How many judgments cite CIT v. Vikas Polymers?

318 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 537), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Vikas Polymers come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 147, Section 148.

CIT v. Vikas Polymers

341 ITR 537High Court2012#244 most cited

What is CIT v. Vikas Polymers authority for?

An assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial under Section 263 merely because the Assessing Officer did not record an enquiry and its satisfactory answer in the assessment order, provided such an enquiry was conducted. For revision under Section 263, the Commissioner must also provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard and examine their explanation.

318

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Vikas Polymers · Section 263 · erroneous and prejudicial to revenue · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · AO not recording enquiry · opportunity of being heard · revisionary powers · assessment order erroneous · Section 143(3)

Also reported as

194 Taxmann 57244 CTR 380

Sections most often in play

Section 263 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 147 Section 148 Section 133(6)Section 1961

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiry lack of enquiry prejudicial to interest of revenue malabar industrial revision u/s 263 section 263(1)revision under section 263 assessment order erroneous erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 26 principal commissioner of income-tax

Judgments citing CIT v. Vikas Polymers

M/S Nilkanth Stone Industries, Valsad vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 386/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.386/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Nilkanth Stone Industries, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Shop No.A-1/2/3, Nilkanth Of Income Tax, Valsad. Residency, B/H Old Jakarta Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad. [Pan: Aajfn 5653 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Surji Chheda - Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 27.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (Act) By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Pcit” Passed Under Section 263 Of Income-Tax Act (Act) Dated 27.03.2018, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Vide His Application Dated 16.08.2018 Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit Has Erred In Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Which Was Without Jurisdiction & The Cit Erred In Holding That The Assessment Order Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue On All Issues Discussed In Revision Order & Has Erred In Setting It Aside For Fresh

Section 253Section 263

…er erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In support of his submission, the ld.AR relied upon the following decisions:  CIT Vs Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR632 (Bombay HC),  CIT Vs Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537 (Delhi HC),  ITO Vs DG Housing Projects [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi HC),  Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 3858 (Delhi HC.),  CIT – Vs. Leisure wear Exports Ltd., 341 ITR 166 (Delhi HC.),  CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Delhi HC),  CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd. 329 ITR 289 (Delhi HC),  CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC),  ITA NO.3206/DEL/2017…

Shri Krishna Mohan Chuorsiya, Rajgarh vs. The Pr. CIT Ujjain, Ujjain

ITA 626/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Krishna Mohan Pr. Cit Choursiya(Prop. Of M/S Laxmi Ujjain Mp बनाम/ Auto Parts) Vs. Ward No.14, Bus Stand, Kurawar Rajgarh(M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aempc3634G

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…mind to the issue in question, the ld. CIT cannot invoke section 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion. Relevant observation of the High Court reads as under: "63. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas Polymer reported in 341 ITR 537 has held as under: "We are thus of the opinion that the provisions of s. 263 of the Act, when read as a composite whole make it incumbent upon the CIT before exercising revisional powers to : (i) call for and examine the record, and (ii) give the assessee an opportunity of being heard and thereafter to make or cause to be made such enquiry as he…

Pooja Marketing, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 31, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2596/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Us, The Core Issues To Be Decided Are As Under:-

Section 115BSection 263Section 58(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM M/s. Pooja Marketing Vs. Pr. CIT-31, C/o. Shri Ketan J. Shah Room No.301, C-13, 3rd Floor, C-1, Ami Darshan D.B. Patil Road Pratykshakar Bhavan Malad (E) BKC, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400 097 Mumbai-400 051 PAN/GIR No.AAOFP2090F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Advocate, Shri Ravi Sawana & Shri Samyak Lohade Revenue by Shri B.V. Jhaveri Date of Hearing 24/03/2021 Date of Pronouncement 24/05/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in ITA No.2596/Mum/2019…

Kailashchandra Khandelwal, Sendhwa vs. Pr. CIT -2, Indore

ITA 562/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Kailash Khandelwal Pr. Cit-2, Prop. M/S. Vikash Krishi Indore बनाम/ Seva Kendra, Bus Stand, Vs. Sendhwa, Barwani (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Acmpk2991E Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Vijay Bansal, Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 44A

Tata Realty & Infrastructure Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6481/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

…ase of lack of enquiry and not one of inadequate enquiry. This view has been taken by this Court in the matter of CIT v. Shreepati Holdings & Finance (P.) Ltd. [ITA 1879 of 2013 dated 5th October, 2013], by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537/194 Taxman 57 and in D.G. Housing Projects (supra). In fact the Delhi High Court in D.G. Housing Projects (supra) while so holding placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Gabriel (India) Ltd. (supra). It is very important to note that the CIT in his order under Section 263 of the Act has recorded the fact that there has been no adequat…

Satish Kumar Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-10, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 260/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"ी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. टी. वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITR 83 -CIT vs. Max India Limited: 268 ITR 128 (P&H) [affirmed in 295 ITR 282 (SC)] - CIT v Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex: 395 ITR I (SC) - CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan: 384 ITR 200 (SC) -. CIT v. Hindustan Lever Ltd 343 ITR 161(Bom.) - CIT v . Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del.) - CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd.: 332 ITR 167 (Del) -CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd: 323 ITR 206 (Born.) - Vimgi Investment (P) Limited: 290 ITR 505 (Del) - Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT: 263 ITR 437 (P&H) - CIT vs. Gabriel India Limited: 203 ITR 108 (Born). 5.12.1 In connection wit the submission of the assessee, received on 03.12.2018, i…

M/S Ruchi J Oil Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT(A)Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)Section 92C

…y was termed as inadequate, "that would not by itself give M/s Ruchi J Oil Pvt. Ltd occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders under section 263 of the said Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter". d) CIT vs. M/s. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del) at Page 548. Held “This is for the reason that if a query was raised during the course of scrutiny by the assessing officer, which was answered to the satisfaction of the assessing officer, but neither the query nor the answer was reflected in the assessment order, that would not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the order of the asse…

M/S. Kalinga Conduits Electricables (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 9, New Delhi

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

ITA 3287/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2010-11 Kalinga Conduits Electricables (P) Vs Pr. Cit-9, Ltd., New Delhi. 81/41, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi. Pan : Aacck5784H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate; Shri Rajiv Sabharwal, Ca; & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca. Revenue By : Mrs. Aashna Paul, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23Rd March, 2017 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act, 1961 By The Pcit, New Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2010 Declaring An Income Of Rs.5,940/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently, The Cit-Ii, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No. File 148/2012-13/2817 Dated 15Th March, 2013, Forwarded The Letter Of Investigation Ii, Delhi, Vide F. No.Dit (Inv.)-Ii/U/S 148/2012-13/197 Dated 12Th March, 2013 Giving Information About An Accommodation Entry Of Rs.40 Lakhs Received By The Assessee From M/S Victory Software Pvt. Ltd., Zenith Automotive Pvt. Ltd. & Humtum Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Based On The Above, The Ao Issued Notice U/S 148 After Recording The Reasons.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Aashna Paul, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…the PCIT/CIT is empowered to exercise his revisional powers by calling for and examining the records of any proceedings under the Act and passing orders thereon. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers, 341 ITR 537 (Del), he drew the attention of the Bench to the following observations:- “14. From the above, in our considered opinion, it is clear that in the ultimate analysis it is a prerequisite that the CIT must give reasons to justify the exercise of suo motu revisional powers by him to reopen a concluded assessment. A bare reiteration by him that the or…

Vrutti Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-29, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1085/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Batham-Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…1 ITA No.1085 /Mum/2019 Vrutti Developers LLP Assessment Year: 2014-15 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एफ” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी अमरजीत िसंह, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1085/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Vrutti Developers LLP Pr.CIT -29 4th Floor, Neptune Magnet Mall C-10, 3rd Floor बनाम/ Near Mangatram Petrol Pump Pratyakshkar Bhavan Vs. LBS Marg, Bhandup (W) Bandra…

Jai Hind Co-Op Hsg. Soc Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-25, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1762/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1763/Mum/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1762/Mum/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Jai Hind Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Acit-25(2) 2Nd Floor, Room No.241 Plot No.51, N.S.Road No.11 बनाम Jvpd Scheme, Vile Parle(W) Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block / Vs. Mumbai-400 049 Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400 051 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaaj-2782-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rajesh R. Shah-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Pratap Singh-Ld.Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 10/02/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 12/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh R. Shah-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Pratap Singh-Ld.CIT DR

Section 263Section 80(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(d)

…1 ITA Nos.1762 & 1763/Mum/2020 Jai Hind Co-operative Housing Society Limited Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एफ” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी िवकास अव"थी, "याियक सद"य एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1763/Mum/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1762/Mum/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Jai Hind Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.…

M/S. Yash Dev Mahajan & Sons (HUF), New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2040/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

…ind to the issue in question, the ld. CIT cannot invoke section 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion. Relevant observation of the High Court reads as under: “63. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas Polymer reported in 341 ITR 537 has held as under: “We are thus of the opinion that the provisions of s. 263 of the Act, when read as a composite whole make it incumbent upon the CIT before exercising revisional powers to : (i) call for and examine the record, and (ii) give the assessee an opportunity of being heard and thereafter to make or cause to be made such enquiry as he…

Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3285/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 17(2)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…reply given by the assessee had passed the order and, therefore, the said order cannot be held to be erroneous and, therefore, the provisions of section 263 cannot be applied. The ld. Counsel also relied on the following decisions:- i) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers, 341 ITR 537 (Del); ii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Del); iii) CIT vs. DLF Ltd., 350 ITR 555 (Del); iv) CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282; v) ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd., 343 ITR 329 (Del); vi) Director of Income-tax vs. Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388 (Del); vii) PCIT vs. Vinita Chaurasia, 394 ITR 758 (Del); viii) Delhi Airport Metro Express…

Eicher Goodearth Investment Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT- IV, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5815/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2007-08] Eicher Motors Ltd. [Erstwhile Vs. The C.I.T Eicher Goodearth Investment Ltd] Delhi Iv Eicher House, 12, Commercial Complex New Delhi Pan: Aaace 0052 D [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263

…mind to the issue in question, the ld. CIT cannot invoke section 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion. Relevant observation of the High Court reads as under: “63. We find the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Vikas Polymer reported in 341 ITR 537 has held as under: “We are thus of the opinion that the provisions of s. 263 of the Act, when read as a composite whole make it incumbent upon the CIT before exercising revisional powers to : (i) call for and examine the record, and (ii) give the assessee an opportunity of being heard and thereafter to make or cause to be made such enquiry as he…

Solarfield Energy Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, -2, Mumbai

ITA 292/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodsolarfield Energy Private Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 Limited, Hinduja House, Room No. 344, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 171, Dr. Annie Besent Road, M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan – Aaocs4380A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jehangir Mistri, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, CIT D.R

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…d issue by the A.O. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Gabrial India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) and that of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del). Solarfield Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 12 ITA No. 292/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 11. We shall now advert to the fact as to whether or not the view taken by the A.O as regards the allowability of the forfaiting charges as a revenue expenditure could be brought within the realm of a plausible view arrived at on his par…

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. .CIT-(A) 13, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3910/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija

Section 263

…sioner is of the opinion that inquiries carried out were inadequate. In this regard, following case laws have been referred :- i) CIT v. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom); ii) CIT v. Nirav Modi (2016) 390 ITR 292 (Bom); iii) CIT v. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del); iv) CIT v. Gabriel India (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom); v) DIT v. Jyoti Foundation (2013) 357 ITR 388 (Del); and, vi) Globus Infocom Ltd. v. CIT (2014) 369 ITR 14 (Del) Furthermore, following case laws have been referred :- i) Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC); ii) CIT v. Max India (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC); iii) CIT v.…

Satyanarayan Sharma, Indore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Indore

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

ITA 426/IND/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 154oSection 2Section 263Section 54F

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year:2013-14 Satyanarayan Sharma, Pr.CIT-I, 11/2, South Tukoganj, Indore बनाम/ Swapnalok Colony, Vs. Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AEAPS5126D Appellant by Shri Girish Agrawal & Miss Nisha Lahoti, ARs Revenue by Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 11.11.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 28.12.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Pr. Commissione…

Seth Brothers, Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly

ITA 3395/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Sh. C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) I.T.A. No. 3395/DEL/2013 A.Y. : 2008-09 SETH BROTHERS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME SHANTI NIKETAN, VS. TAX, CIVIL LINES, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MEERUT BHAINSALI GROUND, (PAN: AAJFS0123M) MEERUT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. C.S. Anand, Advocate Department by : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The background of the case is that the assessment order in this case was passed on 30.11.2010 by the ACIT, Cirlce-2, Meerut, and the…

Versova Shanti Co-Operative Housing Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 25, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1056/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Tikekar-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Lalit Dehiya -Ld.CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…1 Versova Shanti Co-op. Housing Soc. Ltd. Assessment Year : 2015-16 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “एफ” "ायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय "ी अमरजीत िसंह, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1056/Mum/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Versova Shanti Co.op. Housing Soc. Ltd. Pr. CIT-25 Room No.241,2nd Floor, Plot No.22, Versova Shanti CHS Ltd. बनाम/ RSCI MHADA Layout G-Block, Kautilya Bhavan Vs. Versova,…

Ravish Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 47/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Rachit Lakhmani, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 46/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Madhumita Roy)

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68