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 366,470 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

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order dated 31

ITA 2193/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chander, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 263

…he assessee on these issues in the course of proceedings u/s 263 of I.T. Act. (C.3) Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the following case laws : 1. Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 2. CIT vs. DLF Ltd. 350 ITR 555 3. CIT vs. Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 4. Jewel of India vs. ACIT 325 ITR 92 5. Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT 263 ITR 437 6. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 7. ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 8. CIT vs. Nirav Modi 71 taxmann.com 272 9. Oil India Ltd. vs. CIT 138 ITR 836 10. CIT vs. Sashi Theatre Pvt. Ltd. 248 ITR 126 11. CIT vs. Nirma Chemicals Works (P.) Ltd. 182 T…

M/S Ilc Industries, Hospet vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 847/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao & Shri. S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Verma, CIT - DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 37(1)

…ITA.847 & 848/Bang/2015 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'A', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A Nos.847 & 848/Bang/2015 (Assessment Years: 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/s. ILC Industries Limited, D 6/7, Near Industrial Estate, Dam Road, Hospet 583 203 .. Appellant PAN : AABCI0361A v. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. Zain Ahmed Khan, CA Revenue by : Shri. Sunil Kumar Verma, CIT - DR Heard on : 28.09.2016 Pronounced on : 09.12.2016 O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOU…

Chandan M Parmar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 11(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4601/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Subhlachan Ram & Ms

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 2(14)Section 253Section 263Section 43(5)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4601/Mum/2014 for Assessment Year: 2010-11 Chandan Magraj Parmar CIT-16, 801, 8th Floor, Glenridge, R.No. 437, Aayakar Bhavan, V 16, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, M. K. Road, s. Mumbai-400020. Mumbai -400006 PAN: AABPP1116F (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.2996/Mum/2016 for Assessment Year: 2011-12 Chandan Magraj Parmar CIT-16, 801, 8th Floor, Glenridge, R.No. 437, Aayakar Bhavan, 16, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai -400006 Mumbai-400020. PAN: AABPP1116F (…

M/S Bhadra Education Trust, Davangere vs. CIT, Davangere

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 607/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri. Shreehari Kulsa, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CIT - III

Section 13(3)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA.607/Bang/2014 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'C', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.607/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/s. Bhadra Education Trust, No.4120/1m 10th cross, Siddaveerappa Layout, Davangere .. Assessee PAN : AABTB4465H v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Davangere .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. Shreehari Kulsa, CA Revenue by : Shri. Sanjay Kumar, CIT - III Heard on : 27.09.2016 Pronounced on : 23.11.2016 O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This is an appeal filed by…

Black Gold Holding P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT -5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2484/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ketan L. VajaniFor Respondent: Shri N.P.Singh

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ments in support of the proposition that order of AO cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue :- i) CIT Vs. Gabrial India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bom); ii) CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Del.); iii) CIT Vs. Vikas Polymers, 341 ITR 537 (Del.); iv) CIT Vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd., 341 ITR 166(Del) v) CIT Vs. Kanda Rice Mills, 178 ITR 446 (P&H); and vi) CIT Vs. Smt. D Valliammal, 230 ITR 695 (Mad.) In view of the above submission, it was contended that order passed by the AO after making enquiry cannot be said to be erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of revenue.…

Apple India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 824/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Apple India Pvt. Ltd. 19Th Floor, Concorde Tower ‘C’ Ub City, No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001. … Appellant Pa No.Aaacv 7566 R Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(1), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Sekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)

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

…ana v. Max India Ltd (2007) [2007]295 ITR 282(SC) iii. Gokuldas Exports [2011] 333 ITR 214 (Kar.) HC); iv. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi); v. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bombay HC); and vi. CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537 (Delhi HC) 4.2 On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative vehemently contended that the AO had failed to examine the basis adopted for calculating provision for warranty expenditure. Provision for warranty expenditure was allowed without application of mind by the AO on the aspect of basis adopted by the assessee for calculating provi…

Tirupati Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 3316/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Tirupati Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Cit, Plot No. D, District Centre, Central-Ii, Paschim Vihar, E-2, Jhandewalan Ext. New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aadct5825H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ved Jain & P. Srivastava, Ca Department By: Ms. Archena S. Awasthi, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 25 .02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 :05.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned Validity Of Revisional Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On Several Grounds.

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain & P. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Archena S. Awasthi, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 263

…343 ITR 329 (Del.); iii) CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. [2014] 360 ITR 44 (Del.); iv) CIT vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 166 (Del.); v ) CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing & Adv. CO. Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 180 (Del.); vi) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537 (Del.); vii) CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. [2012] 83 CCH 068 (Del.); viii) Globus Infocom Ltd. vs. CIT Delhi-IV – ITA No. 447/2013 dated 13.08.2014. ix) CIT vs. M/s. Ankit Garments Manufacturing Co. – (2014) ( 12 ) TMI- 186 (Delhi H.C). 5. The Learned CIT(DR) on the other hand tried to justify the order impugned with this submissions that th…

Asianet Communications Limited, Chennai vs. JCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1465/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ajit Kumar Varma, CIT

Section 2Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य केसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1465/Mds/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/s Asianet Communications The Joint Commissioner of Income Limited, v. Tax, 15, Jaganathan Road, Media Range, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034. PAN : AAACA 2460 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Sh. R. Vijayaraghavan,…

Surajmal Memorial Education Society, New Delhi vs. CIT(E), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the appellant society is allowed

ITA 2011/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G.D. Agrawal V.P. & Sh. C.M. Garg, J.M Asstt. Year: 2011-12 Surajmal Memorial Education Vs Cit(E) Society New Delhi C-4, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Adv, Sh. Sanjeev Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Shankar, CIT, DR

Section 11(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 263

…inst the AO that he accepted the claims of the assessee without any inquiry and on wrong application of fact and law. 8 The Ld counsel also placed his reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs Vikas Polimers 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) and decision in the case of CIT VS Anil Kumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) and submitted that while AO has raised quires from the assessee and assessee submitted its reply along with relevant documents then the AO is allowing the claim of the assessee in this situation review of said conclusion of the Act under section 263 of the Act is not…

Udaysingh P Bobade (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result , the appeal in ITA No

ITA 7491/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7490/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Sujaysingh P. Bobade (Huf) बनाम/ I.T.O. 19(1)(2), A-101, Amrit Chs Ltd. Piramal Chambers, V. 15 Carter Road, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Khar (W), Mumbai-400052 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaphs9015L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

…the Act and rather view adopted by the CIT is erroneous view. The assessee-HUF submitted that rent is charged as per Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The assessee-HUF relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Vikas Polymers in (2010) 341 ITR 537(Del. HC) , Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jewel of India v. ACIT (2010) 325 ITR 92(Bom. HC) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Ratilal Tarachand Mehta in (1977) 110 ITR 71(Bom. HC ) and submitted the lump- sum payment as received which is the system of PAGDI of SALAMI is capital receipt . The assessee-HUF also releied u…

Sujaysingh P Bobade (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result , the appeal in ITA No

ITA 7490/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

For Respondent: Shri Manjunatha Swamy

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54E

A.V. Industries, Mumbai vs. ACIT 24(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3469/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. A.V. Industries, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 201, Bhagtani Krishna, Tax -24(3), “A” Wing, Mumbai Vs. Dattaray Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 054 Pan: Aaffa 1100L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri K. Shivaram, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.11.2015 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Singh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80G

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2005-06 M/s. A.V. Industries, Asstt. Commissioner of Income 201, Bhagtani Krishna, Tax -24(3), “A” Wing, Mumbai Vs. Dattaray Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai – 400 054 PAN: AAFFA 1100L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri K. Shivaram, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Singh, D.R. Date of Hearing : 23.07.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 06.11.2015 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee aga…

Ge Money Financial Services Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for the A

ITA 2123/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddya.Y. 2002-03 A.Y. 2003-04

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Smt.Sulekha Verma, CIT, D.R

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263

…et aside the matter to the file of the A.O. for verification, which act is not in accordance with law. He relied on the following case laws. A.Ys: 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 M/s G.E. Money Financial Services, New Delhi (i) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers reported in 341 ITR 537 (Del) (ii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del.) (iii) CIT vs. Max India Ltd. Reported in 295 ITR 282 (SC) (iv) Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P.Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA 2274/Del/07 and 2038/Del/08 – ITAT Delhi Bench order dt. 25.8.2009 (v) CIT vs. Citi Financial Consumer Finance Ltd. Reported in 335 ITR 29 (Del.) (vi) Malabar Indus…

Ge Money Financial Services Ltd vs. CIT

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for the A

ITA 1941/DEL/2008[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddya.Y. 2002-03 A.Y. 2003-04

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Smt.Sulekha Verma, CIT, D.R

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263

Ge Money Financial Services Ltd vs. CIT Delhi IV

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for the A

ITA 2444/DEL/2007[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2015AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddya.Y. 2002-03 A.Y. 2003-04

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Smt.Sulekha Verma, CIT, D.R

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 263

M/S Universal Product (P) Ltd., Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2056/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. G.C.Gupta, V.P. & Sh. Prashant Maharishi, Am

Section 143(3)Section 263

…not borne out from submission made by assessee and not controverted by revenue. Therefore order passed after such verification cannot be termed as erroneous. 11. Regarding non-mentioning of the inquiry in order Hon. Delhi high court In CIT v. Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 has held that : "This is for the reason that if a query is 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 Assessing Offic…

Commissioner of Income Tax-XII vs. Indo Rub Industries

ITA/19/2013HC Delhi01 Oct 2014

Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263

…ment. Inter-alia, the ld. AR relied upon decisions in CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167(Del.) (Delhi); CIT vs. Leisure Exports Ltd., 341 ITR 166(Del.), CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing & Advertising Co. Ltd., 341 ITR 180 (Del.); and CIT vs. Vikas Polymers, 341 ITR 537 (Delhi).” 2014:DHC:5209-DB ITA 19/2013 Page 6 of 13 Accepting the said assertion, the order under Section 263 of the Act, stands struck down. 6. The issue raised is whether or not the Assessing Officer before passing the order under Section 143(3) of…

Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd vs. The Dy.Commi.of Income Tax Hyd

ITTA/18/2001HC Telangana27 Jun 2013

For Respondent: Mr. A.V.A. Siva

Section 143(3)Section 256(2)Section 263

…of the Act is supervisory in nature and that if the Income Tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as “erroneous” 6 [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) 7 [2012] 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) CVNR, J & CKR, J RC 18/2001 10 by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been written differently or more elaborately, that the section does not visualize the substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the Income Tax Officer, who passed the order unless the decision is not in…