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.

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 537)

M/S Satyam Educational Health & Charitable Trust, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-Central, Patna

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 36/PAT/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…s no discussion on these point in the assessment orders by relying on the decision of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom). The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers reported 341 ITR 537(Bom) wherein it has been held that there is a distinction between lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry and it is only a case of lack of enquiry, the ld PCIT can exercise his revisionary powers under the Act The Ld. A.R. has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329(Del) reiterating hi…

M/S Basti Wine Co. (English), Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kanpur

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

ITA 683/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 263

…I.T.A. No.683/Lkw/2018 Assessment Year:2014-15 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year:2014-15 M/s Basti Wine Co. (English), Vs. Pr. C.I.T.-1, 24/4, The Mall, Kanpur. Kanpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent by Shri Sunil Bajpai, CIT, D.R. Date of hearing 31/01/2022 Date of pronouncement 02/02/2022 O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned Pr. CIT-1, Kanpur dated 11/10/2018 passed…

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 942/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

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

…the Act, merely because the Commissioner felt that inadequate enquiry has been made and further enquiry could have been made by the AO while making an assessment. 30. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions: • Vikas Polymers (2012) (341 ITR 537) (Delhi HC) (Refer Pq. 245 to 252 of Legal Paperbook): • Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) (332 ITR 167) (Delhi HC): • Indus Best Hospitality & Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 3125/Mum/2017) dated 19 January 2018: • Instant Holdina Ltd. (ITA No. 2345/Mum/2015) (Mum Trib.) No mention in the assessment order of the aspects examined cannot be a ground for initia…

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, Circle-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 941/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

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

…the Act, merely because the Commissioner felt that inadequate enquiry has been made and further enquiry could have been made by the AO while making an assessment. 30. Reliance in this regard is also placed on the following decisions: • Vikas Polymers (2012) (341 ITR 537) (Delhi HC) (Refer Pq. 245 to 252 of Legal Paperbook): • Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) (332 ITR 167) (Delhi HC): • Indus Best Hospitality & Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 3125/Mum/2017) dated 19 January 2018: • Instant Holdina Ltd. (ITA No. 2345/Mum/2015) (Mum Trib.) No mention in the assessment order of the aspects examined cannot be a ground for initia…

Niagara Financial Consultants P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, City-6, Mumbai

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

ITA 762/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.762/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ Niagara Financial Pr. Cit, City-6 Room No.501, 5Th Floor, Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C-201, Kailash Explanade, Aayakar Bhavan, Lbs Marg, Opp. Sheryas Maharshi Karve Road, Theatre, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400086. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccn1918R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Revenue By: Shri Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-06, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015-16 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-06 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 2. 1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Iii Law, Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Passing The Revision Order U/S.263 Though The Reassessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) Is Not Erroneous Anti In So Far Is Not Prejudicial To The Interests Of The Revenue 2.0 The Ld. Pr. Cit, Before Setting Asides The Assessment Ordev.De Novo On Invoking Sec 263(I), Ought To Have Considered The Understated Facts, Being;

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.762/Mum/2021 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ Niagara Financial Pr. CIT, City-6 Room No.501, 5th Floor, Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C-201, Kailash Explanade, Aayakar Bhavan, LBS Marg, Opp. Sheryas Maharshi Karve Road, Theatre, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400086. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCN1918R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala Revenue by: Shri Mahesh Akhade (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date…

Varun Khandelwal, New Delhi vs. Prcit-24, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7891/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Hiren Mehta, C. AFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, [CIT] – D. R

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA. No. 7891/Del/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shri Varun Khandelwal, Pr. CIT, 4/22, Ground Floor, Vs. WEA, Karol Bagh, Delhi : 24, Delhi – 110 006. PAN: AOBPK7023C New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Hiren Mehta, C. A.; Department by: Shri T. Kipgen, [CIT] – D. R.; Date of Hearing : 22/11/2021 Date of pronouncement : 27/01/2022 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J. M. The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee…

Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 62/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…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 lead…

Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 61/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…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 lead…

Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 60/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…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 lead…

Hilton Group, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 59/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…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 lead…

Hilton Group, Surat vs. PCIT, (Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 58/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…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 lead…

Ramesh Kumar Gordhan Kathiriya, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 192/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…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 lead…

Ramesh Kumar Gordhan Kathiriya, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 191/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.58 & 59/Srt/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2016-17& 2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Hilton Group, Vs. The Pcit (Central), Fp 56-57, Tp 37, Block No. Surat. 1168/B, Variyav Adajan, Surat- 394 530, Gujarat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaifh9885N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah & P. M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

…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 lead…

Shri. Tarsem Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 157/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…hus, considered the facts of the case in a proper perspective and had ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 32 taken a plausible view while passing the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v. Vikas Polymers ii) 332 ITR 16 (Del) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iii) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 5.7 It was submitted that section 263 does not permit revision of an order on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 296 IR 238 (P&H) C…

Sh. Parshotam Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…hus, considered the facts of the case in a proper perspective and had ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 32 taken a plausible view while passing the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v. Vikas Polymers ii) 332 ITR 16 (Del) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iii) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 5.7 It was submitted that section 263 does not permit revision of an order on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 296 IR 238 (P&H) C…

Priyanka, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 152/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…hus, considered the facts of the case in a proper perspective and had ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 32 taken a plausible view while passing the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v. Vikas Polymers ii) 332 ITR 16 (Del) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iii) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 5.7 It was submitted that section 263 does not permit revision of an order on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 296 IR 238 (P&H) C…

Priya Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…hus, considered the facts of the case in a proper perspective and had ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 32 taken a plausible view while passing the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v. Vikas Polymers ii) 332 ITR 16 (Del) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iii) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 5.7 It was submitted that section 263 does not permit revision of an order on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 296 IR 238 (P&H) C…

M/S Pardeep Ispat(P) Ltd., Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…hus, considered the facts of the case in a proper perspective and had ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 32 taken a plausible view while passing the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v. Vikas Polymers ii) 332 ITR 16 (Del) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iii) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 5.7 It was submitted that section 263 does not permit revision of an order on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 296 IR 238 (P&H) C…

Shri Rajeev Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…hus, considered the facts of the case in a proper perspective and had ITA Nos. 149 to 152, 154 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 32 taken a plausible view while passing the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v. Vikas Polymers ii) 332 ITR 16 (Del) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iii) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 5.7 It was submitted that section 263 does not permit revision of an order on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 296 IR 238 (P&H) C…

M/S N.R.Company, Indore vs. Pr . Commissioner of Income Tax- 3(1), Indore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal i

ITA 101/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore17 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad(Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. N.R. Company, Indore Pan – Aagfn 6169 F … Appellant Vs. Pcit-I, Indore … Respondent

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…1 NR Co. ITA 101 of 2021 अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Virtual hearing) Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s. N.R. Company, Indore PAN – AAGFN 6169 F … Appellant Vs. PCIT-I, Indore … Respondent Assessee by Shri S.S. Sheetal, Adv. Revenue by Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT Date of Hearing 21.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement 17.01.2022 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order u/s 263 of the I.T. Act…

CIT v. Vikas Polymers

What is CIT v. Vikas Polymers authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Vikas Polymers

M/S Satyam Educational Health & Charitable Trust, Patna vs. Pr. CIT-Central, Patna

M/S Basti Wine Co. (English), Kanpur vs. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Kanpur

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-Circle-1, Mumbai

Anheuser Busch Inbev India Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT, Circle-1, Mumbai

Niagara Financial Consultants P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT, City-6, Mumbai

Varun Khandelwal, New Delhi vs. Prcit-24, New Delhi

Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

Ashokbhai Narshibhai Patel, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

Hilton Group, Surat vs. PCIT(Central), Surat

Hilton Group, Surat vs. PCIT, (Central), Surat

Ramesh Kumar Gordhan Kathiriya, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

Ramesh Kumar Gordhan Kathiriya, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Surat

Shri. Tarsem Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

Sh. Parshotam Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

Priyanka, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

Priya Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

M/S Pardeep Ispat(P) Ltd., Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

Shri Rajeev Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

M/S N.R.Company, Indore vs. Pr . Commissioner of Income Tax- 3(1), Indore