How many judgments cite Duggal & Co. v. CIT?

84 judgments on BharatTax cite Duggal & Co. v. CIT (220 ITR 456), spanning 2009 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Duggal & Co. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 263, Section 271(1)(c), Section 40A(2)(b), Section 43B, Section 69C.

Duggal & Co. v. CIT

220 ITR 456High Court1996#1362 most cited

What is Duggal & Co. v. CIT authority for?

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct a proper inquiry or investigation, even if the return appears prima facie correct. The Income-tax Officer has a duty to investigate and cannot remain passive.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Duggal & Co. v. CIT · Section 263 · erroneous and prejudicial · inadequate enquiry · failure to investigate · Assessing Officer duty · revision of assessment · lack of inquiry · ITO investigator · limited scrutiny

Also reported as

77 Taxmann 331

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263 Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 43B Section 69C Section 110 Section 119

Issues it is cited on

malabar industrial inadequate enquiry section 263(1)lack of enquiry erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 26 limited scrutiny income-tax officer revenue expenditure capital expenditure scrutiny assessment

Judgments citing Duggal & Co. v. CIT

Keshav Saraf, Kolkata vs. PCIT-15, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 156/KOL/2021[2015-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2022AY 2015-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 108Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ITA No. 156/KOL/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Keshav Saraf IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 156/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Keshav Saraf,.....................................................................................Appellant Satyanarayan Park, A.C. Market, Upper Basement, D-120, 141, Cotton Street, Kolkata-700007 [PAN: EPLPS7559G] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,...........................................................................Respondent Ward-43(6), Kolkata, 3, Governm…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Holdings Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jaipur

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 263

…interests of the revenue. Absence of proper inquiring by the AO would render the assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as held in following cases: 1 Jagdish Kumar Gulati vs CIT 269 ITR 71 (Allahabad) 2. Duggal & Co. 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) 3. K.A. Rama Swami Chettiar vs CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad) 9. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons discussed above, the assessment order dated 27-12-2019 for A.Y. 2017-18 passed by the AO is held erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue for the purpose of section 263 of the…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Food Industries Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Incometax-1, Jaipur

ITA 191/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us On The Following Grounds In This Appeal;

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 191/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Food Principal Commissioner of Industries Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax-1, Jaipur 603 Elements Mall, 6th Floor Ajmer Road, Jaipur- 302021. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAHCR 1374 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh v…

Rajendra and Ursula Joshi Skill Development Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Jaipur

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 190/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 263

Anup Enterprises, Mumbai vs. The Principal CIT-19, Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 1641/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalanup Enterprises, 41, 4Th Floor, Neelkamal, Pedder Road, Mumbai-400026 Pan: Aaafa5067D ...... Appellant Vs. The Pr.Cit-19, Room No. 228, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai-400007 ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-19, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Ld. Pr.Cit) Dated 22.03.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 263Section 263(1)Section 3

…3 includes the failure to make such an inquiry. The order becomes erroneous because such an inquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct [Duggal & Co. v. CIT. (1996) 220 ITR 456, 459 (Del)]. CIT v. Pushpa Devi, (1987) 164 ITR 639 (Pat): CIT v. Smt. Rambha Devi, (1987) 164 ITR 858 (Pat). The above stated decisions postulate that when the Officer is expected to make an inquiry of a particular item of income and if he does not make an inquiry as expected, that would be a ground for the Commissioner to interfere with the ord…

Neelam Medatwal, Jaipur vs. Pcti-1, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 62/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…terests of the revenue. Absence of proper inquiring by the AO would render the assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue as held in following cases: 1. Jagdish Kumar Gulati vs. CIT 269 ITR 71 (Allahabad) 2. Duggal & Co. 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) 3. K.Am Rama Swami Chettiar vs. CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad.) 1. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tara Devi Agarwal vs. CIT [(1973) 88 ITR 323] in which Hon’ble CCourt stated that where a stereotype order is passed, which simply accepts what the assessee has said in the return and falls to make enquiries which are called for in the circumsta…

Mahalaxmi Kundan Meena Diamond Jewellers P Ltd, Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-1, Jaipur

ITA 119/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Avdesh Kumar (CIT)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…interest of the revenue. Absence of proper inquiring by the AO would render the assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as held in following cases:- 1. Jagdish Kumar Gulati vs CIT 269 ITR 71 (Allahabad) 2. Duggal & Co. 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) 3. K.A. Rama Swami Chettiar vs CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad.) 12. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons discussed above, the assessment order dated 25-12-2019 for A.Y. 2017-18 passed by the AO is held erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue for the purpose of section 263 of th…

M/S. Coretech Ventures (Bangalore) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, Bangalore

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

ITA 746/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Coretech Ventures (Bangalore) Pvt. Ltd., The Principal Divyasree Chambers’ Commissioner Of Wing-A, O Shaugnessy Income Tax, Road, Bengaluru – 2, Langford Town, Vs. Bengaluru. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aafcc2775E Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Assessee By Advocate : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 30/03/2021 Passed By Ld.Pcit, Bangalore -2 U/S. 263 Of The Act For A.Y. 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of Revision Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru -2, Bengaluru, Under Section 263 Of The Act Dated 30/03/2021, In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case.

For Respondent: Shri V. Chandrashekar

Section 143Section 263Section 80Section 801A

…osed to accept a claim in the absence of supporting materials:  Rampyari Devi Saraogi v.CIT reported in (1968) 67 ITR 84  Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT reported in (1973) 88 ITR 323 Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Duggal & Co. v. CIT reported in (1996) 220 ITR 456 and GeeVee Enterprises reported in (1975) 99ITR 375, observed that, failure of the AO to investigate into facts in the return calling for enquiries makes the order erroneous. 17. In case of lack of enquiry or in case of failure of the Ld.AO to investigate the claim made in the return, the order of the Ld.AO would be considered to be erroneous. Pe…

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

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

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

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

Raj Kishore Prusty, Kendrapara vs. Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/CTK/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2016-17 Raj Kishore Prusty,At: Nuapatna, Raj Kishore Prusty,At: Nuapatna, Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1 Po: Chandol, Dist: Kendrapara Po: Chandol, Dist: Kendrapara Pan/Gir No. No.Atdpp 8328 E (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca D.Parida, Ca Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam, Manoj Kumar Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 8 /3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/ /4/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Pr. Cit-1, Bhubaneswar 1, Bhubaneswar U/S.263 Of The Act Dated 26.3.2021 U/S.263 Of The Act Dated 26.3.2021 For The Assessment Year .2016-17. 17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Goutam

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

…y which shows lack of application of mind, failure to conduct enquiry with due diligence before passing the order would make the order erroneous. Reference in this context is invited to the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Duggal & Co v. CIT (1996) 226 ITR 456(Del), wherein it has been held as under: "The ITO is not only an adjudicator, but also an investigator. He cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls further enquiry It is incumbent on the AO to further investigate the facts stated in the return, when circumstances would makes such an enquiry prudent. The…

Pawan Kumar Agarwal, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT - 12, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1357/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Satish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

…unt in absence of any supporting material and without making any inquiry. It is incumbent on the officer to investigate the facts stated in the return. The order becomes erroneous if such enquiry has not b n made as held in case of Duggal & Co. Vis CIT (1996) 220 ITR 456 (Del.).” 8. Ld. PCIT has also invoked Explanation 2 to section 263 in his order and accordingly, he set aside the assessment to make the assessment de novo. 9. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee had submitted point-wise reply of the issues referred to in the show-cause notice and the directions of the order passed u/s 263 by the ld. Pr.CIT…

Pawan Kumar Agarwal, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT - 12, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1355/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Satish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

Pawan Kumar Agarwal, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT - 12, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1354/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Satish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

Icici Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT -2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result we hold that the learned principal

ITA 737/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Icici Bank Limited The Dy. Commissioner Of Icici Bank Towers, Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, 5 Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (East), Room No.552, Mumbai-400 051 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaci1195H Appellant By : Ms Arati Vissanji, Ar Respondent By : Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.03.2022

For Appellant: Ms Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Chaudhary, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)Section 263(2)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…sment completed in a perfunctory manner and without verifying the nature of expenditure and eligibility of the claim. Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT(1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del)m Addl. CIT v. Mukur Corporation (1978) 111 ITR 312 (Guj), Duggal and Co. v. CIT (1996)220 ITR 456 (Del) and CIT v. South India Shipping Corporation Ltd. (1998) 233 ITR 546 (Mad). In the case of Duggal & Co. V/s. CIT 220 ITR 456 (Del), it is also held that word "erroneous" used in Section 263 of the Act, includes the failure to make enquiries as it is incumbent on the A.O. to investigate the facts stated in the return. The ITAT, Ahmedabad in t…

Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 940/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

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

…ecomes erroneous because such an inquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein as assumed to be correct. 4.8 Reliance if also placed on the following case laws: i. Duggal & Co. vs. CIT, (1996) 220 ITR 456, 459 (Del.) ii. Shri Virendra Kumar Gupta vs. CIT in ITA 2595/D/2009 dated 21.01.2011 (ITAT) , Delhi 8 ITA Nos.939 & 940/Del./2021 5. It is evident from facts of the present cases, as mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs that the AO accepted the version of the assessee without making any proper independent enquiry or verification whereas it is…

Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are

ITA 939/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen, CIT DR

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

Auto Engineers Services Centre, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1104/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P. Roy Chauduri, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…in absence of any supporting material and without making any inquiry. It is incumbent on the officer to investigate the facts stated in the return. The order becomes erroneous if such as enquiry has not been made as held in case of Duggal & Co. V/s CIT (1996) 220 ITR 456 (Del.). 11. Where the Assessing Officer keeps a letter on record and does not carry out necessary investigations which are per se required to verify the correctness of the averments, there being an error in the sense that he has failed to carry out the requisite enquiry which can be rectified in a revision. Thus the Commissioner was to pass a fre…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shri Krishna Mohan Chuorsiya, Rajgarh vs. The Pr. CIT Ujjain, Ujjain

ITA 626/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Mis Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Krishna Mohan Pr. Cit Choursiya(Prop. Of M/S Laxmi Ujjain Mp बनाम/ Auto Parts) Vs. Ward No.14, Bus Stand, Kurawar Rajgarh(M.P.) (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aempc3634G

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…nancial Corpn. Pradesh) Commissioner of income tax V/s Prafulla C.Pant And 176 Taxman 184 12 Dharam Veer JJ (Uttrakhand) Mofussil Warehouse & Trading Co.Ltd.V/s Commissioner 238 ITR 867 (Madras) 13 Of Income tax Durgalal & Co. Vis Commissioner Oflncome tax 14 220 ITR 456(Delhi) Commissioner Oflncome tax Vis Active Traders (P) Ltd. 15 214 ITR583 (Calcutta) Addl.Commissioner Of Income tax Vis Mukur 111 ITR 312 (Gujarat) 16 Corporation 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully gone through submissions made by both the sides and the decisions referred and relied by bot…

Shri Shaligram Barod, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 625/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Shaligram Barod, Pr. Cit-I, Ah/29, Hig, Sukhliya Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Ahfpp4068H Appellant By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 54Section 54BSection 54FSection 54F(1)

…(Himachal 11. Pradesh) Commissioner of income tax Vis Prafulla C.Pant 176 Taxman 184 And 12 Dharam Veer JJ (Uttrakhand) Mofussi1 Warehouse & Trading Co.Ltd.V/s 238 ITR 867 (Madras) Commissioner 13 Of Income tax 14 Durga1a1 & Co. Vis Commissioner Oflncome tax 220 ITR 456(De1hi) 15 Commissioner Oflncome tax Vis Active Traders (P) 214 ITR583 (Calcutta) Add1.Commissioner Of Income tax Vis Mukur 111 ITR 312 (Gujarat) 16 Corporation 10. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us and carefully perused with the assistance of the ld. Counsel, we have considered the documentary evidences bro…