DIT v. Jyoti Foundation

357 ITR 388High Court2013#429 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 366,470 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

M/S. Rbs Credit & Financial Development Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 3, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1156/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1156/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Rbs Credit & Financial Development Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Pcit-3, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 3300 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A No. 1156/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/s RBS Credit & Financial Development Pvt. Ltd. -vs- PCIT-3, Kolkata [PAN: AABCR 3300 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCA For the Respondent : Shri Md. Usman, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 27.02.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 09.03.2018 ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Kolkata [in short the ld. CIT]…

Startech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 22, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3898/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Startech Engineers, Pr. Commissioner Of G-12, Sinhgarjane Soc. Income Tax-22, बनाम/ Maratha Colony, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Vs. Santracruz (E), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaxfs3063J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri D.C.Saboo & Shri Shyam Saboo राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Manjunatha Swamy-Dr

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ई, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Startech Engineers, Pr. Commissioner of G-12, Sinhgarjane Soc. Income Tax-22, बनाम/ Maratha Colony, Room No.409, 4th Floor, Vs. Santracruz (E), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAXFS3063J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri D.C.Saboo & Shri Shyam Saboo राज"व क"…

Sarlaben Bhansali Charities Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT, (Exemptions), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/KOL/2016[]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2017
Section 11Section 11aSection 12ASection 147Section 148Section 263

…any other records which are available at the time of examination by him and to take into consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. Now we examine the following judgements. :- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court ) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred 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 and prejudicial to the interest of the Rev…

Sarlaben Bhansali Charities Trust, Kolkata vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 663/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011
Section 11Section 11aSection 12ASection 147Section 148Section 263

…any other records which are available at the time of examination by him and to take into consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. Now we examine the following judgements. :- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court ) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred 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 and prejudicial to the interest of the Rev…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

ITA 2807/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

…, impugned revisional order passed by Commissioner directing Assessing Officer to enquire into capacity of donors and to decide about genuineness of gift afresh, was not sustainable.” 4.2. In the case of Director of Income Tax vs. Jyoti Foundation (2013) 357 ITR 388 (Del.) in which it has been held as under : “Where revisionary authority opined that further inquiry was required, such inquiry should have been conducted by revisionary authority himself to record finding that assessment order passed by Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.” 10 ITA.No.2806 & 2807/Del./2016 M/s. Dayanand…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

ITA 2806/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

…, impugned revisional order passed by Commissioner directing Assessing Officer to enquire into capacity of donors and to decide about genuineness of gift afresh, was not sustainable.” 4.2. In the case of Director of Income Tax vs. Jyoti Foundation (2013) 357 ITR 388 (Del.) in which it has been held as under : “Where revisionary authority opined that further inquiry was required, such inquiry should have been conducted by revisionary authority himself to record finding that assessment order passed by Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.” 10 ITA.No.2806 & 2807/Del./2016 M/s. Dayanand…

M/S. Amira Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (C), Gurgaon

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3206/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SA No. 452/DEL/2017 & [Assessment Year: 2014-15] M/s Amira Enterprises Ltd Vs. The Pr.C.I.T 54, Prakriti Marg, Sultanpur Farms Central Mehrauli, New Delhi Gurgaon PAN : AAGCA 5057 J [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 07.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2017 Assessee by : Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv Revenue by : Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT- DR ORDER PER B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ord…

M/S. Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (C), Gurgaon

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3205/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…it becomes incumbent on the ld. PCIT to conduct such enquiry. Further in LD. PCIT v. Modicare Limited [ITA No. 759/2017] Delhi High Court has followed its decision in Income Tax Officer v. DG Housing Projects Limited [343 ITR 329], DIT v. Jyoti Foundation [357 ITR 388] and LD. PCIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (supra) to hold that the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act cannot be outsourced by the CIT to the AO and therefore, the CIT cannot direct the AO to provide details of the facts on the basis of which the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act could have been initiated. 16. In the instant c…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3752/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘डी’ ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘D’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. CIT, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.ABHPG0909N ITA No.3748 to 3752/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Dev Steel Pr. CIT, 605, 6th Floor, Central-4, बनाम/ Thacker Tower, Mumbai Vs.…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3748/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘डी’ ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘D’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. CIT, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.ABHPG0909N ITA No.3748 to 3752/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Dev Steel Pr. CIT, 605, 6th Floor, Central-4, बनाम/ Thacker Tower, Mumbai Vs.…

Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3747/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, ‘डी’ ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘D’ MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. CIT, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.ABHPG0909N ITA No.3748 to 3752/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2006-07 to 2010-11 M/s Dev Steel Pr. CIT, 605, 6th Floor, Central-4, बनाम/ Thacker Tower, Mumbai Vs.…

Saregama India Limited, Kolkata vs. CIT-I, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1254/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Sept 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…ords which are available at the time of examination by him and to take into consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. We now examine the following judgments on this issue :- DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court ) It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred 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 and prejudicial to the interest of the Rev…

Sonali Jewellers, Cuttack vs. Principal CIT, Cuttack Charge, Cuttack

ITA 162/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Sept 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ng any enquiry to show that the conclusions arrived at by the Assessing Officer in respect of loans in question was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 11. We find that in the case of Director of Income Tax vs Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388 (Del), Hon’ble High Court has held that “Revisionary power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 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 interests of the Revenue. Orders which are passed without inquiry or investigation are treated…

Metakaps Engineering & Mahendra Construction Co . (Jv), Mumbai vs. CIT 18, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2895/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 2895/Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Metacaps Engineering & The Commissioner Of Income-Tax-18 Mahendra Construction Co.(J.V) बिधम/ Mumbai B-2, Kamdar Park, Vs. Ghokhale Road Dadar (West), Mumbai-400 028 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaaam8326J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent :

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ed by the CIT under Sec. 263 was not sustainable in the eyes of law, relied on the following judicial pronouncements: (i). CIT Vs. Vikas Polymers (2012) 341 ITR 537 (Del) (ii). DIT Vs. Jyoti Foundation P a g e | 12 M/s Metacaps Engineering Vs. CIT (2013) 357 ITR 388 (Del) (iii). CIT Vs. Escorts Ltd. (2011) 338 ITR 435 (Del) (iv). A.V. Industries Vs. DCIT (Mum) (ITA No. 3469/Mum/2010; dated. 06.11.2015) (v). Jayanth Murthy Vs. DCIT (ITA No. 870 and 1234/Ahd/2014; dated. 20.05.2016) (vi).Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO (70 taxmann.com 227) 9. Per contra, the ld. Departmental representative (for short „D.R‟) s…

Infinity Infotech, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Dilip S.Damle, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 35Section 35(1)(iii)Section 35A

…oIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A No. 329/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd. -vs.- D.C.I.T., Circle-2(1), Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AABCI 0692 J] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : Shri Dilip S.Damle, FCA & Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, ACA For the Respondent : Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 24.05.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 02.06.2017. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 12.01.2017 of Commissioner of Income Tax-I (CIT),…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-Cir-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3494/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Procter & Gamble Cit-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp6332M

Section 263Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, सी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/s Procter & Gamble CIT-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.AAACP6332M "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Yogesh Thar and Ms. Moksha Mehta Shri Subachan Ram CIT-DR राज…

Technip Uk Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4284/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillai[Assessment Year: 2008-09] Technip Uk Limited Vs. The D.I.T. C/O Bmr & Associates Llp International - Ii 22Nd Floor, Building No. 5 New Delhi Tower ‘A’, Dlf Cyber City, Dlf Phase Iii, Gurgaon Haryana Pan : Aacct 8268 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Arora, Sr- DR
Section 263Section 4Section 44BSection 44D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI “D” BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2008-09] Technip UK Limited Vs. The D.I.T. C/o BMR & Associates LLP International - II 22nd Floor, Building No. 5 New Delhi Tower ‘A’, DLF Cyber City, DLF Phase III, Gurgaon Haryana PAN : AACCT 8268 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Ajay Vohra, Adv Shri Anshul Sachar, Adv Shri Anuj Agarwal Revenue by: Shri Anuj Arora, Sr- DR Date of hearing : 24.01.2017 Date of pronouncement : 24.04.2017 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- T…

Sh. Braham Dev Gupta, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2102/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Adv., Sanjiv Jain CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…r prejudicial to the interests 22 Assessment year: 2011-12 of the Revenue unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law.” The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel are as under:- i) Director of Income Tax vs Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del.) “Revisionary power under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 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 interests of the Revenue. Orders which are passed without inquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous and prejudicial to t…

M/S Mewat Grit Udyog, New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1802/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, advocate&For Respondent: Smt.Sulekha Verma, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 263Section 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITANo. 1802/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mewat Grit Udyog, vs. Pr. CIT, C/o RRA Taxindia, D-28, Delhi. South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi. PAN AABFM 5886M (Applicant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Gautam Jain, advocate& Shri Lalit Kumar, Advocate Respondent by: Smt.Sulekha Verma, CIT/DR Date of hearing: 05/12/2019 Date of order : 14/01/2020 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M. Aggrieved by the order dated 24/3/2015 under section 263 of the Income Tax Ac…

Riverbank Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT -4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1329/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

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

…not establish any specific ground on which he found that the assessment order was erroneous for the reason that deduction for any specific expenditure was wrongly allowed. Relying on the judgments of the Delhi High Court in the case of DIT VsJyoti Foundation (357 ITR 388)&ITO Vs D.G. Housing Projects Ltd (343 ITR 329), the Ld AR submitted that once the assessee had brought before the CIT, the relevant material, information and documents to disprove his charge in the SCN then the CIT could not merely set aside the assessment for carrying out verification of the relevant facts without himself recording factual find…