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 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

Amar Singh Chaudhary, Jabalpur vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 28/JAB/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur27 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan&Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 263Section 48

…yari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) CIT v. Deepak Kumar Garg [2007] 299 ITR 435 (MP) CIT v. Himachal Pradesh Financial Corp.[2010]186 Taxman 105 (HP) Swarup Vegetable Products v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 412 (All) Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del) By the assessee CIT v. Ratlam Coal Ash Co. [1988] 171 ITR 141 (MP) CIT v. Krishna Capbox (P.) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 310 (All) (besides these two, copies of which are on record, others, as under, where also mentioned during hearing, even as their copies not on record, were neither referred to, nor could possibly be responded to by the other sid…

M/S Mbl Infrastructures Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 427/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.427/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Mbl Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata . 1St Floor, Divine Bliss, 2/3, Judges Court Road, Kolkata – 700027. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccm0564C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ram Bilash Meena, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/10/2020

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 35DSection 80Section 80I

…y. 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 vs. Additional Commission of Income-Tax, Delhi-I & Ors.,(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…

Kaushal Kishore Bihani, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-45(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 690/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

…e Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi V. CIT(1968) 67 ITR 84 & Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal V. CIT(1973) 88 ITR 3Z3(SC). The reasoning for this proposition has been explained by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of GEE VEE Enterprise Vs. Addl. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 in the following para: "It is not necessary for the Commissioner to make further inquiries before cancelling the assessment order of the Income Tax Officer. The Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Officer should hove made further inquiries before accepting the statements…

Sri.Lokesh M, Lr of Smt Malathi Lokesh, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assesses are partly allowed

ITA 293/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Devrathna Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…e an enquiry on 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 99 ITR 375 & 386(Delhi). The following passage from the said decision would explain clearly the legal position in this regard:- ITA Nos.292 & 293/Bang/2019 Page 11 of 16 “(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…

Sri.Lokesh M, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assesses are partly allowed

ITA 292/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Devrathna Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…e an enquiry on 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 99 ITR 375 & 386(Delhi). The following passage from the said decision would explain clearly the legal position in this regard:- ITA Nos.292 & 293/Bang/2019 Page 11 of 16 “(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…

Shri Nitin Sharma, Jabalpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -2, Jabalpur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 25/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 153DSection 263Section 7(1)

…igh Court (as in CIT vs. Deepak K. Garg [2008] 299 ITR 435 (MP); CIT v. Mahavar Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP)), holding like-wise in different fact settings. Reference, however, is being made only to the decision in Gee Vee Enterprises v. CIT (Addl.) [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del), wherein reliance has been placed on the decisions in Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT [1968] 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Agarwal (supra), also referred to in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) and Jawahar Bhattacharjee (supra). As explained therein: ‘It is not necessary for the Commissioner to make further inquiries before cancelling the ass…

M/S. G Crop Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 1017/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri J.K. Kamdar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 24Section 263

…us and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. We derive support for this view from the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High ITA No.1017 /Bang/2019 M/s. G. Corp Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 9 of 13 Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. DCIT 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…

Electronics Corporation of India Limited, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 957/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri C.Subramanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 263Section 36(1)(v)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Dy. Commissioner 674/Hyd/2016 2011-12 Electronics of Income Tax, Corporation of India Circle-2(2), Ltd., HYDERABAD HYDERABAD Asst. Commissioner 957/Hyd/2018 2011-12 [PAN: AAACE4809L] of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), HYDERABAD For Assessee : Shri C.Subramanyam, AR For Revenue : Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 02-03-2020 Date of Pronouncement : 22-07-2020 O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M. : The assessee h…

Electronics Corporation of India Ltd., Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 674/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri C.Subramanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 263Section 36(1)(v)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B” : HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Dy. Commissioner 674/Hyd/2016 2011-12 Electronics of Income Tax, Corporation of India Circle-2(2), Ltd., HYDERABAD HYDERABAD Asst. Commissioner 957/Hyd/2018 2011-12 [PAN: AAACE4809L] of Income Tax, Circle-17(1), HYDERABAD For Assessee : Shri C.Subramanyam, AR For Revenue : Shri Y.V.S.T.Sai, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 02-03-2020 Date of Pronouncement : 22-07-2020 O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M. : The assessee h…

Shri Abdul Hannan, Tinsukia vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Tinsukia

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees( ITA No

ITA 47/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.46 /Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Modi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rockcin Saikia, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263

…n made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. We derive support for the proposition as stated above from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises 99 ITR 375 (Del). 13. Taking note of the aforesaid dictum of law laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, let us examine whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) dated 30.12.2016 is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Since in the present case, the ld PCIT has exercised jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act on th…

Shri Abdul Hamid, Tinsukia vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Tinsukia

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees( ITA No

ITA 46/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati17 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.46 /Gau/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Modi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rockcin Saikia, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263

…n made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. We derive support for the proposition as stated above from the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises 99 ITR 375 (Del). 13. Taking note of the aforesaid dictum of law laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, let us examine whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) dated 30.12.2016 is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Since in the present case, the ld PCIT has exercised jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act on th…

Pushpa Devi Sonthalia, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 958/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jun 2020AY 2013-14
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

…cannot be branded as erroneous simply because according to the CIT, the order should be written more elaborately.—Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 159 CTR (SC) 1 : (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 1975 CTR (Del) 61 : (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del), CIT vs. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. (2000) 242 ITR 490 (Mad), CWT vs. Prithvi Raj & Co. (1991) 98 CTR (Del) 216 : (1993) 199 ITR 424 (Del) and J.P. Srivastava& Sons (Kanpur) Ltd. vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 326 (All) relied on. (Paras 6 & 7) In the entire order emphasis laid by the CIT is that in respect of four issues mentioned by him, no qu…

M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal vs. The Pr CIT, Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 742/IND/2018[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore01 Jun 2020

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Sanee Infrastructure Pr.Cit-2, Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Bhopal D-1, Machna Colony, 6 No Bus Stop, Bhopal (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Aagcs8307M Appellant By Shri Arun Jain, Ca Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit Date Of Hearing 12.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 01.06.2020 O R D E R

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

…(vi) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd V/s CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) (vii) Smt. Taradevi Agrawal V/s CIT 88 ITR 323 (SC) (viii) Rampyaridevi Saraogi V/s CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC) (ix) CIT V/s Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd 345 ITR 135 (Delhi HC) (x) Gee Vee Enterprises V/s Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (DelhiHC) (xi) Bhushan Steel Ltd V/s ACIT ITAT A Bench Delhi (xii) CIT V Deepak Kumar Garg 299 ITR 435 (M.P) (xiii) CIT V Mahavar Traders 220 ITR 167 (M.P) (xiv) Smt. Renu Gupta v CIT 301 ITR 45 (Rajasthan) (xv) PT Lashkari Ram V CIT 272 ITR 309 (Allahabad) (xvi) CIT V Himachal Pradesh Financial Corpn. 186 Taxman 105 (Himachal Pradesh) (xvii) CIT…

Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. Prcit, Gurugram

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed on the issue of the impugned order passed beyond the prescribed time, other issues are left open

ITA 4607/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2020AY 2009-10
For Appellant: ShriSalilKapoor, AdvFor Respondent: ShriRaman Chopra[CIT] –
Section 143Section 144CSection 147Section 263Section 263(2)Section 92C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH „C‟ ”H-1”: NEW DELHI BEFORESHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Shri K N CHARRY , JUDICIAL MEMBER Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. Pr. CIT, 12, BhikajiCama Place, Vs. Gurgaon. New Delhi – 110 029. PAN : AAACJ7097D (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by : ShriRaman Chopra[CIT] – DR Assessee by: ShriSalilKapoor, Adv.; ShriSunitLal; Ms. Chandani, Advs.; Ms. AnanyaKapoor, Adv. Date of Hearing 19/03/2020 Date of pronouncement 14/05/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. : 01 This appeal is filed by assessee, M/s Jindal steel and Power Ltd ( Assessee , Appellant) against…

Shri Gurvinder Singh Suri, New Delhi vs. Pr CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2644/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2644/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Gurvinder Singh Suri, Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Tax (Central)-1, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaps8291D Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Sushma Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.05.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 119Section 263Section 263(1)Section 57

…ear pursuant to a letter of the Assessing Officer containing a proposal under section 263. Therefore, there was no merit in the contention of the assessee in this regard.” 10. Order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375 Where it is held that the Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case, ITO should have made further inquiries before accepting the statements made by the assessee in his return and it was observed that reason is obvious. The position and functions of the ITO are very different from that of ci…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The DCIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…ken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Income Tax Officer v/s D.G. Housing Projects Ltd (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) wherein the Hon’ble Court after referring to judgments of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Addl. CIT V/s Gee Vee Enterprise (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), CIT V/s Sunbean Auto Ltd (2011) 332 ITR 167(Delhi), Malabar Industries 243 ITR 83(SC) held in favour of the assessee 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 ord…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The ACIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…ken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Income Tax Officer v/s D.G. Housing Projects Ltd (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) wherein the Hon’ble Court after referring to judgments of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Addl. CIT V/s Gee Vee Enterprise (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), CIT V/s Sunbean Auto Ltd (2011) 332 ITR 167(Delhi), Malabar Industries 243 ITR 83(SC) held in favour of the assessee 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 ord…

M/S. Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 355/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 35A

…vi Saraogi Vis Commissioner of Income Tax 67 ITR 84 (SC) Commissioner of Income Tax Vis Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd 345 ITR 135 4 (Delhi HC) [ITA No.355/Ind/2017] [Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre] 5 Gee Vee Enterprises Vis Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax 99 ITR 375 (Delhi HC) 6 Bhushan Steel Ltd. Vis Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax IT AT A ~ench Delhi Commissioner of Income-tax v.Deepak Kumar Garg 299 ITR 435 (Madhya 7. Pradesh) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahavar Traders 220 ITR 167 (Madhya 8. Pradesh) 9. Smt. Renu Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax 301 ITR 45 (Rajasthan) 10. PT. Lashkari Ram v. Commis…

Shri Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 350/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…ken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Income Tax Officer v/s D.G. Housing Projects Ltd (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) wherein the Hon’ble Court after referring to judgments of Hon’ble High Court in the case of Addl. CIT V/s Gee Vee Enterprise (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), CIT V/s Sunbean Auto Ltd (2011) 332 ITR 167(Delhi), Malabar Industries 243 ITR 83(SC) held in favour of the assessee 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 ord…

M/S. Maa Tarini Industries Ltd., Sundargarh vs. Pr. CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 292/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sahu, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…der. Since both the issues were not considered by the AO in the original assessment order, Ld. Pr. CIT consider it necessary to direct the AO to enquiry the matter and reframe the assessment accordingly. 33. In the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT [99 ITR 375], the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as under :- “It is not necessary for the Commissioner to make further inquiries before canceling the assessment order of the Income-tax Officer. The Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case the Income-tax Officer should have made further inquiries befor…