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 367,154 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

Ramotar Choudhari HUF, Kolkata vs. PCIT 5 Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1336/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1336/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ramotar Choudhari Huf.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 7Th Floor, R.N 25 Fortuna Tower, 23A N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aanhr9093K] Vs. Pcit-5, Kolkata………….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Pransukha, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 06, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 09, 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 18.10.2023 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,55,970/- On 21.01.2014. Thereafter, An Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer From Investigation Wing That The Assessee Has

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 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…

Sriram Enterprises, Patna vs. PCIT (Central), Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 76/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises,………………………..........Appellant C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Nepali Kothi, Opposite Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001 [Pan:Aarfs8853J] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna,…………………………………..……………..Respondent, Bihar-800001 Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 5Th March, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 8Th, 2024 O R D E R

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 263

Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 809/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd….…......................…...……………....Appellant 48/6, Suman Villa, 2Nd Floor, 155, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcd1131H] Vs. Pcit, Asansol….....….........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 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 30.12.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 158 Days. A Separate Application Of Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That After Receipt Of The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit, The Assessee, Through Its Director, Shri Deep Kishan Saraf, Immediately Approached One Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Chartered

Section 253Section 263Section 5

Shree Alekh, Bhavnagar vs. PCIT Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 91/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad06 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…09 ITR 67 (Guj) Gujarat Power Corporation vs. ACIT – 350 ITR 266 (Guj) Rayon Silk Mills vs CIT – 221 ITR 155 @ 158-159 (Guj Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT – [2003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. – [1993] 203 ITR 108 (Bom) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers – 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products – 333 ITR 547 @ 557-558 (Del)” 5.1 The Ld. AR further summited that it is settled law that if two views are possible as regards to a particular issue and Assessing Officer adopts either of two such views, then the CIT cannot invoke jurisdiction under Section 263. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisi…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…nquiry and as that it is only not case of lack of enquiry that revisional power ITA 146,147 & 148/CHD/2021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 49 can be exercised. This proposition stands settled, inter-alia in the following decisions : i) CIT V Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del) ii) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 16 (Del) iii) ITO V D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del); and iv) PCIT V Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. 398 ITR 8 (Del) 13.10 Moreover, as noted, where two views are possible and the AO has taken a view with which the CIT/PCIT does not agree, the assessment order cannot be termed as err…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

Mars Enterprises & Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1949/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263

…ine the details furnished by the assessee before him and satisfy himself that there is an error before revising the assessment order. In this regard, he relied upon the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2012)(341 ITR 537)(Delhi), wherein it was held as under:- “14. From the above, in our considered opinion, it is clear that in the ultimate analysis it is a pre-requisite that the Commissioner 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 order of the Income tax Of…

M/S. S.R. Ferro Alloys, Jhabua vs. The PCIT, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 148/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

Section 263

…his Court held as under:- 9. The Tribunal further considered the question whether discussion of queries and reply received from assessee, in assessment order, is necessary or not. Relying on two judgments of Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Vikash Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537/ [2010] 194 Taxman 57 and CIT v. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. [2012] 28 taxmann.com 273/ [2013] 212 Taxman 184 (Delhi), it held that once inquiry was made, a mere non discussion or non- mention thereof in assessment order cannot lead to assumption that Assessing Officer did not apply his mind or that he has not made inquiry on the subject and this w…

Ashish Niranjan Shah, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax -4, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 697/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43(5)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”ए” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.697/PUN/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.CIT-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next to RTO, Sangam, s Pune – 411001. PAN: AIDPS 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Kishor B Phadke – AR Revenue by Shri Keyur Patel, IRS – CIT-DR Date of hearing 28/07/2023 Date of pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This…

Raj Kumar Karanwal, Muzaffarnagar vs. Pr.CIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 644/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “H”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year 2010-11 Shri Raj Kumar Karanwal, Vs. Pr. CIT 194/A, Bhahmpuri, Dehradun. Muzaffarnagar-251001. PAN ADQPK8099N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Sankalp Malik, Advocate Shri Sanjay Malik, Advocate Department by: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 10.08.2023 Date of 11.09.2023 pronouncement: O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Dehradun (“PCIT”…

Jai Salasar Balaji Industries(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 440/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 440/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jai Salasar Balaji Industries (P) Ltd. Acit, Central Circle – 4(1), Kolkata 5, Bentinck Street Vs Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacj6970D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Kolkata -2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 28/03/2023, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Steel. E-Return Filed On 27/10/2018 Declaring Total Income At Nil For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Case Selected For Through Cass Followed By Issuance Of Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. Details Were Called For In Respect Of The Reason Of Scrutiny Selection. The Assessee Complied By Filing All The Relevant Details & The Same Were Duly Examined By The Assessing Officer & He Came To The Conclusion That The Assessee Was Entitled To The Claim Of Carry Forward Of Loss To 2

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, D/R

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

Mitsu Praful Doshi, Surat vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 232/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Mitsu Praful Doshi, Pr.C.I.T., 3Rd Floor, Jalnidhi Complex, Opp. Surat-1, Vs. Bahumali Building, Nanpura, Surat. Surat-395001. Pan: Afmpd 4450 N Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(3)Section 23Section 24Section 254(1)Section 263

…ected the Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment order. 13. We find that on similar submission, this combination of this Bench in Nilkanth Stone Industries Vs Pr.CIT (supra) by relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) held that it is a prerequisite that Pr.CIT must giving his reason to justify the exercise of suo moto revision. Mere reiteration that order of Assessing Officer is erroneous and in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue will not suffice. The exercise of power being quasi-judicial in nature must be of such as to show that the enh…

M/S Rani Sati Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 68

…because he has different opinion. Relevant observation of the High Court reads as under: I.T.A. No. 85/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s. Rani Sati Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. 15 "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…

Rajkumar Impex Private Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT - 4, Chenai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 631/CHNY/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jun 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy (CIT) – Ld.DR

Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी महावीर िसंह, उपा12 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ6वाल ,लेखा सद9 के सम2। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ITA No.631/Chny/2022 (िनधाBरणवषB / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/s. Rajkumar Impex Pvt. Limited PCIT बनाम/ 93/119, 4th floor, St. Mary’s Road, Chennai-4. Vs. Abhiramapuram,Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAACR-3577-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee by : Shri B. Ramakrishnan (FCA) & Shri…

M/S Roy and Sahani Company, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward 24(1), Hooghly

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 169/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 169/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Roy and Sahani Company Income Tax Officer, Ward-24(1), Boinchee Bilsara Road Vs Hooghly Pandua Hooghly - 712134 [PAN : AAGFR6501F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 12/06/2023 आदेश/O R D…

Speco Infrastructure, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

ITA 1326/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2023AY 2017-2018

For Appellant: Ms. Bhargavi P. RavalFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

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

…essing Officer had failed to carry out proper inquiry or verification. In order to support the aforesaid submissions, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant placed reliance upon the following judicial precedents including CIT vs. Vikas Polymers : 341 ITR 537 (Delhi), and MOIL Ltd. vs. CIT-1, Nagpur : 396 ITR 244 (Bombay). In view of the aforesaid, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the 7. Appellant submitted that the PCIT had exercised powers of revision under Section 263 of the Act without proper appreciation of material on record by incorrectly invoking provisions of Explanation 2 to Section 2…

M\S. Lexico Ceramics, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 1/RJT/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2015-15 M/S Lexico Ceramics, C/O Kalpesh S. Doshi & Co., Vs Principal Commissioner Of Chartered Accountants, Income-Tax-1, 1006-09, The Spire-2, Near Sheetal Rajkot Park Brts Stop, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot-360005 Pan : Aaefl 8870 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/05/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed, Am :

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (through web-based video conferencing platform) ] BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-15 M/s Lexico Ceramics, C/o Kalpesh S. Doshi & Co., Vs Principal Commissioner of Chartered Accountants, Income-tax-1, 1006-09, The Spire-2, Near Sheetal Rajkot Park BRTS Stop, 150 Ft. Ring Road, Rajkot-360005 PAN : AAEFL 8870 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, AR Revenue by : Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 19/04/2023 घो…

Kaur Kookies (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-4, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1119/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263Section 36

…ssessment order was erroneous. He should not have set aside the order and directed the Assessing Officer to conduct the said inquiry.” 9.2 Reliance is also placed on the following judgments: Delhi High Court i) 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. ii) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers Income Tax Appellate Tribunal i) ITA No. 7265/D/2017 dated 27.1.2020 M/s Klaxon Trading (P)Ltd. vs. PCIT ii) ITA No. 1781/D/2016 dated 24.4.2019 Sanjeev Singh vs. PCIT 10 THAT FOR HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ONLY PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE BUT IS ALSO ERRONE…

Sh. Gurjinder Singh, Amritsar vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Amritsar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 185/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT DR

Section 194CSection 263

…not a case of lack of enquiry even if the enquiry was inadequate and the CIT was not justified in passing the order under s. 263—Findings of the Tribunal quashing the order of the CIT passed under s. 263 do not warrant any interference” CIT V Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del) “If a query is raised during the course of scrutiny by the AO, which was answered to the satisfaction of the AO, but neither the query nor the answer was reflected in the assessment order, this would not by itself lead to the conclusion that the order of the AO called for interference and revision—Assessee explained that the capital investm…