Devi, (1988) 171 ITR (Sh.N.) III (Pat); CIT vs. Smt. Devi, (1987) 59 CTR (Pat) 3; CIT v. Bhagwant Kaur

173 ITR 445High Court1988#13589 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Judgments citing Devi, (1988) 171 ITR (Sh.N.) III (Pat); CIT vs. Smt. Devi, (1987) 59 CTR (Pat) 3; CIT v. Bhagwant Kaur

Span Overseas P Ltd, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax -3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 409/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.409/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18 Span Overseas Private Limited, The Principal Office No.5, Amar Avinash Vs Commissioner Of Income Corporate City 11, Bund Garden Tax-3, Pune. Road, Pune – 411006. Pan: Aabcs 4214 N Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ketan Ved – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena – Dr Date Of Hearing 28/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3 Dated 30.03.2022 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 13.11.2019 For A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Span Overseas Private Limited ('The Appellant') Objects To The Order Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Dated March 30, 2022 Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Pune - 3 ('Pr. Cit) For The Aforesaid Assessment Year On The Following Amongst Other Grounds: Span Overseas P. Ltd.,[A]

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

…wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. Duggal & Co. v. CIT [1994] 77 Taxman 331/[1996] 220 ITR 456 (Delhi); CIT v. Pushpa Devi [1986] 29 Taxman 377/[1987] 164 ITR 639 (Pat.) and CIT v. Pushpa Devi [1988] 40 Taxman 375/173 ITR 445 (Pat.). 28. In Amitabh Bachchan case (supra), the assessee had initially claimed additional expenses of 30% of the gross professional receipts (Rs. 3.17 Crores). The AO required the assessee to file requisite details. At that stage, the assessee resisted furnishing details by submitting that such details related to his security and any disclosure…

M/S Kinnor Kinnoree, Kolkata vs. CIT-X, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/KOL/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

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

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

…he order becomes erroneous because such an enquiry was not made and not because there is any – wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. Duggle & Co. V. CIT(1996) 220 ITR 456, 549 (Del) .Also see CIT V. Pushpa Devi (1988) 173 ITR 445 (Pat). The above-stated decisions postulate that when the Officer is expected to make an enquiry of a particular item and if he does not make an enquiry as expected, that would be a ground for the Commissioners to interfere with the order passed by the Officer since such an order passed by the Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest…

Jalinder Tatyasaheb Deshmukh, Beed vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

ITA 2679/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2679/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Jalindertatyasaheb The Commissioner Of Income Deshmukh, Vs Tax, Aurangabad. Anusaya Construction Company, Vidyanagar Parli Vaijnath, Dist. Beed – 431515. Pan: Adwpd 6423 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Shivraj B Moray – Dr Date Of Hearing 04/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Aurangabad For The A.Y.2009-10 Dated 24.03.2014.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit-Aurangabad Was Not Justified In Passing The Revisionary Order Under S. 263 Of The Act When The Original Assessment Order Passed By The A. 0. Cannot Be Branded As Erroneous As Well As Prejudicial To The Interests Of Revenue Since The Perusal Of The Said Assessment Reveals That The Full Investigation Was Made Calling For The Entire Information Needed For Framing The Assessment. The Revisionary Order Is Not Sustainable In Law. It Be Quashed.

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ पुणे म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.2679/PUN/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri JalinderTatyasaheb The Commissioner of Income Deshmukh, Vs Tax, Aurangabad. Anusaya Construction Company, Vidyanagar Parli Vaijnath, Dist. Beed – 431515. PAN: ADWPD 6423 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by None. Revenue by Shri Shivraj B Moray – DR Date of hearing 04/05/2022 Date of pronouncement 23/06/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM…

Biz Secure Labs Private Limited, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Pune

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

ITA 1406/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1406/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman JainFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. Duggal and Co. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax – 220 ITR 456 (Delhi); CIT vs. Pushpa Devi – 164 ITR 639 (Pat.) and CIT vs. Pushpa Devi – 173 ITR 445 (Pat.).” Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT, Nagpur Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., reported in (2017) 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bom) held as follows : “13. The above issue which comes for our consideration is, did the Assessing Officer consider and examine the claim of the respondent before allowing a claim for deduction under…

Shri Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4979/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblesanjay Kumar Vs Cit Prop. Tyagi Associates Meerut H-45, Gandhi Nagar, Garh Road, (Respondent) Meerut Aczpk2030M (Applicant) Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Acit H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Circle-2, Gali No. 3, Garh Road Bhansali Ground Meerut Meerut Acapk2030M (Respondent) (Applicant) Acit Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Circle-2, H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Bhansali Ground Gali No. 3, Garh Road Meerut Meerut (Applicant) Acapk2030M (Respondent)

For Appellant: “1. That the impugned

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

…i (1988) 171 ITR 686 (Pat) " CIT vs.Bibi Khodaija Khatoon, (1988) 171 ITR 11 (Pat) " CIT vs. Smt. Chandrawati Devi, (1988) 171 ITR 111 (Pat) " CIT vs. Smt. Devi (1987) 59 CTR (Pat) 3 " CIT vs. Bhagwant Kaur (1987) 63 CTR (Pat) 326 " CIT vs. Pushpa Devi (1988) 173 ITR 445 (Pat). 8. The Ld. CIT pointed out that gross receipts in the contract account for the year ended on 31/3/2007 as per TDS certificate were at Rs.4,51,09,293/- while the assessee had shown at Rs.3,24,60,558/- against which the huge expenses of Rs.2,91,29,504/- were shown and the only explanation given was the comparison with the preceding year stat…

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2725/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

For Appellant: “1. That the impugned

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

M/S Fazal Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2837/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36

…R 686 (Pat); CIT vs. Bibi Khodaija Khatoon, (1988) 171 ITR (Sh.N.) ii (Pat); CIT vs. Smt. Chandrawati Devi, (1988) 171 ITR (Sh.N.) III (Pat); CIT vs. Smt. Devi, (1987) 59 CTR (Pat) 3; CIT vs. Bhagwant Kaur, (1987) 63 CTR (Pat) 326; CIT vs. Pushpa Devi, (1988) 173 ITR 445 (Pat). 5.6 The Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT Delhi Bench In the case of Shri Virendra Kumar Gupta Vs CIT in ITA No.2595/D/2009 dated 21/01/2011 relying upon aforesaid judgments has held that the facts of the case were in pari-materia with above judgments. Further, on consideration of these cases the Hon'ble IT AT viewed that the ld. CIT was right i…