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

M/S. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd., Shillong vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Shillong, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 418/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ion. Relevant observation of the High Court reads as under: 23 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & Assessment Year:2014-2015 M/s. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited "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…

V.Natarajan, Rasipuram vs. ACIT Central Circle, Salem

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 468/CHNY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.467/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.468/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri V.Natarajan Acit बनाम/ 64C, Rotary Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. Rasipuram -637 408. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acgpn-1477-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (Ca)-Ld. Ar !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 15-11-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ():

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी वी. दुगा1 राव, "ाियक सद2 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ7वाल ,लेखा सद2 के सम9। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.467/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.468/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri V.Natarajan ACIT बनाम/ 64C, Rotary Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. Rasipuram -637 408. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. ACGPN-1477-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"की…

V.Natarajan, Rasipuram vs. ACIT Central Circle, Salem

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 467/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

M/S La Opala RG Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 296/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 296/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. La Opala Rg Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Eco Centre Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata Vs 8Th Floor Em-4, Sector-5 Kolkata - 700091 [Pan : Aaacl5569J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -2 (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 29/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Is That The Assessee Is A Limited Company & Income Of Rs.52,63,83,260/- Declared In The E-Return Furnished On 31/10/2017 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Was Completed On 21/12/2019 Assessing Income At Rs.56,22,70,863/-. Thereafter, The Ld. Pr. Cit Called For The Assessment Record & After Going Through The Same It Was Observed That The Order Of The Assessment Was Erroneous Insofar As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue On The Following Grounds:- “Upon Examination Of Case Records, It Is Observed That The Assessee Had An Income Of Rs. 49,08, 14,480/- From Sitaganj Exempted Unit In Which The Assessee Had Claimed Deduction U/S. 80Ic Of The Act Of Rs. 14,72,44,452/- (30% Of Rs.49,08, 14,480/-). It Was Observed From The Profit & Loss Accounts Of The Assessee For The Year Ended 31.03.2017 That The Assessee Had Credited An Amount Of Rs. 2,43,75, 193/- From Export Incentives & Also

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80Section 801CSection 80I

…judicial pronouncements; - CITVs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Del HC); - CIT Vs. Developement Credit Bank Ltd. 323 ITR 206 (2010); - CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (1993); ITA No. 559/Kol/2018 La Opala RG Ltd.., AY- 2013-14 - CIT Vs. Vikash Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del); 8. In this regard, the ld AR also placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Fab India Overseas (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, 201 Taxman 173 wherein under the similar facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble court quashed the order passed u/s 263 by the CIT, by observing as under: ''In view of aforesaid, it is reiterate…

Rk Infra & Engineering India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Hyderabad

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

ITA 188/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 R.K. Infra & Engineering India Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward – 3, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aadcr9570Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.11.2022

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member AND Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2015-16 R.K. Infra & Engineering India Vs. Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward – 3, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AADCR9570Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani Revenue by: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya Date of hearing: 21.11.2022 Date of pronouncement: 22.11.2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. The appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 arises from the order of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax / CIT-3, Hydera…

Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh, Na

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 102/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Samir Yogendrabhai Parikh. The Pr.Cit, Alka Society, Chhapara Road, Valsad. Vs. Dist.-Navsari-396445, Gujarat. Pan No. Abgpp 6727 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

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

…uj) (ii) Gujarat Power Corporation Vs ACIT 350 ITR 266 (Guj) (iii) Rayon Silk Mills Vs CIT 221 ITR 155 @ 158-159 (Guj) (iv) Hari Iron Trading Co. Vs CIT (2003) 263 ITR 437 (P&H) (v) CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (vi) CIT Vs Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del) (vii)CIT Vs Honda Siel Power Products 333 ITR 547 @ 557-558 (Del) 7. The ld. Senior Counsel submits that the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice dated 30/01/2019 for seeking details of profession, tax audit report and annual account. The copy of said show cause notice is placed on record. The assessee vide his reply dated 19/04/2019…

Veer Plastics Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT -4, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/AHD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: ShriA. P. Singh, CIT

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 263Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…TR 67 (Guj) " Gujarat Power Corporation vs. ACIT - 350 ITR 266 (Guj) " Rayon Silk Mills vs CIT - 221 ITR 155 @ 158-159 (Guj) " Had Iron Trading Co. v. CIT 12003] 263 ITR 437 (P&H) " CIT v. 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) " Jai Rashmikant Patel vs. PCIT - IT A 427/A/2020 The Ld. AR submitted that it is settled law that if two views are possible as regards a particular issue and Assessing Officer adopts either of two such views, then Pr. CIT cannot invoke jurisdiction u/s 263. Mere fact that dif…

V.Rajasekhar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(5), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1357/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarsri V. Rajasekhar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-14(5), [Pan No. Aadpr0797E] Hyderabad Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)(v)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sri V. Rajasekhar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad Ward-14(5), [PAN No. AADPR0797E] Hyderabad Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, AR Revenue by: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 22/09/2022 Pronouncement on: 31/10/2022 ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, JM: Aggrieved by the order dated 27/03/2018 passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Hyderabad (“Ld. PCIT”), in the case of Shri V. Rajasekhar (“the ass…

Mukesh Bhoormal Jain, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT - 19, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 542/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…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…

A.R. and Co., Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 127/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.127/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) A. R. & Co., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Stall No.7/8, Opp. Laxmi Income-Tax-1, Surat, Income Tax Petroleum, Umarwads-395010. Office, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfa2767 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Ca Revenue By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 22/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40Section 40A(3)

…this would not by itself lead to the conclusion that the order of the assessing officer called for interference and revision”. 14. On the similar facts, the reliance is placed on the decision of Hon`ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [341 ITR 537] (Del). The Assessing Officer has made the proper inquiry which was adequate. If there was any inquiry even inadequate that by itself would give no occasion to the CIT to pass orders u/s 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. Based on the above discussion on assessee`s facts as well as on various precedents appli…

Aryan Realmart Private Limited, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 148/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hearing The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…issible where the enquiries on the issues have already been made by the Assessing Officer before passing the order of the assessment. 9. In support, reliance was placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 and in case of ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ld. PCIT order is erroneous and alleging that no details of enquiry made by the AO against the order of the revision. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on…

Chambal Alums Private Limited, Kota vs. Pr. Commission of Income Tax-Udaipur, Udaipur

ITA 147/JPR/2022[/2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 147/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 cuke M/s. Chambal Alums (P) Ltd The ACIT 41, Behind Muiltimetal Large Industrial Area, Vs. Circle-2 Kota Kota – 324 003 LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCC 1944 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Vijay Goyal, CA jktLo dh…

Sandeep Hooda, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT - 7, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 30

ITA 397/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasandeep Hooda, Vs. Pr. Cit-7, C/O. Rra Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aacph5453J

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 27Section 48Section 50Section 500(1)Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 50c(2)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sandeep Hooda, Vs. Pr. CIT-7, C/o. RRA Taxindia, D-28, South New Delhi Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AACPH5453J Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv Revenue by: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 26/07/2022 10th /08/2022 Date of pronouncement: O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, J. M.: 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee challenging the order dated 30.03.2021 of Ld Pr.…

Mahalaxmi Kundan Meena Diamond Jewellers P Ltd, Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jaipur

ITA 119/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Avdesh Kumar (CIT)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR MkWa- ,e- ,y- ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ,oa MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. M.L. MEENA, AM & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 119/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 cuke M/s Mahalaxmi Kundan Meena Diamond Pr. Commissioner of Income Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Tax, 3, New Colony, M.I. Road, Jaipur-1, Jaipur Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFCM 8619 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.) jktL…

M/S Rithwik Rk Joint Venture vs. Pr. CIT, Allahabad

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

ITA 99/ALLD/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad26 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma, CIT DR

Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.99/ALLD/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2012-13 M/s Rithwik RK Joint Venture, v The Pr. Commissioner of Income #171/A, Ashok Nagar, Allahabad, . Tax, Aaykar Bhawan, 38, M.G. Present Address:#1-2-49/15, 1st Floor, Marg, Civil Lines, Allahabad Nizampet Road, Hydernagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072 PAN-AAAAR9816N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, C.A. Respondent by: Sh. Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma, CIT DR Date of hearing: 31.05.2022 Date of pr…

M/S. Rithwik Rk Joint Venture, Hyderabad vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Allahabad

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

ITA 107/ALLD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Chakrapani, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma, CIT DR

Section 263

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Technip France Sas, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 724/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicialmember Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 144C(5)Section 44BSection 44DSection 9(1)(vii)

…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…

Mayur Khara, Yavatmal vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

In the result, Both the appeals of above mentioned assessee’s are allowed

ITA 64/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mayur Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8869 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Amit Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8868 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Above Mentioned Assessees Against Two Different Orders Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Nagpur- 2 Dated 17-02-2017 & 16-02-20217 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Respectively. The Grounds Of Raised By The Above Mentioned Assessees Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…tions being satisfied, the revision was not justified. a. CIT v. Max India Ltd. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) b. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT[2000] 243 ITR 83(SC), c. CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 203 ITR 108(Bom)(HC) d. CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537(Delhi)(HC) e. CIT vs. Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR632 (Bom)(HC), f. Grasim Industries Ltd vs. CIT [2010] 321 ITR 92(Bom)(HC) g. CIT vs. NiravModi [2017] 390 ITR 292(Bom) (HC) 9 Shri Mayur Khara vs Pr. CIT-2, Nagpur The ld. AR of appellant further submitted that each of the query of the AO was replied, whi…

Vasundhara Bahuudeshiya Samajikk Sanstha, Khamgaon vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Nagpur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 55/NAG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vasundhara Bahuudeshiya Vs. C.I.T.(Exemptions) Samajik Sanstha, Pune At Nagpur. 1, Vasundhara, Madhav Nagar, Khamgaon-444303. Pan No.: Aaabv 0305 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. C.I.T.(Exemptions), Pune At Nagpur Dated 23/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2015-16 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assesee. “1. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit By Taking A Recourse To Section 263 Is Illegal & Bad In Law, When The A.O. Has Made Sufficient Enquiries During The Assessment Procedure. 2. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Without Considering Appellant’S Submission Is Illegal & Bad In Law. 3. Whether The Revision Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit Even Though If It Is Termed As Erroneous But It Is Not Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. As The Donation Has Been Duly Disclosed By The Appellant In Their

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)

Section 253(5)Section 263

…s been taken by this 11 ITA 55/NAG/2021_ Vasundhara Bahuudeshiya Samajik Sanstha Vs CIT(E) 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…

Baljeet Yadav, Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 120/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH-A, JAIPUR MkWa- ,e- ,y- ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ,oa MkWa- ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. M.L. MEENA, AM & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 120/JP/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18. cuke Shri Baljeet Yadav, The PCIT, Jaipur-1, 27, Gyan Vihar, Ajmer Road, Vs. Jaipur. Nirman Nagar, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AAOPY 4448 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Avdhesh Kumar (CIT) lquokbZ dh…