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

Ashok Kumar Gupta, Faridabad vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the grounds raised are sustained and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 369/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Ashok Kumar Gupta, Vs Pr. Cit, 200, Sec.-7A, Faridabad. Faridabad, Haryana. 121 001 Pan: Aalpg5795M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2023 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Is Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.03.2020 Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. Pcit) Arising Out Of The Order Dated 28.11.2017 Passed U/S. 147/148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward 1(1), Faridabad (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. At The Outset, It Was Pointed Out By Ld. Ar That An Application For Condonation Of Delay Of 324 Days Has Been Filed Supported With An Affidavit. On Hearing Upon The Same, It Comes Up That The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Upto 11.05.2020 & Due To Covid-19 Restrictions, In View Of The Directions Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No.03/2020, The Period Between 15.03.2020 & 28.02.2022 Has To Be Excluded For The Purpose Of Calculation Of Limitation & In The Light Of The Aforesaid, The Delay Is Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Zafarul Haque Tanweer, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

…st of the Revenue. 6. That PCIT cannot initiate proceedings under section 263 merely on the ground that the enquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer was inadequate when the details have been enquired by the Assessing officer [(DIT v. Jyoti Foundation (2013) 357 ITR 388 (Del.)] The Appellant had submitted all the documents pertaining to income of his wife and daughter from which cash was deposited and the same was placed in file. Respondent had grossly erred in ignoring the documentation submitted. 7. That the facts demonstrate that necessary enquiry have been conducted by the Assessing Officer and relevant docu…

Shree Krishna Builders, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result appeal of the assessee M/s Shree Krishna Colonisers in ITA

ITA 96/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 95/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Colonisers V Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 0, Nemichand Gali, Ganj Para Ward S Pcit, Raipur-I No.5, Ram Sagar Para, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Abffs7335G (Ita No. 96/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Builders Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5/425, Nemichand Gali, Ramsagar Para Pcit, Raipur-I Ward, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aacft1716A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14.12.2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 69C

…a Construction Co. (JV) vs CIT in ITA no. 2895/Mum/2014 dated 11.09.2017, relevant findings at para no. 13 & 14 of order. - ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.), relevant findings at 16, 17 & 19 of order. DIT vs Jyoti Foundation (2013) 357 ITR 388 (Del.), relevant findings at para no. 5 of order, following DG Housing's case. ix) In view of this, revision order passed u/s 263 is illegal & unsustainable. 5. Objections taken by assessee (i) Detailed, item-wise objections filed with DVO. DVO considered only some of them and rejected the remaining. (ii) Letter filed before AO, who gave opport…

Shree Krishna Colonisers, Raipur vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result appeal of the assessee M/s Shree Krishna Colonisers in ITA

ITA 95/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 95/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Colonisers V Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 0, Nemichand Gali, Ganj Para Ward S Pcit, Raipur-I No.5, Ram Sagar Para, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Abffs7335G (Ita No. 96/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Builders Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5/425, Nemichand Gali, Ramsagar Para Pcit, Raipur-I Ward, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aacft1716A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14.12.2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 69C

…a Construction Co. (JV) vs CIT in ITA no. 2895/Mum/2014 dated 11.09.2017, relevant findings at para no. 13 & 14 of order. - ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.), relevant findings at 16, 17 & 19 of order. DIT vs Jyoti Foundation (2013) 357 ITR 388 (Del.), relevant findings at para no. 5 of order, following DG Housing's case. ix) In view of this, revision order passed u/s 263 is illegal & unsustainable. 5. Objections taken by assessee (i) Detailed, item-wise objections filed with DVO. DVO considered only some of them and rejected the remaining. (ii) Letter filed before AO, who gave opport…

Pawan Kumar Ruia, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-30, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2238/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 2238/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Pawan Kumar Ruia,...............................Appellant 5, Sunny Park, Kolkata-700019 [Pan: Acnpr3823K] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-30, Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road (South), 5Th Floor, Kolkata-700068 Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate , Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr.D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

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

…ld. Pr. CIT is not agreeing. The ld. A.R., therefore, prayed that revisionary jurisdictional exercise by the ld. PCIT may kindly be quashed. The ld. A.R. relied on a series of decisions in support of his case: (i)Director of Income Tax vs. Jyoti Foundation in 357 ITR 388 (Del); 4 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Pawan Kumar Ruia (ii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), (iii) Gabriel India(1993)203 ITR 108 (Bom); (iv) ITO Vs D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 342 ITR 329(Del). 5. Ld. D.R., on the other hand, submitted that by exercising the revisionary jurisdiction by the ld. PCIT, no prejudice…

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 203/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT
Section 115JSection 263Section 35ASection 36(1)(viia)

…[2008] 174 Taxman 118 SC 16. Rule of Income Tax Rules, 1962 17. CBDT Circular No.9/2006 dated 10-10-2006 18. Zenith Processing Mills Ltd. vs CIT- MANU/GJ/0049/1955 19.CBDT Circular No. 768 dated 24-06-1998 20. Director of Income Tax vs Jyoti Foundation [013] 357 ITR 388 (Del.) 21. Patel L &T Consortium [2016] 65 taxmann.com 48 (Mum.) 22. Sri Mahalakshmi Finance Corpn. Vs ITO 19 ITD 494 (Hyd.)’’ 5.3 The ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the following evidences to support the contentions raised in this appeal ‘’1. Copy of return of income filed u/s 139 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Copy of computation of return…

Kaur Kookies (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-4, New Delhi

Appeal are allowed

ITA 1119/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 263Section 36

…falsity in evidences furnished by the assessee, the order of the Assessing 20 Officer cannot be set aside for making deep inquiry only on the presumption and assumption that something new may come out. 9.1 In the case of DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) it was 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 and prejudicial…

Shiv Laxmi Exports Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT, -5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 544/KOL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ary order and hence cancelled the assessment for being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The ld AR in defense of arguments relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Director of Income Tax vs. Jyoti Foundation in 357 ITR 388 (Del). The ;ld AR also relied on the decision of Adbhut Vinimay Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO ITA No. 2404/Kol/2017 dated 24.10.2018 and Sarowar Goods Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO ITA No. 617/Kol/2020 dated 10.05.2022.The ld AR therefore prayed that the order u/s 263 of the Act may kindly be quashed. 5. The Ld. D.R on the other hand relied heavily on the order of Ld. PCIT…

V.L Jewellers, Delhi vs. Circle-49(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.836/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम V.L. Jewellers, Pr. Commissioner Of 2775, 1St Floor, Gali No. 20-21, Vs. Income Tax, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Circle 49(1), New Delhi. Room No. 1202, 12, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadfv7989A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

…Revenue Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and in Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC)." 8. On the need of the Commissioner to identify the error in the assessment order the Delhi High Court in DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) at pages 394 and 395 observed as under:- “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…

Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 68/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

Shri Sukhjit Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 67/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

Smt Harneet Kaur Juneja, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 66/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

Saif Partners India IV Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Int. Taxation-3(1)(2), Delhi

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

ITA 1138/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Singh – CIT-DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…al to the interest of the Revenue following the ration laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court in the case of the Delhi Airport Metro Express [P] Ltd [supra]. 24. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has observed as under: “In the present case, inquiries were certainly conducted but the Assessing Officer. It is not a case of no inquiry. The order under Section 263 itself records that the Director felt that the inquiries were not sufficient and further inquiries or details should have been called. However, in s…

Rivet Electrical Pvt Ltd, Faridabad vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6225/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., Vs Pr.Cit, Ff-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. Pan-Aafcr8803C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2022

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “F” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Rivet Electrical Pvt.Ltd., vs Pr.CIT, FF-9, Vishnu Place, Faridabad, Near Neelam Flyover, Sec-20B, Haryana. Faridabad, Haryana-121002. PAN-AAFCR8803C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Rajeev Saxena, Adv., Ms. Sumangl Saxena, Adv. & Shri Sahyamsunder, Adv. Respondent by Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 12.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement 15.11.2022 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the Assess…

M/S Uma Glass Works, Agra vs. Pr.CIT.-1, Agra

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

ITA 18/AGR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…I.T.A.Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021/A.Ys.2014-15 & 2015-16 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “DB” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/s Uma Glass Works PCIT, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh. PAN No. AACFU5061D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Shri Ranjan Chopra, CA Revenue by Shri Surende Pal, CIT DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 14.10.2022 02.11.2022 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O…

M/S Uma Glass Works, Firozabad vs. Pr.CIT.-1, Agra

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2014-15 and

ITA 17/AGR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/S Uma Glass Works Pcit, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…I.T.A.Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021/A.Ys.2014-15 & 2015-16 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “DB” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.17 & 18/Agra/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम M/s Uma Glass Works PCIT, 22, Near Industrial Estate, Vs. Agra-1, Firozabad - 283203 Uttar Pradesh. PAN No. AACFU5061D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Shri Ranjan Chopra, CA Revenue by Shri Surende Pal, CIT DR सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of hearing: 14.10.2022 02.11.2022 उ"ोषणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O…

Bhaskar Arvind Kumar Hingad, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT-24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 692/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.692/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Bhaskar Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-24(1) Hingad 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Flat No. 1, Ratnakar Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Building, 26 Narayan Mumbai-400012. Dhabolkar Road, Mumbai- 400006. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacph2812F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2014- 15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…. In the second set of cases, CIT cannot direct the Assessing Officer to conduct further enquiry to verify and find out whether the order passed is erroneous or not." 20. The above view is also supported by the following decisions: - DIT v. Jyoti Foundation (357 ITR 388) (Delhi HC) - CIT v. Ashish Rajpal (320 ITR 674) (Delhi HC) - CIT v. R.K. Construction Co. (313 ITR 65) (Guj HC) 21. As discussed above, we now proceed to examine whether for the five (5) reasons inter alia set out in the SCN, the Ld. Pr. CIT was able to justify his finding in the impugned order that the AO's order was 25 A.Y. 2014-15 Bhaskar Ar…

Radheyshyam Gupta, Kolkata vs. PCIT-9, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 187/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: : Sri Rajpal Yadav & Sri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं"या/ I.T.A. No. 187/कोल/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Radheyshyam Gupta...…………............... (अपीलाथ"/Appellant [Pan: Adjpg 3274 G] Vs. Pcit-9, Kolkata........................................(""यथ")/Respondent Appearances By: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. & Smt. Puja Somani, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Ghayas Uddin, Cit, (D/R), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of The Hearing : July 19Th, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : Sept 09Th, 2022 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-9, Kolkata [In Short

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘A, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA सम" : "ी राजपाल यादव, उपा"य" "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सद"य Before : SRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT & SRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं"या/ I.T.A. No. 187/कोल/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Radheyshyam Gupta...…………............... (अपीलाथ"/Appellant [PAN: ADJPG 3274 G] Vs. PCIT-9, Kolkata........................................(""यथ")/Respondent Appearances by: Sh. S.K. Tulsiyan, Adv. & Smt. Puja Somani, CA, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Md. Ghayas Uddin, CIT, (D/R), appeared on b…

Mayur Khara, Yavatmal vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

In the result, Both the appeals of above mentioned assessee’s are allowed

ITA 64/NAG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Mayur Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8869 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shri Amit Khara Vs. The Pcit Datta Chowk Nagpur-2 Yavatmalm 445 001 (Maharastra) Pan No.:Abwpk 8868 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Above Mentioned Assessees Against Two Different Orders Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Ld. Pr.Cit, Nagpur- 2 Dated 17-02-2017 & 16-02-20217 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Respectively. The Grounds Of Raised By The Above Mentioned Assessees Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…No. 759 of 2017] Hon'ble Delhi High Court has followed its decision in Income- tax Officer v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2013] 212 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/[2012] 20 taxmann.com 587/343 ITR 329, DIT v. Joyti Foundation [2013] 38 taxmann.com 180/219 Taxman 105 (Mag.)/357 ITR 388 (Delhi) and Ld. PCIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P.) Ltd. (supra) to hold that the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act cannot be outsourced by the PCIT to the AO and therefore, the PCIT 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. In the instan…

Dhaneswar Rath Institute of Engineering and Medical Sciences, Cuttack vs. CIT(Exemption), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 134/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 May 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri D.Parida/C.ParidaFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 263

…sets as application of income as P a g e 4 | 21 Assessment Year : 2016-17 all the returns of income were available in the income tax portal to disallow the depreciation. For this proposition, he relied on the following judgments: i) DIT vs Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388 (Del) ii) ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd., 343 ITR 329 (Del) iii) Pr. CIT vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt Ltd., 38 ITR 8(Del) iv) ITAT Cuttack in the case of Sangram Keshari Samantaray vs Pr. CIT in ITA No.12/CTK/2020 order dated 28.10.2021 11. Ld A.R. vehemently pointed out that in the notice u/s.263(1) of the Act and in the impugned order u…

Shri Nitin A Shirgurkar, Belgavi vs. Pr. CIT, Hubbali

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowe

ITA 77/PAN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 194A(3)(iv)Section 263Section 40

…consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. arose subsequent to the order of assessment. Now we examine the following judgements. :- Now we examine the following judgements. : DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JYOTI FOUNDATION 357 ITR 388 (Delhi High Court ) It was held that revisionary power u/s It was held that revisionary power u/s 263 is conferred on the 263 is conferred on the Commissioner/Director of Income Tax when an order passed by the lower Commis…