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 366,459 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

Pratap Singh Rathi, Ghaziabad vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Kanpur

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 502/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Sh. Pratap Singh Rathi, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of C-143, Surya Nagar, Income Tax , Ghaziabad Knp At Meerut Pin 201 001 Pan No. Ahkpr0582M (Appellant)M (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shrey Jain &For Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…rejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5.4 Reliance is also placed on the following judicial decisions: 7 i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (2000) 243 ITR 83(SC). ii) Housing Projects Ltd, 74 DTR 153, High Court of Delhi. iii) DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388, High Court of Delhi. iv) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., (2011) 332 ITR 167, High Court of Delhi. 5.5 Further, reliance is also placed on the following decisions given by various Income Tax Appellate Tribunals wherein the claim u/s 10(38) involving the same scrip i.e., CCL International Ltd. was allowed by holding the scrip as a genuine scrip and not…

Bhagwati Steel Processors, Chandigarh vs. PCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 435/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…(Bom)] - held that absence of discussion in the order does not mean lack of inquiry. Ο Nirav Modi [390 ITR 292 (Bom)), Shashi Bhushan Gupta [202 TTJ UO 30], Delhi Airport Metro Express [398 ITR 8], Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. [372 ITR 303], Jyoti Foundation [357 ITR 388], Brahma Centre Development (P) Ltd. [437 ITR 285], among others, reiterate that once inquiry is made and a possible view taken by the AO, the same cannot be revised under Section 263 unless the PCIT undertakes fresh verification and demonstrates how the AO's conclusion is erroneous and prejudicial. 6. The Ld. CIT-DR supported the revision order,…

Dlf Home Developers Limited, New Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2585/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Dlf Home Developers Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Sansad Delhi-1, Marg, New Delhi-110001. New Delhi Pan-Aaccd0037H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Singhvi, Ca & Shri Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 143(3)Section 263

…re Foods Pvt.Ltd. vs PCIT [ITAT, Delhi] dated 29.11.2017 53. The Ld.AR for the assessee also placed reliance on the following judgements on the issue that Ld. PCIT cannot give blanket direction under revisional proceedings:- [a] DIT vs Jyoti Foundation [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Delhi HC) [b] PCIT vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt.Ltd. [2017] [c] PCIT vs Mohak Real Estate (P.) Ltd. [2024] 161 taxmann.com 388 (Delhi) [d] CIT vs R K Jain Infra Projects P.Ltd. [2024] 297 taxman 369 (SC) [e] CIT vs Gopal Sharma [2024] 298 Taxman 49 (Calcutta) [f] Kiaxon Trading Pvt.Ltd. [TS-728-HC-2023 (Del)] He thus prayed that the order…

Venetian Ldf Projects LLP, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3533/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

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

…om 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.Sr…

Jarnail Singh, Bilaspur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 395/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 263

…y and in support of the said proposition, reliance was placed on the following decisions: • PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P.) Ltd. 398 ITR 8 (Delhi) • ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) • Director of Income Tax Vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) 26. It was further submitted that the application of mind of the AO is evident from the assessment order passed u/s 147 read with 143(3). It depicts that in respect of the major issue for which the case was re-opened i.e transactions in commodity trading, proper inquiry was made by the Assessing officer during the course of assessment pr…

Jarnail Singh, Bilaspur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 394/CHANDI/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 263

…y and in support of the said proposition, reliance was placed on the following decisions: • PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P.) Ltd. 398 ITR 8 (Delhi) • ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) • Director of Income Tax Vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) 26. It was further submitted that the application of mind of the AO is evident from the assessment order passed u/s 147 read with 143(3). It depicts that in respect of the major issue for which the case was re-opened i.e transactions in commodity trading, proper inquiry was made by the Assessing officer during the course of assessment pr…

M/S N.A.M. Expressway Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.580/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) N.A.M.Expressway Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) Delhi Hyderabad [Pan : Aadcn3131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms Ananya Kapoor & Shri Tarun Chanana, Ar (Through Virtual Mode) रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 28/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad-4 Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19 On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Salil KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 43B

…Supreme Court in light of provisions of section 263 held as under : 18 M/s N.A.M.Expressway Limited 19 M/s N.A.M.Expressway Limited 16. The assessee had also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. (2013) 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in light of section 263 held as under : 17. The assessee had also relied upon the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Dena Bank Vs.PCIT-2, Mumbai in ITA No.2159/Mum/2018. The ITAT, in light of provisions of section 263 and explanation 2 held as under : “10. We have heard both the parties, perused the material…

Chintamani Commodities, Jhilmil Industrial Area vs. PCIT, Delhi

ITA 2610/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhchintamani Commodities Vs. Pcit, 20 A-20, Jhilmil Industrial Room No. 106, Vikas Area, Shahdhra Bhawan, I P Estate Delhi - 110095 Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No:Aagfc9374B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. R.S. Singhvi, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Surender Pal, CIT, DR
Section 147Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…1 Chintamani Commodities THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chintamani Commodities Vs. PCIT, 20 A-20, Jhilmil Industrial Room No. 106, Vikas Area, Shahdhra Bhawan, I P Estate Delhi - 110095 Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No:AAGFC9374B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. R.S. Singhvi, CA & Sh. Rajat Garg, CA Respondent by : Sh. Surender Pal, CIT, DR Date of Hearing 17.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement 28.11.2024 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee…

Kandy Gold Private Limited, Haryana vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2562/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S Kandy Gold Pcit, Rohtak Private Limited, R R Singla & Co., 106- Vs. 107, Maharaja Agrasen Shopping Complex, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Aadcr4278F

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

…ITA No.2562/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/S KANDY GOLD PCIT, ROHTAK PRIVATE LIMITED, R R SINGLA AND CO., 106- Vs. 107, MAHARAJA AGRASEN SHOPPING COMPLEX, SECTOR-9, ROHINI, DELHI-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) AADCR4278F Assessee by Shri R R Singhla, CA Respondent by Shri Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 10/09/2024 Date of Pronouncement 12/11/2024 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR,JM: The appeal filed by assessee is against order dated 28.03.2024 of the Learned Principal Commissio…

Sandeep Kumar, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1545/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1544/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2015-16) ITA No.1542/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14) Sandeep Kumar ITO House No.317, Ward-2(3), C.R. Building Sector-8, Faridabad Vs. Faridabad-121001 Haryana-121006 PAN:AHIPG5861A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri KVSR Krishna, Adv. Respondent by Shri Sujit Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 07/08/2024 Date of Pronouncement 18/10/2024 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: 1. These bunch of four appeals of the Asse…

Sandeep Kumar, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1542/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1544/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2015-16) ITA No.1542/Del/2024 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14) Sandeep Kumar ITO House No.317, Ward-2(3), C.R. Building Sector-8, Faridabad Vs. Faridabad-121001 Haryana-121006 PAN:AHIPG5861A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri KVSR Krishna, Adv. Respondent by Shri Sujit Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 07/08/2024 Date of Pronouncement 18/10/2024 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: 1. These bunch of four appeals of the Asse…

Smt. Sharda, Harsud, Khandwa vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

ITA 263/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 54B

…Central), Ludhiana v. Max India Ltd. reported in [2008] 166 Taxman 188 (SC) (iii) CIT v. Nirma Chemicals Works P. Ltd. 182 taxman 183 (Gujarat) (iv) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (v) DIT v. Jyoti Foundation reported in [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the AO has not utter a word in the assessment order regarding the inquiry conducted on this issue but the assessment order is a non- speaking order passed by the AO completely silent about the inquiry or examination and verification of any evidences on the issue. Thus, Ld. DR has submitted…

Shri Premnarayan, Harsud, Khandwa vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeals of the assesse in ITANo

ITA 262/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Premnarayan Pcit (1) 31, Somgaon Khurd, Aaykar Bhawan Harsud, Vs. Indore Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Cjzpp1164J Smt. Sharda Pcit (1) A/45, Naya Harsud, Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Khandwa Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Fdxps2997P Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2024

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 54B

…Central), Ludhiana v. Max India Ltd. reported in [2008] 166 Taxman 188 (SC) (iii) CIT v. Nirma Chemicals Works P. Ltd. 182 taxman 183 (Gujarat) (iv) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (v) DIT v. Jyoti Foundation reported in [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the AO has not utter a word in the assessment order regarding the inquiry conducted on this issue but the assessment order is a non- speaking order passed by the AO completely silent about the inquiry or examination and verification of any evidences on the issue. Thus, Ld. DR has submitted…

Narendra Kumar Agrawal, Burhanpur vs. PCIT Indore-1, Indore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 345/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaninarendra Kumar Agrawal Pcit (1) 203, Ck Campus Aaykar Bhawan Bahadarpur Road Vs. Indore Burhanpur (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adapa0131B Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra, Ars Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 20.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2024

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

…rial Co. Ltd. v. CIT reported in [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) (ii) CIT (Central), Ludhiana v. Max India Ltd. reported in [2008] 166 Taxman 188 (SC) (iii) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) (iv) DIT v. Jyoti Foundation reported in [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) 3.2 Ld. AR has submitted that when the AO during the course of original assessment as well as reassessment proceedings made extensive inquiries and was satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee then the order passed by the AO cannot be held as erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for want of in…

Mahesh Reddy, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bengaluru

ITA 1379/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Sri K.R. Pradeep, A.R. & Ms. Girija G.P., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Kiran D., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…er would imply and mean the CIT has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question.” 6.14 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax Vs. Jyoti Foundation (357 ITR 388) (Delhi) has also held that where revisionary authority opined that further enquiry was required, such enquiry should have been conducted by revisionary authority himself to record finding that assessment order passed by the AO was erroneous and pre judicial to the interest of the revenue. This principle is also based on Hon'ble Delhi High court…

M.C.Jewels P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 969/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2017-18 M/S. M C Jewels P. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, 3222/30, Beadon Pura, New Delhi. Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110 005 Pan Aadcm9030C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 37

…erred in not considering the replies by the assessee in true perspective. 18. As such it is evident that the Learned PCIT pointed out the errors in the assessment order, had not made any inquiries. 19. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in DCIT vs. Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388 observed that “Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on the merits, the Commissioner of Income-tax has to come to the conclusion and himself decide that the order is erroneous, by conducting necessary enquiry, if required and necessary, before the order under section 263 is passed. In such cases, the order of the Assessing Officer will be er…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…, as in the case of CIT Vs Leisure Ware Exports Ltd. 341 ITR 166 (Del) that the provisions of Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked to make deeper enquiry in presumption and assumption that something new may come out. 15.4 In “DCIT Vs Jyoti Foundation” 357 ITR 388 (Del), it has been held that orders passed without enquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, but orders which are passed after enquiry/investigation on the question/issue are not per-se or normally treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue because the revisionar…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…, as in the case of CIT Vs Leisure Ware Exports Ltd. 341 ITR 166 (Del) that the provisions of Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked to make deeper enquiry in presumption and assumption that something new may come out. 15.4 In “DCIT Vs Jyoti Foundation” 357 ITR 388 (Del), it has been held that orders passed without enquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, but orders which are passed after enquiry/investigation on the question/issue are not per-se or normally treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue because the revisionar…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…, as in the case of CIT Vs Leisure Ware Exports Ltd. 341 ITR 166 (Del) that the provisions of Section 263 of the Act cannot be invoked to make deeper enquiry in presumption and assumption that something new may come out. 15.4 In “DCIT Vs Jyoti Foundation” 357 ITR 388 (Del), it has been held that orders passed without enquiry or investigation are treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, but orders which are passed after enquiry/investigation on the question/issue are not per-se or normally treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue because the revisionar…

Roop Kumar Chopra, Jaipur vs. PCIT Jaipur 1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 264/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Him By The Assessee In Compliance To The Notice Notices Issued To Him U/S 142(1) As Well As U/S 143(2) Of The Act By The Ao As Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue For The Purpose Of Section 263 Of The Act & Consequently Setting Aside The Assessment Order Passed Dated 01-01-2021 To Be Made Afresh Made Is Most Arbitrarily, Unjust, Untenable & Liable To Be Vacated.’’

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…humble appellant that in the present case also the order was made by the A.O. after due verification of the details submitted. 7. The assessee further places reliance on the judgments in the case of CIT v/s. Valliammal 230 ITR 695 and DIT v/s Jyoti foundation 357 ITR 388 wherein the honorable court held that this section cannot be invoked by ignoring a genuine transactionor on the ground that verification of accounts was needed. The assesseealsoplaces reliance on the case of CIT v/s. Reliance Communication Limited 396 ITR 217. In this judgment it was held that if the AO has inquired into the issue before passing…