Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT

99 ITR 375High Court1975#115 most cited

What is Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT authority for?

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue if the Assessing Officer fails to make proper inquiries before accepting the assessee's statements or claims. The Commissioner can revise such an order under Section 263 without conducting further inquiries himself.

543

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT · 99 ITR 375 · Section 263 revision · assessment order erroneous and prejudicial · inadequate inquiry by AO · failure to inquire · Commissioner's power under Section 263 · revision for lack of inquiry · AO accepting assessee statements without inquiry · Delhi High Court 1975 · prejudicial to interest of revenue · section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 147Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 148Section 143(2)Section 115BBE

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenuemalabar industrialsection 263(1)inadequate enquirylack of enquiryrevision u/s 263assessment order erroneouserroneous and prejudicialsection 263section 119section 26principal commissioner of income-tax

Judgments citing Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT

Starshine Land Developers Private Limited, Andheri East, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-5, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai

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

ITA 2148/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 148Section 23(5)Section 263

…he facts and applicable law. 9. The contention of the Ld. AR that issuance of notice u/s 142(1) raises a presumption of application of mind is not acceptable in the facts of the present case. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375) has held that failure to make enquiries which are called for renders the order erroneous. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (67 ITR 84) and Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT (88 ITR 323). Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (384 ITR 200) has held that where the Assessing…

Sh. Randhir Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT Rohtak, Rohtak

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

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

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

…enquiry. In such cases, the order becomes erroneous because enquiry or verification has not been made and not because a wrong order has been passed on merits. 12. Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises v. Additional Commission of Income-Tax, Delhi-I, [1975] 99 ITR 375, has observed as under:— "The reason is obvious. The position and function of the Income-tax Officer is very different from that of a Civil Court. The statements made in a pleading proved by the minimum amount of evidence may be accepted by a Civil Court in the absence of any rebuttal. The Civil Court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the ba…

Surjeet Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

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

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

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

…enquiry. In such cases, the order becomes erroneous because enquiry or verification has not been made and not because a wrong order has been passed on merits. 12. Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises v. Additional Commission of Income-Tax, Delhi-I, [1975] 99 ITR 375, has observed as under:— "The reason is obvious. The position and function of the Income-tax Officer is very different from that of a Civil Court. The statements made in a pleading proved by the minimum amount of evidence may be accepted by a Civil Court in the absence of any rebuttal. The Civil Court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the ba…

Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

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

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

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

…enquiry. In such cases, the order becomes erroneous because enquiry or verification has not been made and not because a wrong order has been passed on merits. 12. Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises v. Additional Commission of Income-Tax, Delhi-I, [1975] 99 ITR 375, has observed as under:— "The reason is obvious. The position and function of the Income-tax Officer is very different from that of a Civil Court. The statements made in a pleading proved by the minimum amount of evidence may be accepted by a Civil Court in the absence of any rebuttal. The Civil Court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the ba…

Dhuni Chand HUF, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

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

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

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

…enquiry. In such cases, the order becomes erroneous because enquiry or verification has not been made and not because a wrong order has been passed on merits. 12. Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises v. Additional Commission of Income-Tax, Delhi-I, [1975] 99 ITR 375, has observed as under:— "The reason is obvious. The position and function of the Income-tax Officer is very different from that of a Civil Court. The statements made in a pleading proved by the minimum amount of evidence may be accepted by a Civil Court in the absence of any rebuttal. The Civil Court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the ba…

Sh. Kashmir Singh Sandha, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

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

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

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

…enquiry. In such cases, the order becomes erroneous because enquiry or verification has not been made and not because a wrong order has been passed on merits. 12. Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises v. Additional Commission of Income-Tax, Delhi-I, [1975] 99 ITR 375, has observed as under:— "The reason is obvious. The position and function of the Income-tax Officer is very different from that of a Civil Court. The statements made in a pleading proved by the minimum amount of evidence may be accepted by a Civil Court in the absence of any rebuttal. The Civil Court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the ba…

M/S Ganesh Dass HUF, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

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

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

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

…enquiry. In such cases, the order becomes erroneous because enquiry or verification has not been made and not because a wrong order has been passed on merits. 12. Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises v. Additional Commission of Income-Tax, Delhi-I, [1975] 99 ITR 375, has observed as under:— "The reason is obvious. The position and function of the Income-tax Officer is very different from that of a Civil Court. The statements made in a pleading proved by the minimum amount of evidence may be accepted by a Civil Court in the absence of any rebuttal. The Civil Court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the ba…

Sh. Arvail Singh, Sirsa vs. PCIT, Rohtak

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

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

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

…enquiry. In such cases, the order becomes erroneous because enquiry or verification has not been made and not because a wrong order has been passed on merits. 12. Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises v. Additional Commission of Income-Tax, Delhi-I, [1975] 99 ITR 375, has observed as under:— "The reason is obvious. The position and function of the Income-tax Officer is very different from that of a Civil Court. The statements made in a pleading proved by the minimum amount of evidence may be accepted by a Civil Court in the absence of any rebuttal. The Civil Court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the ba…

Hollis Vitrified Private Limited, Morbi, Gujarat, India vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot, Gujarat, India

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

ITA 363/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 363/Rjt/2024 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Revenue Survey No. 756/P1/P1/P1, Opp. Tax-1, Rajkot Antique Granito, Ghuntu,-Lakhdhirpur Road, Morbi (Gujarat)-363642 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacch5628Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil H. Mehta, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…rder which is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In this interpretation of the provisions of the section 263, we relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court delivered in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs Add.CIT(1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi). The same view has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC). The relevant portion of this Page 34 of 37 I.T.A No. 363/Rjt/2024 A.Y. 2018-19 Hollis Vitrified Pvt. Ltd. judgment which supports our view made in this paragraph above is reproduced as under: "An incorrec…

Jhv Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed but the order of the Pr

ITA 1289/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.: 1289/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 JHV Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. D.C.I.T., CC-2(2), Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACJ5746M Appearances: Assessee represented by : Rajeeva Kumar, Adv. Department represented by : Praveen Kishore, CIT (DR). Date of concluding the hearing : 29-December-2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 09-February-2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Pr.…

Ambuja Cements Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-3, Mumbai

ITA 3474/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Sourabh Soparkar, AR (virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3474/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) Ambuja Cements Limited v/s. Principal Commissioner of Adani Corporate House, बनाम Income Tax, Mumbai 3, Shantigram Near Vaishnodevi Room No. 612, 6th Floor, Circle, SG Highway, Khodiyar Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat Karve Road, Mumbai 382421, Gujarat 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACG0569P Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Sourabh Soparkar, AR (virtually appear)…

Sri Ramaseva Bahusara Kshariya Co-Op. Society Limited, Shimoga vs. Pr. CIT, Bengaluru-1, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 861/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Ramaseva Bahusara Kshariya Co-Op. Society Ltd. 01, Ramanna Setty Park Spm Road, Doddapete So Vs. Principal Cit Shimoga 577 202 Bengaluru-1 Karnataka Pan No :Aaajs0083P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Kiran D., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Kiran D., D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…ITANo.861/Bang/2025 M/s. Sri Ramaseva BahusaraKshariya Co-Op. Society Ltd., Shimoga IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI,VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2020-21 M/s. Sri Ramaseva Bahusara Kshariya Co-op. Society Ltd. 01, Ramanna Setty Park SPM Road, Doddapete SO Vs. Principal CIT Shimoga 577 202 Bengaluru-1 Karnataka PAN NO :AAAJS0083P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Kiran D., D.R. Date of Hearing : 11.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, J…

Bharath Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore -1, Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2020-21

For Appellant: Sri Ravishankar S.V., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…s stereo-typed, inasmuch as, the Assessing Officer, accepts what is stated in the return of the assessee without making any enquiry called for in the circumstances of the case, that is, proceeds with 'undue haste'. [See Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi)]. The expression "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" while not to be (iv) confused with the loss of tax will certainly include an erroneous order which results in a person not paying tax which is lawfully payable to the revenue. [See Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.'s case (supra)]. (v) Every loss of tax to the revenue cannot be treat…

Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1357/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…as erroneous simply because according to the Commissioner, the order should be written more elaborately. All these principles are highlighted in the judgments noted hereinafter. 8. In Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi and others, 99 ITR 375 it was explained that the Commissioner was to only take prima facie 40 view as to how the order of the AO was erroneous and leave the matter at that with direction to the AO to conduct de novo inquiry and pass fresh orders. This is how the principle was explained:- "These two decisions show that it is not necessary for the Commissioner to make fu…

Smt. Kusum Kujwal, Nainital vs. PCIT, Baireilly

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 102/DDN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 45(2)Section 50C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant Member ITA No. 102/DDN/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Smt. Kusum Kunjwal, Vs PCIT, Jagdamba Nagar, Haldwani, District Bareilly, Nainital, Uttarakhand-263139 Uttar Pradesh-243001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AQZPK5732G Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 13.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21, arises against the PCIT, Bareilly’s…

Subhash Jaiswal Associates, Bareilly vs. PCIT Bareilly, Bareilly

ITA 100/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: Respondent by
Section 143(3)Section 263

…in order to assist someone else who would have been assessed to a larger amount, the assessment to made can certainly be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue." (iv) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v/s Addl.CIT(1975) 99 ITR 375(Delhi) following the aforesaid above two judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "the position and function of the Income Tax Officer is very different from that of a Civil Court. The statements made in a pleading proved by minimum amount of evidence may be accepted by Civil Court in absence of any rebuttal. The Civil Court is neutral. It s…

Bhavana Co-Op Credit Society Niyamita, Sirsi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sirsi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1074/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

…s stereo-typed, inasmuch as, the Assessing Officer, accepts what is stated in the return of the assessee without making any enquiry called for in the circumstances of the case, that is, proceeds with 'undue haste'. [See Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi)]. The expression "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" while not to be (iv) confused with the loss of tax will certainly include an erroneous order which results in a person not paying tax which is lawfully payable to the revenue. [See Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.'s case (supra)]. (v) Every loss of tax to the revenue cannot be treat…

Gonikoppal Primary Rural Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Kodagu vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-3, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1072/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(i)

…s stereo-typed, inasmuch as, the Assessing Officer, accepts what is stated in the return of the assessee without making any enquiry called for in the circumstances of the case, that is, proceeds with 'undue haste'. [See Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi)]. The expression "prejudicial to the interest of the revenue" while not to be (iv) confused with the loss of tax will certainly include an erroneous order which results in a person not paying tax which is lawfully payable to the revenue. [See Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd.'s case (supra)]. (v) Every loss of tax to the revenue cannot be treat…

Bhargab Engineering Works, Howrah vs. PCIT, Central Kolkata 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1161/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ed the findings in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd.(supra) as well as in the case of CT v Maithan International (2015) 56 taxmann.com 283 relating to the role of the AO as also the decisions in the cases of Gee Vee Enterprise v. Addl. CCIT reported in 99 ITR 375, 386 (Delhi High Court), Thalibal F. Jain v. ITO reported in 101 ITR 1, 6, (Karnakata High Court), Malabar Industrial Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 83, 87-88 (Supreme Court), Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (Supreme Court), Gee Ve Enterprise v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99…

Dabur India Ltd., New Delhi vs. PCIT - 1, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2075/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 35Section 35(1)Section 80GSection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES ‘B’: NEW DELHI. BEFORE SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Dabur India Limited, vs. Pr.CIT, Delhi – 1, 8/3, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 002. (PAN :AAACD0474C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CITDR Date of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date of Order : 14.11.2025 ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-1[“Ld. PCIT”, for short] dated 29.0…