How many judgments cite Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT?

543 judgments on BharatTax cite Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375), spanning 2009 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 142(1), Section 144B, Section 148.

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 367,181 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 263 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 142(1)Section 144B Section 148 Section 143(2)Section 115BBE

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenue malabar industrial section 263(1)inadequate enquiry lack of enquiry revision u/s 263 assessment order erroneous erroneous and prejudicial section 263 section 119 section 26 principal commissioner of income-tax

Judgments citing Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT

Sh. Surender Meena, 36, Pratap Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’A’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM deys’k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 162/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2017-18 cuke Shri Surender Meena PCIT, Vs. 36, Pratap Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur-1 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPM 8554Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Avdhesh Kumar…

Sh. Narendar Kumar Agarwal, Jawali Bhawan, Station Road, Alwar vs. PCIT, Jaipur-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 133/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Avdhesh Kumar (CIT)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 271FSection 50CSection 54F

…lso an investigator and he cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further inquiry but, as observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT & Ors. 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1995) 99 ITR 375 (Del) , "it is his duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an inquiry. (Emphasis, by underlining, italicised in print, supplied by us). It is, therefore, obvious that when the circumstances are not such as to provoke an inquiry, he need not put every proposition to the…

Pramod Agrawal, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Nagpur

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal 2 & 3 are dismissed

ITA 43/NAG/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sh. Pramod Agrawal (Huf) Pr. Cit-2, 301, Sai Ankur Apartments Nagpur-440 001 Ramdaspeth Vs. Nagpur-440 010 Pan:Aaihp 2699N (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…rein. It is his duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return. Where the circumstances indicate to Pramod Agrawal (Huf) vs. PCIT provoke an inquiry, then the same should not be withhold. In a landmark decision in the case of G.V. Enterprises, 99 ITR 375, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that “inadequacy of inquiry is a good reason for invoking the proceedings under section 263 of the Act.” In any case, we are not confining our decision entirely on the issue of “lack of inquiry” or “inadequate inquiry”. From the side of the assessee the learned authorized representative, Mr. Tushar P. lilmani…

H.P. Budhia Charitable Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, (Exp.), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/KOL/2021[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata19 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Manish Borad

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…gard. 12. Apart from the above principles, we deem it appropriate to make reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto reported in 227 CTR 113 and Gee Vee Enterprises Ltd vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (99 ITR 375). In the case of Sun Beam 11 A.Y. 2016-2017 H.P. Budhia Charitable Trust Auto, the Hon'ble High Court has pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. If there is a lack of enquiry, then the assessment order can be branded as erroneous. The following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court are worth to note: “…

Dr. R Sridhar, Mysuru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 691/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 50E

…Explanation 2 talks about the order passed by the AO without making enquiries and verification is deemed to have been erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. We notice that the Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v .ACIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del) considered a similar issue and held as under:- “In Tara Devi Aggarwal v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) also the Income-tax Officer, Howrah, while remarking that the source of income of the assessee was income from speculation and interest on investments stated that neither the assessee was able to produce the details and…

Diamond Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 208/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 208/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Diamond Beverages Private Limited Pr. Cit, Kolkata - 2 P-41, Taratala Road Vs Taratala Kolkata – 700 088 Pan : Aabcd3346C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : S. Agarwal, Aca Revenue By : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/07/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajpal Yadav:

For Appellant: S. Agarwal, ACAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, CIT, D/R

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 37Section 80G

…egard. 13. Apart from the above principles, we deem it appropriate to make reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto reported in 227 CTR 113 and Gee Vee Enterprises Ltd vs. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (99 ITR 375). In the case of Sun Beam Auto, the Hon'ble High Court has I.T.A. No. 208/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Diamond Beverages Private Limited 15 pointed out a distinction between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry. If there is a lack of enquiry, then the assessment order can be branded as erroneous. The following observations of the Hon'ble De…

Ravi Metallics Limited, Rourkela vs. Pr.CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/CTK/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaravi Metallics Limited, I/10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No.Adqps 4031 G ………………Assessee Versus Pr.Cit, Sambalpur ………………..Revenue Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Passed U/S.263 Of The Act In Case No.Pcit/Sbp/263/26/2018-19, Dated 29.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Heard On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Record, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 686 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Delay Occurred In Filing The Present Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate But Due To Unfortunate & Unavoidable Circumstances Beyond

Section 253Section 263

…. without application of mind is non-est. The view taken by the A.O. was not plausible in law. It was further held that the A.O. in the given facts, should have done complete and proper enquiry. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises (99 ITR 375) held as under: 11 "The reason is that it is not the Income-tax Officer but a superior officer like the Commissioner who is exercising a revisional jurisdiction suo motu there under. The superior officer could be trusted with a larger power. The only requirement for the exercise of this power is that the Commissioner should consider that the ord…

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

…s unsustainable in law. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Court after referring to judgments of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Addl. CIT v. Gee Vee Enterprise [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), Sunbean Auto Ltd. (supra), Malabar Industries (supra) held in favour of the appellant confirming the order of the Tribunal observing as follows:— 19. In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has not gone into and has not given any reason for observing that the order passed by the Assessing Officer…

Axis Cades Aerospace Infrastructure Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Bangalore-1, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 777/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)

…project was discontinued. In our considered view, given the quantum of the advance written off, the AO failed to examine its allowability based on documents and evidences. Page 6 of 9 13. The Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v .ACIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del) has held as under:- “In Tara Devi Aggarwal v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC) also the Income-tax Officer, Howrah, while remarking that the source of income of the assessee was income from speculation and interest on investments stated that neither the assessee was able to produce the details and vouchers of the speculativ…

Upal Developers P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the asses

ITA 871/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Upal Developers Private Limited, Principal Commissioner Of Market City Resources Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-8, Second Floor, R.R. Hosiery Bldg. Vs. Mumbai. Shree Laxmi Woolen Mills Estate, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacu 7953 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…simultaneously. The Hon’ble Delhi High should be satisfied simultaneously. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of GEE VEE Enterprises Private Limited versus GEE VEE Enterprises Private Limited versus GEE VEE Enterprises Private Limited versus CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) held that the CIT may consider the may consider the order of the Income Tax Officer as erroneous not only because it order of the Income Tax Officer as erroneous not only because it order of the Income Tax Officer as erroneous not only because it contains some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of fact on the…

Sh. Jai Prakash Garg, Karnal vs. Pr. CIT, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2118/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahyams. Astha Chandraita No. 2118/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Sh. Jai Parkash Garg, Vs Pr. Cit, H.No. 889, Sector-13, Urban Karnal Estate, Karnal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abzpg8229K Assessee By : Sh. Shweta Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.06.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Shweta Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR

Section 263Section 44A

…passed by the AO without making enquiries / verifications, which should have been made. Thus this case is squarely covered by these provisions, effective from 01.06.2015.” 10. Thereafter, referring to the case law including Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375, he directed that the 10 Jai Prakash Garg Assessment Order is set aside and AO is directed to make the assessment afresh. 11. Against this order, assessee has filed appeal before us. 12. We have here both the parties and perused the material on record. The ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the ld. PCIT observation that AO has not made a…

Visa Power Limited, Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 829/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaआयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम Visa Power Limited P.C.I.T-4, Kolkata-700 069 Visa House, V/S. 8/10 Alipore Road, Kolkata-700 027. Pan: Aaccv-1853-D अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent ..

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…vi Aggarwal VsCIT(1973)8B ITR323(SC) has held that in absence of proper enquiries, the assessment order would become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee EnterpriseVsAddl. CIT(1975) 99 ITR 375 has also held 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 rebuttal. The Civil Court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the basis…

Jila Sahakari Kendria Bank Maryadit, Shahdol vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is allowed

ITA 45/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur09 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Mehrotra, Sr. DR

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…nd the basis of invocation of s.263 in the instant case. True, an absence or even lack of enquiry would make an order per se erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. This, as explained in Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del), is as the position and function of the Income-tax Officer (assessing authority) is very different from that of a civil court. The statements made in a pleading, proved by the minimum amount of evidence, may be adopted by a civil court in the absence of any rebuttal. The civil court is neutral. It simply gives decision on the basis of the pl…

Goldiam Jewellery Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT (Central)-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 729/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT–DR

Section 10ASection 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 253(1)(c)Section 263Section 263(1)

…is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator and he cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further inquiry but, as observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v. ACIT [(1195) 99 ITR 375 (Del)], "it is his duty to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an inquiry. (Emphasis, by underlining, supplied by us). It is, therefore, obvious that when the circumstances are not such as to provoke an inquiry, he need not put every proposition to the test and probe every…

Goldiam Jewellery Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT (Central)-1, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 728/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT–DR

Section 10ASection 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 253(1)(c)Section 263Section 263(1)

Radiant Life Care Mumbai P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 896/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 Radiant Life Care Mumbai Pvt. Ltd., Principle Commissioner Of 401, 4Th Floor Man Excellenza, S.V. Income Tax Mumbai-3, Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. R. No. 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai-400056. Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aagcr 9198 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 56(2)

…he Act, the twin conditions, firstly, order to be a erroneous and secondly, order prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, should be satisfied simultaneously. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of GEE VEE Enterprises Private Limited versus CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) held that the CIT may consider the order of the Income Tax Officer as erroneous not only because it contains some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of fact on the face of it but also because it is a stereo-typed order which simply accepts what the assessed has stated in his return ITA Nos. 895 & 296/M/2021 13 Radiant Life Care Mumb…

Radiant Life Care Mumbai P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 895/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Gupta, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32Section 56(2)

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 13, Mumbai

ITA 3600/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P. J. Pardiwala, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 163Section 263Section 40

…y the Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in case of CIT vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (341 ITR 434), Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of ITO vs. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company (213 ITR 843), Hon’ble Delhi High Court in cases of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. ADCL (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), DLF Commercial Developers Ltd., Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC), Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in case of India Finance Ltd. 389 ITR 242 and co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Kapil Mehta, Delhi vs. PCIT. 9. So far as first ground for invoking the revisionary jurisdiction by th…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/ S/SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2016-17 Dhaneswar Rath Institute of Dhaneswar Rath Institute of Vs. CIT (Exemptions), CIT (Exemptions), Engineering Engineering and and Medical Medical Hyderabad Sciences, Cuttack Sciences, Cuttack PAN/GIR No. No.AACAD 0006G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri…

M/S Rajendra and Ursula Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result ITA NO. ITA 57/JPR/2021 is also stands dismissed

ITA 57/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Mehar (CIT)

Section 263Section 5

…) Malabar Industrial Limited Vs. CIT (SC) 243 ITR 83 (ii) TTK LIG Ltd. Vs ACIT (Mad) 51 DTR 228 (iii) Arvee International Vs. Addl CIT (ITAT-Mum) 101 ITD 495 (iv) CIT Vs. Nagesh Knitwears P. Ltd. 345 ITR 135 (Del- HC) (v) Gee Vee Enterprise Vs. Additional CIT 99 ITR 375 (vi) CIT Vs. Raisions Industries Ltd. 288 ITR 322 (SC) (vii) Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. 242 ITR 490 (Mad) In view of the above, I hold that the order passed by the AO on 20.12.2018 was passed without conducting necessary inquires and without verifying necessary details which AO ought to have done considering the issues involved and the facts…