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

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquirylack of enquiryprejudicial to interest of revenuemalabar industrialrevision u/s 263section 263(1)revision under section 263assessment order erroneouserroneous and prejudicialsection 263section 26principal commissioner of income-tax

Judgments citing CIT v. Vikas Polymers

Bharatkumar Kalyanjibhai Bhindi, Junagadh vs. PCIT, Rajkot-1, Rajkot

ITA 312/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhasr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 324/Rjt/2024 322/Rjt/2024 323/Rjt/2024 312/Rjt/2024 326/Rjt/2024 327/Rjt/2024 329/Rjt/2024 331/Rjt/2024 335/Rjt/2024 371/Rjt/2024

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…herein, as held by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Chroma Business Ltd. vs. DCIT (2004) 82 TTJ 540 (Cal).Further support in this connection is taken from the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del). Relevant part of the observation in this regard reads as under : " 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 lea…

Muhammad Zameer Qureshi, Bareilly vs. Pr. CIT, Bareilly

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 344/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Muhammad Zameer Qureshi V. The Pcit 180, Azam Nagar Bareilly Bareilly Tan/Pan:Aacpz6783H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Neeraj Kumar, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 139(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 69

…22 and, therefore, the twin conditions of the order being erroneous as well as being prejudicial to the interest of Revenue are not met. 5.4 One may also refer to another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del) wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court made extensive references to the judgments of other Hon'ble Courts on the powers of the Commissioner vested under section 263 of the Act. The same are being reproduced hereunder: “Para 9. Before we undertake the exercise of answering the reference, it is deemed expedient to reiterate the governing princ…

Alliance Nirmaan Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 263

…he same facts we also rely on the judgment of the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Chroma Business Ltd. vs. DCIT 82 TTJ 540 (Cal). Further our view is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del). Relevant part of the observation in this regard reads as under: "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…

Himmatlal Kanhaiyalal Jain, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-41, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 102/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhujhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri. Biswanath Das-CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Himmatlal Kanhaiyalal PCIT, Mumbai Jain Room No. 541, Kautilya Shop No.3, Jai Narayan Bhavan, C-41 to C-43, G- Niwas, Off. Aarey Road, VS. Block, Bandra Kurla Goregaon (East), Mumbai complex, Bandra (East), 400063 Mumbai 400051 PAN: AAAPJ4427A (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala Revenue by : Shri. Biswanath Das-CIT DR Date of Hearing : 03.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.05.2025 O R D E R…

Dlf Home Developers Limited, New Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2585/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Dlf Home Developers Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Sansad Delhi-1, Marg, New Delhi-110001. New Delhi Pan-Aaccd0037H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Singhvi, Ca & Shri Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA No.2585/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2019-20] DLF Home Developers Limited, vs Pr.CIT, 9th Floor, DLF Centre, Sansad Delhi-1, Marg, New Delhi-110001. New Delhi PAN-AACCD0037H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri R.S.Singhvi, CA & Shri Satyajeet Goel, CA Respondent by Shri Surender Pal, CIT DR Date of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 23.05.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal has been filed by the assessee seeking to assail the order d…

Venetian Ldf Projects LLP, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3533/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

…uj.) – Revenue’s SLP dismissed in [2025] 173 taxmann.com 103 (SC) - PCIT v. Clix Finance India (P.) Ltd.: [2025] 473 ITR 650 (Delhi) - CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd: 332 ITR 167 (Del) - CIT v. International Travel House: 344 ITR 554 (Del) - CIT vs. Vikas Polymers: 341 ITR 537 (Del) - Gulmohar Finances Limited: 170 Taxman 483 (Del.) - Fab India Overseas vs. CIT: 244 CTR 380 (Del.) - CIT vs. Vodafone Essar: 212 Taxman 184 (Del.) 42 - CIT vs. DLF Ltd.: 350 ITR 555 (Del) - CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co: 171 ITR 141 (MP) - CIT vs. Ganpat Ram Bishonoi: 152 Taxman 242 (Raj.) - CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers: 270 ITR 157 (MP) - CIT vs…

Sbs Biotech Unit II, Sirmour vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 801CSection 80I

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी परेश म. जोशी, "याियक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM &SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 413/Chd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम SBS Biotech Unit II The Pr. CIT-1 Nahan road Mauza Rampur Chandigarh Jattan, Kala Amb, Himachal Pradesh-173030 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABOFS6830P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ajay Jain, C.A राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri…

M/S Ehealthsystem Heaith-Care Ltd., Pune vs. PCIT-1, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 944/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.944/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Ehealthsystem Health- V The Pr.Cit-1, Care Ltd., S Pune. 1073, Bhosatemostique, Opposite Symbiosis, Gokhate Road, Model Colony, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aadcn5780C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pratik Sandbhor - Ar Revenue By Mr.Ajaykumar Keshari, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-1, Passed Under

Section 133(6)Section 263

…।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.944/PUN/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s.EHealthsystem Health- V The Pr.CIT-1, Care Ltd., s Pune. 1073, BhosateMostique, Opposite Symbiosis, Gokhate Road, Model Colony, Pune – 411016. PAN: AADCN5780C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Pratik Sandbhor - AR Revenue by Mr.Ajaykumar Keshari, CIT(DR) Date of hearing 20/01/2025 Date of pronouncement 31/01/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER…

Horizon Dwellings Private Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 77/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 143(3)Section 263

…he same facts we also rely on the judgment of the Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Chroma Business Ltd. vs. DCIT 82 TTJ 540 (Cal). Further our view is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del). Relevant part of the observation in this regard reads as under: "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…

Shri Chetan Sharma, Kanpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Kanpur

In the result, both appeals are allowed

ITA 343/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 153DSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 343/LKW/2019 & 344/LKW/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Chetan Sharma Principal Commissioner v. 3/47, Vishnupuri, Kanpur- of Income Tax (Central) 208002. 7/81-B, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur-208001. PAN:DKJPS1266Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Samrat Chandra, CA Shri Vatsal Kakkar, CA Respondent by: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. CIT(DR) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: These two appeals have been filed by the assessee aga…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ltu-2, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1571/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570 & 1571/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, V. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaaci-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. C. Naresh, Ca : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 1570 & 1571/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner of 763, Anna Salai, v. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [PAN: AAACI-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. C. Nare…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. DCIT, Ltu-2, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1570/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1570 & 1571/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, V. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaaci-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. C. Naresh, Ca : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, CA
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.: 1570 & 1571/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner of 763, Anna Salai, v. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [PAN: AAACI-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. C. Nare…

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. ACIT, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1569/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1569/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner Of 763, Anna Salai, V. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [Pan: Aaaci-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. C. Naresh, Ca : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. C. Naresh, CA
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41Section 41(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार िग"र, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. R. RAGHUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 1569/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Indian Overseas Bank, The Principal Commissioner of 763, Anna Salai, v. Income Tax, Anna Road, Chennai -4, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai -600 034. [PAN: AAACI-1223-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri. C. Naresh, CA : Shri. Nil…

Chaitalee Sachin Deokar, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, -It -2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 2806/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69Section 69BSection 69C

…ngs initiated u/s 263 of the Act is not valid in law. The assessee relied upon following case law in support of his contentions:- (i) CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd 9203 ITR 108)(Bom) (ii) CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd (332 ITR 167)(Delhi) (iii) CIT Vs. Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 537)(Delhi) (iv) CIT Vs. Arvind Jeweller (259 ITR 502)(Guj) 5.The Ld Pr. CIT was not convinced with the contentions of the assessee and accordingly held that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Accordingly he set aside the assessment orders of both the years under consideration and directed the AO to redo th…

Goutam Ghosh, Howrah vs. P.C.I.T., Kolkata - 13, Kolkata

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

ITA 1080/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 263Section 45Section 56(2)(X)Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

…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: Page 8 of 15 I.T.A. No.: 1080/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Goutam Ghosh. “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 opportunit…

Shankar Roadways, Burdwan vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir. 1(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 703/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…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 d…

M/S. Corporate Leisure & Property Development Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(4), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 652/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Shantilal G., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…ce. 3.16 He further relied on following case laws: a) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (243 ITR 83) b) CIT Vs. Max India Ltd. (295 ITR 282) c) K.R. Satyanarayana Vs. CIT (279 Taxman 175) d) CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (203 ITR 108) e) CIT Vs. Vikas Polymers (341 ITR 537) f) CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited (332 ITR 167) g) CIT Vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. (360 ITR 44) h) The Totgars’ Co-operative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. PCIT (ITA No.168/Bang/2023) i) The Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Limited Vs. DCIT (ITA No.892/Kol/2019) 4. The ld. D.R. submitted that there was no proper verification of this expen…

Mohammed Gyasuddin, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-30, Kolkata

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

ITA 571/KOL/2020[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2012-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

…ssessment Year: 2012-13 Mohammed Gyasuddin. 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 d…

Mohammed Gyasuddin, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-30, Kolkata

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

ITA 570/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

…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 d…

M/S Olympus Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1088/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1088/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Olympus Suppliers Pvt Ltd.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 15/B, Clive Row, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabco0624Q] Vs. Pcit, Circle-2, Kolkata……….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 13, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 23.03.2015 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. This Is A Second Round Of Litigation Before Us. Earlier, The Assessee Had Filed Appeal Before This Tribunal Against The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit Passed U/S 263 Of The Act, However, The Said Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Along With Three Other Cases By A Common Order Dated 05.08.2016. Being Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred Further Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court Bearing No. Itat/328/2017 Ia No.Ga/2/2017 (Old No.Ga/3184/2017). It Was Pleaded Before The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Along With Other Appeals, However, The Specific

Section 143(1)Section 151Section 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 d…