is pending before the First Appellate Authority. The case was relied upon by the Ld. AR are as under: 1) CIT vs VAM Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd (418 ITR 723) Allahabad High Court 2) Smt. Renuka Philips vs ITO (409 ITR 567) Madras High Court 3) M/s. Golden Vats Private Limited vs ACIT Central Circle-3(2), Chennai (ITA No. 416/Chny/2023) 4) Kathiravan Ananthalakshmi vs ACIT, Central Circle-1, Trichy (ITA No. 340/Chnny/2022) 5) R. M. Tradelink vs PCIT (ITA No. 68/RJT/2022- ITAT Rajkot) 11.2 Apropos, af…

VG RAJAMANI AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 14

ITA 812/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.812/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. V.G. Rajamani Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-1 बनाम/ Vs. 66, Subbiah Mudaliar Street, Coimbatore. Thomas Street, Coimbatore-641 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcv-1589-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode - Ld.Ar !"थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate) Erode - Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263

…us held that when larger issue was pending before CIT(A), the revisionary authority could not exercise jurisdiction u/s 263. Following this decision, similar ratio has been laid down by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. VAM Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (418 ITR 723). The cited decision of Chennai Tribunal is also on similar lines and supports the case of the assessee. 7. Therefore, considering the facts of the case and respectfully following the binding judicial precedent as aforesaid, we would hold that the impugned revision u/s 263 was bad-in-law and the same is therefore, liable to the quashed. We order…

GOLDEN VATS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 14

ITA 416/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.416/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Golden Vats Private Limited Acit बनाम New No.272, 3Rd Floor, Central Circle-3(2), Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Chennai. / Vs. Gopalapuram , Chennai-600 086. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccg-9782-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman (FCA)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 263Section 263(1)Section 3Section 40

…us held that when larger issue was pending before CIT(A), the revisionary authority could not exercise jurisdiction u/s 263. Following this decision, similar ratio has been laid down by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. VAM Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (418 ITR 723). The cited decision of Chennai Tribunal is also on similar lines and supports the case of the assessee. 8. Therefore, considering the facts of the case and respectfully following the binding judicial precedent as aforesaid, we would hold that the impugned revision u/s 263 was bad-in-law and the same is therefore, liable to the quashed. We order…

M/S SUNSMART TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 173/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 173/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Sunsmart Technologies Principal Commissioner Of Pvt Ltd., V. Income Tax-3, 25 Yellow Buildings, Chennai-34. 25 R.K. Salai, V Floor Opp. Hsbc Bank, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004 [Pan: Aajcs-7454-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Ms. Lekha, Ca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ravi Babu, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023

For Respondent: Shri. Ravi Babu, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 263(1)Section 40

…ity or otherwise of the claim of the assessee u/s.54 vis-a-vis 54F of the Act. Both factually and legally that case did not involve a larger amount of sum missed out by the AO to make enquiry about.  In the case of Varn Resorts and Hotels P. Ltd. reported in 418 ITR 723, there is a categorical finding of the Hon Court vide para 27 of the order that the Tribunal had recorded a specific finding of fact that the assessing authority had examined each and every aspect of the case on which the remand order hinges, as such the remand order was not sustainable in the eyes of law. Obviously, this case is also, both factu…

SHRI GAUTAM SETT,HOOGHLY vs. P.C.I.T.-8, KOLKATA NOW P.C.I.T.-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 367/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 May 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 3Section 50C

…ase of the assessee finds support from the several decisions of various High Courts namely Smt. Renuka Philip vs. ITO reported in [2018] 409 ITR 567 (Mad), decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vam Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. [2019] 418 ITR 723 (All). In both the above decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts has held that when the appeal is pending before the Commissioner(appeals), the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act 5 I.T.A. No.367/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Gautam Sett is not available to the Ld. PCIT. Accordingly, we are inclined to quash the order passed u/s 26…

SURESH AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOLKATA-9, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 510/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 263Section 54E

…ase of the assessee finds support from the several decisions of various High Courts namely Smt. Renuka Philip vs. ITO reported in [2018] 409 ITR 567 (Mad), decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vam Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. [2019] 418 ITR 723 (All). In both the above decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts has held that when the appeal is pending before the Commissioner(appeals), the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is not available to the Ld. PCIT. Accordingly, we are inclined to quash the order passed u/s 263 of the Act.” Considering the facts of the case in the light of the…

PRABHU KANIMOZHI,,ERODE vs. PCIT, COIMBATORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner dated 14

ITA 350/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate-Erode) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan (CIT) –Ld. DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69B

…ppeal before the CIT(A), that the same was heard and that the order was awaited, making the revisionary order void ab initio in view of sec.263 (1)( c) of the Act. [Relying on the jurisdictional Madras High Court decision cited in 409 ITR 567(Mad) and also on 418 ITR 723 (All)]. 4) When the Assessing Officer takes one of the two views permissible in law (i.e.,) taxing the stock difference u/s.28, it cannot be treated as erroneous only for the reason that PCIT does not agree with that view. [Reliance is placed on ITA No.204/lnd/2019; 189 Taxman 436 (Del); 194 Taxman 504 (Del); 295 ITR 282 (SC); 243 ITR 83 (SC).] 5…

CIT v. VAM Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

What is CIT v. VAM Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. VAM Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

MAHENT BABA ISHWAR SHAH,KALANAUR, ROHTAK vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

VANDANA JAIN,SONIPAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)-1, DELHI

VANDANA JAIN,SONIPAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)-1, DELHI

VANDANA JAIN,SONIPAT vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)-1, DELHI

SHRI LIKHA SAAYA,NIRJILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- NORTH LAKHIMPUR., LAKHIMPUR.

SHRI LIKHA SAAYA,NIRJILI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- NORTH LAKHIMPUR., LAKHIMPUR.

AMARENDRA FINANCIAL PVT.LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL) KNP , MEERUT

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

M/S. CANVAS DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

DINESH BOHRA,MUMBAI vs. ITO,W-1, BARMER, BARMER, RAJASTHAN

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PATEL,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

VG RAJAMANI AGENCIES PVT. LTD.,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT-1, COIMBATORE

GOLDEN VATS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

M/S SUNSMART TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

SHRI GAUTAM SETT,HOOGHLY vs. P.C.I.T.-8, KOLKATA NOW P.C.I.T.-5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

SURESH AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOLKATA-9, KOLKATA

PRABHU KANIMOZHI,,ERODE vs. PCIT, COIMBATORE