DIT v. Jyoti Foundation

357 ITR 388High Court2013#427 most cited

What is DIT v. Jyoti Foundation authority for?

An assessment order cannot be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer conducted an inquiry and applied their mind during the original assessment, as Explanation 2 to Section 263 does not permit unending inquiries by the revisional authority.

210

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

DIT v. Jyoti Foundation · Section 263 · revisional powers · erroneous and prejudicial · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · non-application of mind · AO's inquiry · original assessment · Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. · Explanation 2 to Section 263 · Delhi High Court

Also reported as

38 Taxmann.com 180219 Taxmann 105

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 132
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenueinadequate enquirymalabar industrialsection 263(1)lack of enquiryrevision u/s 263non application of minderroneous and prejudicialsection 194asection 263section 26section 56(2)

Judgments citing DIT v. Jyoti Foundation

AMAZON SMART COMMERCE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

ITA 3533/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

…mann.com 773 (P&H) - SLP dismissed by Supreme Court in 173 taxmann.com 774 (SC) PCIT vs. Prabhu Poly Pipes Ltd.: 481 ITR 503 (Cal) - SLP dismissed by Supreme Court in 481 ITR 506 (SC) ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd.:343 ITR 329 (Del.) DIT v. Jyoti Foundation: 357 ITR 388 (Del.) CIT v. Leisure Wear Exports Limited: ITA No.1165/2007 (Del) CIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd.: ITA No. 705/2017 (dated 5.9.2017) CIT v. Modicare Ltd.: 759/2016 (dated 20.9.2017) CIT v. Prithvi Raj And Co.: 199 ITR 424 (Del) CIT v. O. P. Seth: 201 ITR 635 (Del) CIT, Mysore v. T. Narayana Pai : 98 ITR 422 (Kar) J.P.Srivastava And S…

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…cases of "lack of inquiry" that such a course of action would be open.” vi) 320 ITR 674 (Del) CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal 11.7 The assessee also seeks to place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) wherein it has been held as under: “4. Revisionary power under Section 263 of the Act is conferred by the Act on the Commissioner/Director of Income-tax when an order passed by the lower authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Orders which are passed without inquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous an…

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…cases of "lack of inquiry" that such a course of action would be open.” vi) 320 ITR 674 (Del) CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal 11.7 The assessee also seeks to place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) wherein it has been held as under: “4. Revisionary power under Section 263 of the Act is conferred by the Act on the Commissioner/Director of Income-tax when an order passed by the lower authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Orders which are passed without inquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous an…

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…cases of "lack of inquiry" that such a course of action would be open.” vi) 320 ITR 674 (Del) CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal 11.7 The assessee also seeks to place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) wherein it has been held as under: “4. Revisionary power under Section 263 of the Act is conferred by the Act on the Commissioner/Director of Income-tax when an order passed by the lower authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Orders which are passed without inquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous an…

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…cases of "lack of inquiry" that such a course of action would be open.” vi) 320 ITR 674 (Del) CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal 11.7 The assessee also seeks to place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) wherein it has been held as under: “4. Revisionary power under Section 263 of the Act is conferred by the Act on the Commissioner/Director of Income-tax when an order passed by the lower authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Orders which are passed without inquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous an…

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…cases of "lack of inquiry" that such a course of action would be open.” vi) 320 ITR 674 (Del) CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal 11.7 The assessee also seeks to place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) wherein it has been held as under: “4. Revisionary power under Section 263 of the Act is conferred by the Act on the Commissioner/Director of Income-tax when an order passed by the lower authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Orders which are passed without inquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous an…

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…cases of "lack of inquiry" that such a course of action would be open.” vi) 320 ITR 674 (Del) CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal 11.7 The assessee also seeks to place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) wherein it has been held as under: “4. Revisionary power under Section 263 of the Act is conferred by the Act on the Commissioner/Director of Income-tax when an order passed by the lower authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Orders which are passed without inquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous an…

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…cases of "lack of inquiry" that such a course of action would be open.” vi) 320 ITR 674 (Del) CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal 11.7 The assessee also seeks to place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) wherein it has been held as under: “4. Revisionary power under Section 263 of the Act is conferred by the Act on the Commissioner/Director of Income-tax when an order passed by the lower authority is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Orders which are passed without inquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous an…

SUNITA KHANDELWAL,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-CENTRAL -1, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3541/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…[2023] 453 ITR 576 (Calcutta)(HC)  PCIT vs. Shree Gayatri Associates [2019] 263 Taxman 673 (Guj.)(HC)  PCIT vs. SN Tradelink (P.) Ltd. [2022] 145 taxmann.com 73 (Gujarat)  PCIT vs. Deccan Jewellers P. Ltd. [2021] 438 ITR 131 (AP)  DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del)  CIT vs. Reliance Communication Ltd. [2016] 240 Taxman 655 (Bom)  Shri Devan Gandhi vs. PCIT (in ITA No. 3745 & 3746/Mum/2016, dated 21.11.2017)(Mum-Trib) 7. The ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) strongly relying upon the observations of ld. PCIT in the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act submitted that the search materials…

SUNITA KHANDELWAL,MUMBAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL)-1, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3540/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…[2023] 453 ITR 576 (Calcutta)(HC)  PCIT vs. Shree Gayatri Associates [2019] 263 Taxman 673 (Guj.)(HC)  PCIT vs. SN Tradelink (P.) Ltd. [2022] 145 taxmann.com 73 (Gujarat)  PCIT vs. Deccan Jewellers P. Ltd. [2021] 438 ITR 131 (AP)  DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del)  CIT vs. Reliance Communication Ltd. [2016] 240 Taxman 655 (Bom)  Shri Devan Gandhi vs. PCIT (in ITA No. 3745 & 3746/Mum/2016, dated 21.11.2017)(Mum-Trib) 7. The ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) strongly relying upon the observations of ld. PCIT in the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act submitted that the search materials…

SUNITA KHANDELWAL,MUMBAI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)-1, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3539/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…[2023] 453 ITR 576 (Calcutta)(HC)  PCIT vs. Shree Gayatri Associates [2019] 263 Taxman 673 (Guj.)(HC)  PCIT vs. SN Tradelink (P.) Ltd. [2022] 145 taxmann.com 73 (Gujarat)  PCIT vs. Deccan Jewellers P. Ltd. [2021] 438 ITR 131 (AP)  DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del)  CIT vs. Reliance Communication Ltd. [2016] 240 Taxman 655 (Bom)  Shri Devan Gandhi vs. PCIT (in ITA No. 3745 & 3746/Mum/2016, dated 21.11.2017)(Mum-Trib) 7. The ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) strongly relying upon the observations of ld. PCIT in the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act submitted that the search materials…

SUNITA KHANDELWAL ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)-1, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3451/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…[2023] 453 ITR 576 (Calcutta)(HC)  PCIT vs. Shree Gayatri Associates [2019] 263 Taxman 673 (Guj.)(HC)  PCIT vs. SN Tradelink (P.) Ltd. [2022] 145 taxmann.com 73 (Gujarat)  PCIT vs. Deccan Jewellers P. Ltd. [2021] 438 ITR 131 (AP)  DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del)  CIT vs. Reliance Communication Ltd. [2016] 240 Taxman 655 (Bom)  Shri Devan Gandhi vs. PCIT (in ITA No. 3745 & 3746/Mum/2016, dated 21.11.2017)(Mum-Trib) 7. The ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short) strongly relying upon the observations of ld. PCIT in the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act submitted that the search materials…

SHANTI RICE MILLS,KARNAL vs. PR.CIT , KARNAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1162/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, F: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.- 1162/Del/2020 [Assessment Year: 2015-16] M/s Shanti Rice Mills, PCIT, C/o Parvesh Kumar Sharma, Karnal Bay Site No.- 25-30, Advocate, 493-L, Model Town, Vs Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana. Karnal. PAN- AAIFS5617B Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Rakesh Jain, Adv. Revenue by Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 22.12.2025 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order…

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

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

ITA 2218/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

…rial Co. Ltd. v, CIT reported in [2000J 243 ITR 83 (SC) (ii) CIT (Central), Ludhiana v, Max India Ltd. reported in [2008J 166 Taxman 188 (SC) (iii) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in [2011J 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (iv) DIT v. Jyoti Foundation reported in [2013J 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) When the AO during the course of original assessment proceedings made extensive inquiries and was satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee, on the basis of which he made addition of commission income, then the order passed by the AO cannot be held as erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for wan…

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

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

ITA 2217/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

…rial Co. Ltd. v, CIT reported in [2000J 243 ITR 83 (SC) (ii) CIT (Central), Ludhiana v, Max India Ltd. reported in [2008J 166 Taxman 188 (SC) (iii) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in [2011J 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (iv) DIT v. Jyoti Foundation reported in [2013J 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) When the AO during the course of original assessment proceedings made extensive inquiries and was satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee, on the basis of which he made addition of commission income, then the order passed by the AO cannot be held as erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for wan…

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

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

ITA 2216/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

…rial Co. Ltd. v, CIT reported in [2000J 243 ITR 83 (SC) (ii) CIT (Central), Ludhiana v, Max India Ltd. reported in [2008J 166 Taxman 188 (SC) (iii) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in [2011J 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (iv) DIT v. Jyoti Foundation reported in [2013J 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) When the AO during the course of original assessment proceedings made extensive inquiries and was satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee, on the basis of which he made addition of commission income, then the order passed by the AO cannot be held as erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for wan…

GAURAV KUMAR ARYA,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT -20, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2000/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Gaurav Kumar Arya, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income 3-P, Pocket-4, Tax, Delhi-20, Kondly Gharoli-Ii, Mayur New Delhi. Vihar, Delhi-1100 96 Pan: Airpa0102C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath & V. RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

…fy the error in the order proposed to be revised, the order of Revision has to be held to be deficient and unsustainable in law. On similar ground, the Delhi High Court quashed the Revision orders passed by the Commissioners in DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation (2013) 357 ITR 388 and CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. (2014) 360 ITR 44. 6. Learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue submitted that regarding explanation to Section 263 of the Act, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgement in PCIT vs. Paramount Propbuild (P) Ltd. 161 taxmann.com 85 (Delhi) [2024] has held as under: 6 ".......23. Therefore, in light…

MRIDUL SHASHIKANT KHANDELWAL ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL)-1, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of

ITA 3645/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…wellers P. Ltd. (2021) 438 ITR 131 (AP)(HC)  PCIT vs Deccan Tobacco Company (2021) 438 ITR 131 (AP)(HC)  PCIT vs Dte Exports P. Ltd. (2021) 438 ITR 131 (AP)(HC)  Smt. Abha Bansal vs PCIT (Central) (2021) 132 taxmann.com 231 (Delhi-Trib)  Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del) (HC)  PCIT vs Smt. ShreelekhaDamani (2018) 307 CTR 218 (Bom) Mridul Shashikant Khandelwal (AY 2018-19 & 2020-21) ITA Nos. 3644 & 3645/Mum/2025  ACIT vs Serajuddin& Co. (2023) 454 ITR 312 (Orissa) (HC) 6. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of PCIT. The ld. CIT-DR submits that assessing officer has not…

MRIDUL SHASHIKANT KHANDELWAL ,MUMBAI vs. PCIT CENTRAL -1, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of

ITA 3644/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…wellers P. Ltd. (2021) 438 ITR 131 (AP)(HC)  PCIT vs Deccan Tobacco Company (2021) 438 ITR 131 (AP)(HC)  PCIT vs Dte Exports P. Ltd. (2021) 438 ITR 131 (AP)(HC)  Smt. Abha Bansal vs PCIT (Central) (2021) 132 taxmann.com 231 (Delhi-Trib)  Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del) (HC)  PCIT vs Smt. ShreelekhaDamani (2018) 307 CTR 218 (Bom) Mridul Shashikant Khandelwal (AY 2018-19 & 2020-21) ITA Nos. 3644 & 3645/Mum/2025  ACIT vs Serajuddin& Co. (2023) 454 ITR 312 (Orissa) (HC) 6. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of PCIT. The ld. CIT-DR submits that assessing officer has not…

TECHNO ELECTRIC & ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD.,NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH vs. P.C.I.T. - 2,, KOLKATA

ITA 971/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, &For Respondent: Ms. Nandini Sureka, Ars
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 263

…isdiction Page 6 ITA No.971/KOL/2025 Techno Electric & Engineering company Limited; A.Y. 2020-21 exercised by the learned PCIT is invalid and may kindly be quashed. The learned Authorized Representative also relied on the decisions of DIT Vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) and ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). Finally, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that the order of learned PCIT passed u/s 263 of the Act may kindly be quashed as being nullity and invalid in the eyes of law. 07. The learned DR on the other hand relied on the order of learned PCIT by submitting that no pr…

Showing 1–20 of 210 · Page 1 of 11

...