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.

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 375)

Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd, Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 195/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

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

…s not only an adjudicator but also an investigator and he cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently order but calls for further inquiry but, as observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 "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 everything st…

M/S- Sbep-Gril(Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 194/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

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

…s not only an adjudicator but also an investigator and he cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently order but calls for further inquiry but, as observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 "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 everything st…

M/S- Rawat Balaji (Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Prilncipal, CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 193/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

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

…s not only an adjudicator but also an investigator and he cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently order but calls for further inquiry but, as observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 "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 everything st…

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited(As Successor in Interest of Erstwhile Conginant Technology Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1320/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara(Through Video Conference) M/S. Cognizant Technology Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. (As Tax, Circle 1(2), Hyderabad. Successor Of Cognizant Technology Services Pvt. Ltd.), Chennai. Pan Aadcr0712J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Kanodia (A.R.)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar (D.R.)

Section 142(1)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…er carrying out detailed enquiries nor giving correct findings thereupon; indeed deserves to be revised in light of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC); Rampyari Devi Sarogi Vs. CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT & Ors 99 ITR 375 (Del) to name a few judicial precedents. 3. Learned authorized representative vehemently contended that the Assessing Officer had duly issued his section 142(1) notice on the very issue dt.26.08.2015 (Querry No.21) which stood replied on 6.10.2015 3 along with the necessary Annexure / Schedule-III thereof. We find no merit in assessee's instant…

Smt. Mamta Sharma, Bargarh vs. Principal CIT (Central), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/CTK/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shrichandra Mohan Garg & Manish Boradassessment Year :2012-13 Smt. Mamta Sharma, Ward Vs. Pr. Cit(Central), Visakhapatnam No.10, Near Govt. Bus Stand, Dist: Baragarh Pan/Gir No.Agvps 4382 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21/10/ 2021 Date Of Pronouncement :10/12/2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT (DR)

Section 132Section 153CSection 263

…failed to conduct any enquiry in this regard and therefore the assessment was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. CIT (99 ITR 375) wherein it was held that the ITO is not only an adjudicator but also an investigator. He can't be passive and required to make an enquiry when the circumstances provoke an enquiry. Further if the assessment order is passed without application of mind then such an order shall be erroneous. In the case of Renu Gupta vs. CIT (301 ITR 45), the A.O. h…

Vikas Oil Products, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 28/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ome erroneous because no enquiry has been made before accepting the claim of the assessee which resulted in loss of the Revenue. In support of his contentions, the ld. CIT-DR has relied upon the decisions in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), Malabar Industrial Co case [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), Kirtidevi. S. Tejwani v. PCIT [2020] 116 taxmann.com 965 (Mumbai- Trib.), CIT Vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bombay), Jeevan Investment & Finance (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 552 (Bombay), Hunumesh Realtors (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 185 (Mum…

Om Industries, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur, Jiapur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 27/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ome erroneous because no enquiry has been made before accepting the claim of the assessee which resulted in loss of the Revenue. In support of his contentions, the ld. CIT-DR has relied upon the decisions in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), Malabar Industrial Co case [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), Kirtidevi. S. Tejwani v. PCIT [2020] 116 taxmann.com 965 (Mumbai- Trib.), CIT Vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bombay), Jeevan Investment & Finance (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 552 (Bombay), Hunumesh Realtors (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 185 (Mum…

Jr Industries, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 26/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ome erroneous because no enquiry has been made before accepting the claim of the assessee which resulted in loss of the Revenue. In support of his contentions, the ld. CIT-DR has relied upon the decisions in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), Malabar Industrial Co case [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC), Kirtidevi. S. Tejwani v. PCIT [2020] 116 taxmann.com 965 (Mumbai- Trib.), CIT Vs Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [2017] 85 taxmann.com 10 (Bombay), Jeevan Investment & Finance (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 552 (Bombay), Hunumesh Realtors (P.) Ltd. Vs PCIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 185 (Mum…

M/S. Vmware Software India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-7, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2205/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Vm Software India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Pr. Cit, Kalyani Magnum, Block-1, Iii Floor, 165/2, Range – 7, Doraisanipalya, Iim Post, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 076. Pan : Aaccv 4573 E Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Osd)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

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

…n the issue which calls for an enquiry, that by itself will render the order of assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. It has been so held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. DCIT Page 6 of 11 99 ITR 375 & 386(Delhi). The following passage from the said decision would explain clearly the legal position in this regard: “(13) Shri G.C. Sharma argued that the orders passed by Income-tax authorities under sections 34 and 33B of the old Act corresponding to sections 147, and 263 of the new Act stood on the same footing when they were challenged as bei…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 37/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…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 Vs ACIT [(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, 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…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palasana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 36/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…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 Vs ACIT [(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, 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…

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palsana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 35/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…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 Vs ACIT [(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, 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…

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 7695/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R

Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…ore reverse the finding recorded by CIT in the impugned order and hold that the credits received by the appellant from IAE are capital in nature. 9.2. Ld. CIT(DR) in his submissions has placed reliance on the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT and Ors. 99 ITR 375 (Del) to hold that proper enquiries had not been made and, therefore order was erroneous in as - much as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. However, this judgment is wholly inapplicable since, as is evident from facts of present case, wherein the Ld. AO specifically directed the appellant to justify its claim for receipts being capital in nat…

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 433/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R

Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…ore reverse the finding recorded by CIT in the impugned order and hold that the credits received by the appellant from IAE are capital in nature. 9.2. Ld. CIT(DR) in his submissions has placed reliance on the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT and Ors. 99 ITR 375 (Del) to hold that proper enquiries had not been made and, therefore order was erroneous in as - much as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. However, this judgment is wholly inapplicable since, as is evident from facts of present case, wherein the Ld. AO specifically directed the appellant to justify its claim for receipts being capital in nat…

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 432/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R

Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…ore reverse the finding recorded by CIT in the impugned order and hold that the credits received by the appellant from IAE are capital in nature. 9.2. Ld. CIT(DR) in his submissions has placed reliance on the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT and Ors. 99 ITR 375 (Del) to hold that proper enquiries had not been made and, therefore order was erroneous in as - much as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. However, this judgment is wholly inapplicable since, as is evident from facts of present case, wherein the Ld. AO specifically directed the appellant to justify its claim for receipts being capital in nat…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 413/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R

Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…ore reverse the finding recorded by CIT in the impugned order and hold that the credits received by the appellant from IAE are capital in nature. 9.2. Ld. CIT(DR) in his submissions has placed reliance on the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT and Ors. 99 ITR 375 (Del) to hold that proper enquiries had not been made and, therefore order was erroneous in as - much as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. However, this judgment is wholly inapplicable since, as is evident from facts of present case, wherein the Ld. AO specifically directed the appellant to justify its claim for receipts being capital in nat…

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 412/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R

Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…ore reverse the finding recorded by CIT in the impugned order and hold that the credits received by the appellant from IAE are capital in nature. 9.2. Ld. CIT(DR) in his submissions has placed reliance on the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT and Ors. 99 ITR 375 (Del) to hold that proper enquiries had not been made and, therefore order was erroneous in as - much as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. However, this judgment is wholly inapplicable since, as is evident from facts of present case, wherein the Ld. AO specifically directed the appellant to justify its claim for receipts being capital in nat…

Kapil Mehta, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central)-3, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 533/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: The Assessing Officer

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263Section 263(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE, SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kapil Mehta Pr.CIT(Central), C-10, Phase-IV, Delhi-3. Ashok Vihar, Vs. Delhi-110 052 PAN –AEYPM 8313A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Parmod Jain, CA Sh. Mukul Gupta, Adv. Respondent by Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 15.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 11.10.2021 ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the Learned Principa…

M/S. Jns Instruments Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1479/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiasstt. Year : 2011-12 Jns Instruments Ltd. Vs. Pr. Cit Gi-48, G.T. Karnal Road Central -2, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Pan Aaacj7034Q New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 263Section 92C

…to what issues were before the AO. In such circumstances, we hold that the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT revising the assessment passed u/s 143(3) read with section 153A is completely in order and we uphold the same. 5.1 In the case of Gee Vee Enterprises (99 ITR 375) speaking for High Court of Delhi their lordships made a clear distinction between the cases of “inadequate inquiry” and “lack of inquiry” by also considering the ratio of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs CIT (671 ITR 8) and Tara Devi Aggarwal vs CIT (88 ITR 323) and held that it is incumbent upon the ITO t…

Sukhdev Chayal, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.CIT-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. PAN No. AFJPC 9250 J Assessee by Shri Manish Surana, CA Revenue by Smt. Sanchita Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 11/08/2021 Date of Pronouncement 07/10/2021 O R D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Pr.CIT-1, Jodhpur dated 19/03/2021 for A.Y. 2016-17 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in s…

Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT

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

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT

Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd, Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

M/S- Sbep-Gril(Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

M/S- Rawat Balaji (Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Prilncipal, CIT, Sambalpur

Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited(As Successor in Interest of Erstwhile Conginant Technology Services Private Limited, Chennai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

Smt. Mamta Sharma, Bargarh vs. Principal CIT (Central), Visakhapatnam

Vikas Oil Products, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

Om Industries, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur, Jiapur

Jr Industries, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

M/S. Vmware Software India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-7, Bengaluru

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palasana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Palsana vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi

Kapil Mehta, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central)-3, New Delhi

M/S. Jns Instruments Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

Sukhdev Chayal, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur