Demag A.G v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

53 ITD 533Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1995#12857 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 56(i)(ccv)section 80p(2)(i)assessment order erroneouslack of enquirysection 80p(4)section 80p(2)(a)erroneous and prejudicialsection 80p(2)(d)section 80p(2)(a)(i)section 80p(2)limited scrutinysection 56

Judgments citing Demag A.G v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The Mullanpur Garibdas Co-Op Multipurpose Society, Mohali vs. DCIT, C-6(1), Mohali

ITA 645/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT, DR
Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…sionary provisions u/s 263 of the Act; and that hence, the revisionary proceedings initiated u/s 263 were vitiated in law. While holding so, the decisions in ‘CIT Vs Chandan Magrag Parmar’, (2022) 445 ITR 674 (Bom), ‘A.G.Mannesmann Demag Vs Dy. CIT’ (1995) 53 ITD 533 (Del); and ‘CIT Vs Sohana Woollen Mills’ (2008) 296 ITR 238 (P&H) were relied on. 23.1 Further still, in 'Sh. Narain Singla Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Ludhiana', 62 taxman.com 255, the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal has held that if there was an enquiry, even inadequate, that would not, by itself, give occasion to…

The Mullanpur Garibdas Co-Op Multipurpose Society, Mullanpur vs. Pr. CIT-II, Chandigarh

ITA 569/CHANDI/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT, DR
Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…sionary provisions u/s 263 of the Act; and that hence, the revisionary proceedings initiated u/s 263 were vitiated in law. While holding so, the decisions in ‘CIT Vs Chandan Magrag Parmar’, (2022) 445 ITR 674 (Bom), ‘A.G.Mannesmann Demag Vs Dy. CIT’ (1995) 53 ITD 533 (Del); and ‘CIT Vs Sohana Woollen Mills’ (2008) 296 ITR 238 (P&H) were relied on. 23.1 Further still, in 'Sh. Narain Singla Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Ludhiana', 62 taxman.com 255, the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal has held that if there was an enquiry, even inadequate, that would not, by itself, give occasion to…

The Mullanpur Garibdas Co-Op Multipurpose Society, Mohali vs. Pr. CIT-II, Chandigarh

ITA 515/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT, DR
Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…sionary provisions u/s 263 of the Act; and that hence, the revisionary proceedings initiated u/s 263 were vitiated in law. While holding so, the decisions in ‘CIT Vs Chandan Magrag Parmar’, (2022) 445 ITR 674 (Bom), ‘A.G.Mannesmann Demag Vs Dy. CIT’ (1995) 53 ITD 533 (Del); and ‘CIT Vs Sohana Woollen Mills’ (2008) 296 ITR 238 (P&H) were relied on. 23.1 Further still, in 'Sh. Narain Singla Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Ludhiana', 62 taxman.com 255, the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal has held that if there was an enquiry, even inadequate, that would not, by itself, give occasion to…

Jmg Greens Promoters & Developers, Sirhind vs. Pr. CIT, Patiala

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

ITA 410/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 410/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 J M G Green Promoters & Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of बनाम Income Tax, Developers, Patiala Opp. Jain Mandir, Chandigarh Road, Sirhind 140406 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaifj0737F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.: The Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala (Herein Referred To As ‘Pcit’ ) Dated 29.03.2022, For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. In Fact, An Application Dated 23.4.2024, Was Filed By The Ld. Counsel Of The Assessee Taking An Additional Ground Of Appeal, Which 410-Chd-2022 –J M G Greens Promoters & Developers, Sirhind 2 Was Later On Merged With The Revised Grounds Of Appeal Filed On 24.4.2024. 3. The Revised Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: -.

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ot be contrary to the spirit of the scheme of the Act and the powers of the Commissioner under section 263.” 17. This matter has also been considered by the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of ‘Mannnesmann Demag A.G. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax’, 53 ITD 533 Delhi dated 20.3.1995 wherein it has been held as under:- "13. We have given our careful consideration to the rival contentions and have perused the records. The contention raised on behalf of the assessee that the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 based on the audit objection is invalid and contrary to law is not well-fou…

Deepan Mangi, Sirhind vs. Pr. CIT, Patiala

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

ITA 409/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 409/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Deepan Mangi, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of बनाम Income Tax, H.No. 3051, Mangi Niwas, Patiala Dera Baba Mangal Nath Street, Sirhind 140406 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ajypm5231A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.05.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.: The Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala (Herein Referred To As ‘Pcit’ ) Dated 27.03.2022. 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 263

…not be contrary to the spirit of the scheme of the Act and the powers of the Commissioner under section 263.” 8. This matter has also been considered by the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of ‘Mannnesmann Demag A.G. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax’, 53 ITD 533 Delhi dated 20.3.1995 wherein it has been held as under:- 409-Chd-2022 – Deepan Mangi, Sirhind 6 "13. We have given our careful consideration to the rival contentions and have perused the records. The contention raised on behalf of the assessee that the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 263 based on the audit objection is i…

Ajay Grover, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- I(1), Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 532/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaajay Grover, Vs. Ito, Prop. Of M/S. R.R. Enterprises, Ward-1(1), Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Faridabad Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Agxpg6032B Ajay Grover, Vs. Pr. Cit, Prop. Of M/S. R.R. Enterprises, Faridabad Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Agxpg6032B

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveeen Sidhrath, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…vaskar vs. ITO, (2016) 47 ITR (2016) 47 ITR (TRib.) 0243/ (2016) 134 DTR 0113, ITAT Bombay Bench. 7. On the other hand the ld DR relied on the judgment of the coordinate bench of Delhi in Mannesmann Demag A. G. Vs. DCIT decided on 20.03.1995 reported in 1995 53 ITD 533 Delhi to contend that the audit objection are one of the source of information and can be foundation for exercising revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act. 8. Giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record it can be observed without doubt that the show cause notice issued u/s 263 is a verbatim reproduction of the audit objection. However,…

Sh. Ajay Grover, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4113/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaajay Grover, Vs. Ito, Prop. Of M/S. R.R. Enterprises, Ward-1(1), Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Faridabad Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Agxpg6032B Ajay Grover, Vs. Pr. Cit, Prop. Of M/S. R.R. Enterprises, Faridabad Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Agxpg6032B

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. Praveeen Sidhrath, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…vaskar vs. ITO, (2016) 47 ITR (2016) 47 ITR (TRib.) 0243/ (2016) 134 DTR 0113, ITAT Bombay Bench. 7. On the other hand the ld DR relied on the judgment of the coordinate bench of Delhi in Mannesmann Demag A. G. Vs. DCIT decided on 20.03.1995 reported in 1995 53 ITD 533 Delhi to contend that the audit objection are one of the source of information and can be foundation for exercising revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act. 8. Giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record it can be observed without doubt that the show cause notice issued u/s 263 is a verbatim reproduction of the audit objection. However,…

Gujarat Fisheries Centre Co .Operative Association Limited, Ahmedabda vs. ITO, Wrad-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 232/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT-D.R
Section 263Section 271Section 80Section 80PSection 80P(2)

…e claim of the assessee was allowed without analysis of facts of the case/incorrect application of law by the AO and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee to present his case. The Delhi ITAT in the case of MannesmannDemag A.G. v. DCIT [1995] 53 ITD 533 (Delhi)[20-03-1995] held that Commissioner can exercise jurisdiction under section 263 on basis of audit objection provided he applies his own mind before deciding whether any action is warranted under section 263 of the Act. In the instant facts, since Ld. Pr. CIT has duly applied his mind on various issues, therefore, on jurisdiction, we find no…

Demag A.G v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (53 ITD 533) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax