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 367,154 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

Amrit Feeds Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 753/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2013-14 Amrit Feeds Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5571 D] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessment Year: 2013-14 Amrit Hatcheries Ltd. V/S. Dcit, Central Circle- 158, Lenin Sarani, 2Nd 2(1), 110, Shantipally, Floor, Kolkata-13 Em By-Pass, [Pan No.Aacca 5987 A] Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801BSection 92C

…. Vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), Kol. Page 16 (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 Enterprise-Vs-Addl. 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…

Sunil Bedi, New Delhi vs. CIT, Gurgaon

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the Assessee

ITA 2873/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Rajan Bhatia, Adv. & Sh. S.S. Kalra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 10Section 263Section 68

…be interfered with only because another view is possible.” An order would be erroneous only when the AO makes no enquiries during the course of assessment proceedings. This principle was noticed by the Delhi High Court in Geevee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Del.). In arriving at this decision, the Delhi High Court drew strength from the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Agarwal vs. CIT, 88 ITR 324 (SC). The underlying principle which emerges from these judgments is that if an assessment order is passed without making any enquir…

Pinki Bedi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the Assessee

ITA 2872/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Rajan Bhatia, Adv. & Sh. S.S. Kalra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 10Section 263Section 68

Sunil Bedi, New Delhi vs. CIT, Gurgaon

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the Assessee

ITA 2871/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Rajan Bhatia, Adv. & Sh. S.S. Kalra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)

Section 10Section 263Section 68

Ramnath Jhunjhunwala, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 40(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1019/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year:2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 263Section 40Section 44A

…e case, the impugned assessment order for the assessment year 2012-13 dated 26.02.2015 is deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 6. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of GEE VEE Enterprise Vs. Addl. CIT reported in 99 ITR 375, 386(Del) has held that the CIT may consider the order of the Assessing Officer to be erroneous not only if it contain some apparent error of reasoning or of law or of fact on the face of it but also because the Assessing Officer has failed to make enquiries which are called for in the circumstances of the case and it is an order which simply acce…

Magus Customer Dialog Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT - 4, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly

ITA 809/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.R. Reddy, CIT(DR)-I, ITAT, Bengaluru

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 2Section 263Section 40Section 5

…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). In the light of the law on the issue and in the light of the admitted fact that the AO did not make any enquiries which were required to be made on the issue in question, the order of the AO became both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue calling for exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. We therefore…

Mukesh Kumar Agarwal, Howrah vs. PCIT-21, Kolkata

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

ITA 857/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.857/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mukesh Kr. Agarwal Vs. P.C.I.T – 21, Kolkata 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, 116/1, Girish Ghosh Road, Bamboo Villa, Kolkata – Liluah, Howrah-711204. 700014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Adapa 7519D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby :Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Fca Respondent By :Md. Usman, Cit, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21, Kolkata, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, ( Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 03.03.2017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Passed By Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Lncome Tax - 21, Kolkata Under Section 263 Of The Lncome Tax Act, 1961 Setting Aside The Assessment Order Dated 27Th March, 2015 Passed By The Lncome Tax Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Lncome Tax Act, 1961 Is Without Jurisdiction, Against Law & Facts Of The Case & Therefore Illegal & Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT, DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 23(4)(b)Section 24Section 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). 14. Since in the present case the CIT has exercised jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act on the ground that the AO while completing the assessment proceeding did not make enquiries which he ought to have made, it is necessary to look into what enquiries the AO made on the issues raised in the order u/s.263 of the Act. It is clear from the submis…

Sh. Kehar Singh, Karnal vs. PCIT, Karnal

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

ITA 1094/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: SH. K.L. ANEJA, ADVFor Respondent: SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, CIT(DR)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1094/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 SH. KEHAR SINGH, VS. PR. CIT, SECTOR-12, H.NO. 46, SECTOR-6, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, URBAN ESTATE, KARNAL KARNAL (PAN: CPSPS0058H) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by: SH. K.L. ANEJA, ADV. Revenue by: SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal is filed by assessee against the Order dated 04.2.2016 passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT, Karnal relating to Assessment Year 2011-12 u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1…

Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Ltd., Kolkata vs. The CIT, Kolkata-4, Kolkata

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

ITA 773/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Oct 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.773/Kol/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Bhari Udyog Nigam Vs. C.I.T-4,Kolkata Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, 26, Rahja Santosh Road, Chowringhee Squae, Kol- Alipore, Kolkata – 700 027 69. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb1891J (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Respondent By : Md. Usman, Cit, Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/08/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-4, Dated 31.03.2015. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax U/S263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Is Arbitrary, Erroneous, Void, Invalid & Bad In Law. 2.On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That The A.O. Had Grossly Erred In Applying Section14A Of The I.T. Act, 1961, Read With Rule 8D(Iii) Of The I. T. Rules, 1962 & Had Thereby Framed An Order Which Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 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). Since in the present case the CIT has exercised jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act on the ground that the AO while completing the assessment proceeding did not add the disallowance made by him U/s 14A. It is clear from the submissions and material available on record with regard to the disallowance U/s 14A, the assessee submitted the details o…

M/S. Aspinwall & Co. Ltd, Cochin vs. The DCIT, Cochin

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 277/COCH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. K. Bansal & Shri George George K.Assessment Year:2011- 12

Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 263

…he matter for fresh assessment if he is satisfied that further enquiry is necessary and that the order of Income Tax Officer is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.” Hon'ble Delhi High Court also in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del) has also taken the similar view that lack of proper enquiry tantamount that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 8.3 Similar issue has arisen before the Special Bench of I.T.A.T. Chennai “B” Bench in the case of Rajalaksmi Mills Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer [2009] 121 ITD 343 (Chennai) (SB). The facts of this ca…

Saregama India Limited, Kolkata vs. CIT-I, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1254/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Sept 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, ARFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…this finding of fact stands, it has to be held that the Commissioner's decision to revise the order of the ITO under section 263 was erroneous.” 8. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) for the proposition that it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to ascertain the truth of the facts stated in the return when the circumstances of the case are such as to provoke an inquiry. He prayed that the order of the ld. CIT be quashed. 9. The ld. DR submitted that the AO in this case had given a standard questionnaire which is norm…

Infinity Infotech, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Dilip S.Damle, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 35Section 35(1)(iii)Section 35A

…of I TAct, 1961 read with Rule 8D of IT Rules, 1962 correctly and faithfully.” 5. The CIT thereafter referred to several judicial pronouncements particularly that of the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) wherein it was held that failure on the part of the AO to make an enquiry on an issue which calls for an enquiry, in the given facts and ITA No.329/Kol/2017 Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd A.Y.2012-13 3 circumstances of a case, renders the order of AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The CIT thereafter set aside the o…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-Cir-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3494/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Procter & Gamble Cit-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp6332M

Section 263Section 80I

…against the assessee and speaking order was passed by the Ld. Commissioner. Reliance was placed upon the decision in 386 ITR 162, (2017) 77 taxman.com 285 (SC), Arvee International vs Addl. CIT 101 ITD 495 (ITAT) (Bom.) Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl.CIT & Ors. 99 ITR 375 (Del.) and in Kapil Ratan Associates vs CIT 69 SOT 188 (Bom.) order dated 14/01/2015. 2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that from computation of taxable income sheet enclosed with the return, it was found that the assessee has claimed Rs.45,47,99,725/- as deduction…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-10 vs. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd

ITA/579/2016HC Delhi21 Apr 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143Section 260Section 263Section 90

…nation of the assessee. Such decision of the Income-tax Officer cannot be held to be "erroneous" simply because in his order he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard." This court has ruled in Gee Vee Enterprises v ACIT, Delhi-I & Ors (1975) 99 ITR 375 that an order is erroneous when it is contrary to law or proceeds on an incorrect assumption of facts or is in breach of principles of natural justice or is passed without application of mind, that is, is stereo-typed, in as much as, the Assessing Officer, accepts what is stated in the return of the assessee without making any enquiry called f…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd

ITA/578/2016HC Delhi21 Apr 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 143Section 260Section 263Section 90

Sh. Braham Dev Gupta, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2102/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Adv., Sanjiv Jain CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT DR

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

…of the assessee’s case rather than going into the facts/interpretation of section 263 gone into by the ITAT. With this background, we first deal with the decisions relied upon by the ld. CIT DR:- 20 Assessment year: 2011-12 i) G.V. Enterprises vs Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 “ 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 have made further inquiries before accepting the statements made by the assessee…

Sh. Gaurav Bhatia, Kotdwar vs. CIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 1730/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Miss S. Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Gaurav Bhatia Vs. The Cit Bhatia Bhawan, Sitapur Devi Road Dehradun Kotdwar (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Afypb 4513 J)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT- DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…(v) CIT Vs. Usha International Ltd [2012] 348 ITR 485/ 210 Taxman 188/25 Taxmann.com 200 [Delhi] (vi) J.K. Synthetics Ltd Vs. CBDT [1972] 83 ITR 335 [SC] (vii) Sirpur Paper Mill Ltd Vs. CWT [1970] 77 ITR 6 [SC] (viii) Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 [Del] (ix) ITO Vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd [2012] 343 ITR 329 20 Taxmann.com 587/[2013] 212 Taxman 132 [Del] Page 12 of 21 14. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, in his rejoinder, referring to the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shantikrupa Estate Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1252/AHD/2015 order dated 09.09.2016 for…

M/S Mewat Grit Udyog, New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1802/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, advocate&For Respondent: Smt.Sulekha Verma, CIT/DR

Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 263Section 40

…IT 245 taxman 127 (SC), Sh. ManjunatheshwaraPacking Products and Camphor Works vs. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC) and CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200. Ld. DR referred to the relation of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. ACIT 99 ITR 375 and also the decisions of the Tribunal in Perfetti Van Melle India Private Limited in ITA 3046/del/2016, Ramesh Kumar in ITA No. 1982 /Del/ 2018 and CIT vs. Apollo tyres Ltd reported in 65 ITD 263 in support of her contentions. 12. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. Insofar as the absence of enqui…

M/S. R.P. Singh & Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5710/DEL/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2017AY 2000-01

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2000-01 Vs. The Acit, Circle-15(1), C.R. M/S. R.P. Singh & Co. Pvt. Ltd., 382, Bhera Enclave Pachim Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aaacr5778B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. J.S. Kochar & U.S. Kochar, Advocates. Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.01.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xviii, New Delhi, Dated 14.08.2012, For Assessment Year 2000-01 Raising The Following Grounds : 1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law By Confirming The Addition Of Rs.13,90,000/- Received As Share Application Money, Despite The Fact That Out Of A Total Of 29 Share Applicants. I. 19 Applicants Whose Aggregate Investments Were Rs.10,15,000 Were Produced Before The A.O. & They Confirmed Their Investments. Ii. 2 Applicants With Aggregate Investments Of Rs.90,000 Had Since Died & Their Death Certificates Were Filed. Iii. Request Was Made To The Assessing Officer To Issue Summons U/S 131 To 4 Applicants With Aggregate Investment

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…f the judgment, Hon’ble High Court considered the decision of the Hon’ble of Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal versus CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises versus Additional CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del) and full bench decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sophia Finance (supra). In paragraph 12, the Hon’ble High Court has considered the decision in the case of CIT versus Precision Finance Private Limited (supra). After considering all the above decisions, the Hon’ble High Court in para 13, concluded as under: “13. There canno…

M/S Umang Commercial Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1173/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri J.P.Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna,CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…vil appeals filed by the Department stand dismissed. No order as to costs.” We find that even the most celebrated judgement on the impugned subject was rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl CIT reported in (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del) would not come to the rescue of the revenue in the instant case as the facts of the instant case did not provoke any further enquiry in the mind of the ld AO and hence there cannot be any error that could be attributed in his order. Hence the ld CIT could not invoke revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act in the instant case. 12 Umang Comm…