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 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

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

Sections most often in play

Section 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

Jaypee Fertilizers & Industries Ltd., Noida vs. Pr.CIT, Noida

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1047/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35D

…n section 263 of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 1.6.2015, the assessment order is deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue..........”  Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375 held that the Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case, ITC should have made further inquiries before accepting the statements made by the assessee in his return.  Further Hon'ble Delhi Bench in the case of Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 3046/Del/2016 for A.Y. 2009-10 order da…

B. Arunkumar Capital & Credit Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 2034/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

…ot 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. 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…

Shah Rakesh Bhikhabhai (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 415/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri A P Singh, CIT. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 80G

…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). Therefore, we find that what the talk to conduct further enquiry, we note that assessing officer has never conducted enquiry, so far donationsof Rs 30,00,000/- to political party, "Rashtriya Samajwadi Party(Secular)" and donation to Tara Foundation of Rs.2,25,000/-,u/s 80G(5) of the Act, are concerned. Hence, we find merit in the submission…

Marathwada Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadit, Kalyan vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 1(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3346/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankarmarathwada Nagari Sahakari V/S. Assessing Officer, Ward – Path Sanstha Maryadit, बनाम 1(1), Mohan Plaza, Wayle Shop No. 06, 1St Floor, Nagar, Khadakpada, Kalyan Dhamnikar Plaza, Bhiwandi, – 421301, Maharashtra Thane – 421302, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam9150E Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Sushant Alme, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT- DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…signature of Assessing Officer on its acknowledgement. The ld. DR further submits that the assessment order is passed without examining the issue. The ld. PCIT in its order has clearly spelt out by referring the decision of Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375) that Assessing Officer is not only adjudicator but also an investigator, cannot remain passive in the face of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further inquiry in the facts and circumstances of the case, the word "erroneous" prescribed in section 263 includes the failure to make such an enquiry by Assessing Officer. The Assessin…

Veej Company Sevakanchi Sahakari Path Sanstha Ltd., Kalyan vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3341/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Prabhash Shankarveej Company Sevakanchi V/S. Assessing Officer, Ward – Sahakari Path Sanstha बनाम 3(1), Rani Mansion, 2Nd Ltd.,Shramik Sahakar, Usha Floor, Kalyan Murbad Road, Sankul Valiper Road, Oak Thane - 421 301, Baug, Thane - 421301, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaam2266M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Sushant Alme,ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT - DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE Ms. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Veej Company Sevakanchi v/s. Assessing Officer, Ward – Sahakari Path Sanstha बनाम 3(1), Rani Mansion, 2nd Ltd.,Shramik Sahakar, Usha Floor, Kalyan Murbad Road, Sankul Valiper Road, Oak Thane - 421 301, Baug, Thane - 421301, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAAAM2266M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Sushant Alme,AR Respondent by : Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT - DR) Date of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement…

Bhagwati Steel Processors, Chandigarh vs. PCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 435/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

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

…y debtor balances were not substantiated through independent confirmation or inquiry. 6.2 The Revenue relied on Explanation 2(a) to Section 263 and judicial precedents including DG Housing Projects Ltd. [(2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.)], Gee Vee Enterprises [(1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del.)], and Gabriel India Ltd. [(1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom.)]. 7. We have heard the rival contention and perused the material available on the record and also the legal position governing the scope of Section 263. On perusal of the assessment records, we find that the Assessing Officer had issued multiple notices under Section 142(1) of the Income T…

Yogeshkumar Harishbhai Mali, Surat vs. PCIT, Surat-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 420/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.420/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Yogeshkumar Harishbhai Mali, Principal Commissioner Of बनाम/ 117, Khambhati Panchni Waid Income-Tax, Surat-1, Income Tax Vs. Rustompura, Surat - 395002 Office, 123, 1Stfloor, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abdpm 3296 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (प्र"थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Aashish Pophare, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2025

Section 114BSection 115BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 69A

…ble Supreme Court in case of Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 115 (SC), CIT vs. NageshKnitwears P. Ltd. and Others (2012) 345 ITR 135(Del) and Gee Vee Enterprises vs. ACIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del) and held that the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 28.03.2022 for AY 2014-15 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. He set aside the order and directed AO to pass fresh assessment order as per the discussion made in the order u/s 263 of the Act. ITA No.420/SRT/2024/AY.2014-15 Y…

Mohd Shahbuddin Khan, Chandigarh vs. PCIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 564/CHANDI/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Jain, CA and Shri Lovesh Bansal, CA

Section 147Section 263

…udicial precedents, including: Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (243 ITR 83, SC) – laying down that failure to make inquiries renders the order both erroneous and prejudicial. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (342 ITR 74, Gauhati HC) CIT v. Gee Vee Enterprises (99 ITR 375, Delhi HC) ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (343 ITR 329, Delhi HC) 6.5 It was thus submitted that the impugned assessment order was passed in breach of the duty cast on the AO as both investigator and adjudicator, and the PCIT rightly assumed jurisdiction under section 263 to restore the matter for fresh and proper examination. 7. We have heard th…

Hansa Jitendra Haria, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hansa Jitendra Haria Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 2, Oswal Colony, Near Rajendra Income Tax Balkrindagan, Jamnagar, Gujarat Jamnagar 361005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph4309L (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT. DR

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263Section 69A

…ITA No. 104/RJT/2024/AY.2013-14 Hansa Jitendra Haria vs. PCIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.104/RJT/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hansa Jitendra Haria Vs. Principal Commissioner of 2, Oswal Colony, Near Rajendra Income Tax Balkrindagan, Jamnagar, Gujarat Jamnagar 361005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAHPH4309L (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Dhaval Shah, AR Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT. DR Date of Hearing : 0…

Shri Umesh Garg, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2832/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Agarwal, Hon'Bleasstt. Year: 2011-12 Umesh Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(4), 105, Konark Colony, Meerut Roorkee Road, Meerut (Pan: Afgpg0404B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Malik, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…O in this regard. Failure to enquire into the glaring issues during the course of assessment proceedings by the AO tantamounts to the assessment being rendered erroneous. Reliance is further placed on the following judgment: Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375 (Del.) in which it was held that 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 s…

Alliance Nirmaan Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 263

…nd revision." Your Honour will appreciate the fact that provisions of section 263 of the Act do not permit substituting one opinion by another opinion. Placing reliance on the decision of Hon'b le Supreme Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs ACIT(1975) 99 ITR 375 (SC), where it is held that the Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the ground that in the circumstances of the case, the ITO should have made further inquiries before accepting the statement made by the assessee in his return but merely on the basis that some more inquiry was to be conducted, the assessment order cannot be held as e…

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Te Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd

Accordingly dispose of the appeal as allowed

ITA/53/2024HC Karnataka05 Jun 2025

Bench: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,S RACHAIAH

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 260ASection 263Section 40

…g judicial decisions: 1. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. Daniel Merchants P. Ltd. 2017- TIOL-455- SC-IT 3. Rajmandir Estates P Ltd. (2017) 245 Taxman 127 (SC) 4. Ashok Logani (2012) 347 ITR 22 (Delhi) 5. Gee Vee Enterprises (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) 6. Vedanta Ltd. (2021) 279 Taxman 358 (Bom) 7. V. K. Bharathi (2019) 102 taxmann.com 255 (Kar) 8. Rajalakshmi Mills Ltd. v. ITO (2009) 121 ITD 343 (Chennai) (SB) 9. Lokesh M. (2021) 187 ITD 342 (Bang) 10. In view of the above discussion, the assessment order u/s 143(3) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue in…

Shenhzhen Sdg Information Co. Ltd., Delhi vs. Circle Int. Taxation 3(1)(2), Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 746/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shenhzhen Sdg Information Co. Ltd., International Taxation-3, C/O- Tass Advisors Llp, 62, New Delhi Lower Ground Floor, Pocket 2, Jasola, New Delhi Pan: Aavcs7426C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Divyanshu Agrawal, Adv. Sh. Anubhav Rastogi, Adv. Department By Sh. Vijay B Vasanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05.06.2025 Order

Section 263Section 44B

…quiries/investigation is erroneous. The courts have unanimously held this view in several cases. For instance in the cases of Ramapriya Devi Saraogi Vs CIT(SC) 67 ITR 84, Malabar Industries Co. Ltd Vs CIT(SC) 243 ITR 83, Gee VEE Enterprises Vs Addl. CIT (del) 99 ITR 375 etc, the courts have held that unlike civil court which is neutral to give a decision on the basis of evidence produced before it, an Assessing Officer is not only an adjudicator but is also an investigator. He cannot remain passive on the facts of a return which is apparently in order but calls for further enquiry. It is his duty to ascertain the…

M/S. Shreeji Infra, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

ITA 118/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 69A

…order has been since recalled. ii) CIT Vs. Nagesh Knitwears Pvt. Ltd., 345 ITR 135 iii) ITO Vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd in ITA No. 179/2011 iv) Rampyari Devi Sarogi Vs. CIT, 67 ITR 84 v) Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT, 88 ITR 323 vi) GeeVee Enterprises Vs. ACIT, 99 ITR 375 11. With this background, the issue to be decided is that “whether the Assessing Officer erred in not treating the amount of undisclosed income disclosed during the survey and offered to tax as business income can be considered as per the provisions of Section 69A r.w. 115BBE or not and whether not treating the same u/s 69A gives rise to invocatio…

Shreeji Infratech, Vadodara vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Vadodara

ITA 117/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblem/S. Shreeji Infratech, Vs. Pcit, 110, Near Silver Wood Society, Vadodara-1, Opp. Billabong School, Vadodara Nr. Vadsar Bridge, Vadsar, Vadodara-390010 [Pan : Acwfs 1409 F] M/S. Shreeji Infra, Vs. Pcit, 344, 375, Opp. Cm Patel Farm Vadodara-1, House, Nr. Sidheswar Complex, Vadodara Kalali, Vadodara-390012 [Pan : Acrfs 5269 C] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 16.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.06.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 69A

N R Corporation, Surat vs. PCIT-1, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 526/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.526/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 (Physical Hearing) N. R. Corporation, Vs. The Pcit - 1, B-202, Capital Status, Opp – Hariom Surat Nagar, Near Atman Park, L. P. Savani Road, Adajan, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aamfn9368A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 13/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/05/2025

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40

…. Thereafter, he extracted provisions of section 263 of the Act and relying on the decision in cases of Malabar Industries Ltd., 243 ITR 83 (SC), CIT vs. Paville Projects (P.) Ltd., (2023) 149 taxmann.com 115 (SC) and Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT, (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del.), he set aside the order of AO with a direction to pass fresh assessment order after taking into consideration the issue discussed in the 263 order. ITA No.526/SRT/2024/AY.2018-19 N. R. Corporation 4. Aggrieved by the order of PCIT, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assess…

Dlf Home Developers Limited, New Delhi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2585/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Dlf Home Developers Limited, Vs Pr.Cit, 9Th Floor, Dlf Centre, Sansad Delhi-1, Marg, New Delhi-110001. New Delhi Pan-Aaccd0037H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Singhvi, Ca & Shri Satyajeet Goel, Ca Respondent By Shri Surender Pal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.05.2025

Section 143(3)Section 263

…) Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT, ITA No. 2860/Del/2010 dated 03.04.2018 9. Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CIT vs Infosys Technoglies Ltd. 341 IT 293 dated 04.01.2012 10. CIT vs Apollo Tyres Ltd. 65 ITD 263 (ITAT, Delhi) 11. Gee Vee Enterprises vs Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Delhi HC) 12. Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt.Ltd. in ITA No.3046/Del/2016 for AY 2009-10 order dated 11.01.2019 13. Ramesh Kumar in ITA No.1982/Del/2018 for AY 2014-15 order dated 25.01.2019 14. Shankar Tradex Pvt.ltd. vs PCIT in ITA No.2999/Del/2017 for AY 2007-08 order dated 16.04.2018 15. Surya Financial Services Ltd. vs PCIT [2018-TIOL-74-ITAT-…

Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)2 vs. Delhi Gurgaon Super Connectivity Ltd. & Anr

The appeal is allowed in favour of the

ITA/424/2022HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

For Appellant: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC with Mr. SanjeevFor Respondent: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal and

Section 141(2)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 156Section 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 276D

…ted the entry in the statement of the account filed by the appellant in the absence of any supporting material and without making any inquiry. 31. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Gee Vee Enterprise v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax: (1975) 99 ITR 375, held that the Commissioner can regard the order as erroneous on the Digitally Signed By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN Signing Date:22.05.2025 18:12:31 Signature Not Verified ITA 424/2022 Page 21 of 35 ground that in the circumstances of…

Shree Balaji Associates Pune LLP, Pune vs. PCIT(Central), Pune

ITA 1008/PUN/2024[AY 2019 - 20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Krishna GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 43C

…available with the Assessing Officer has not been utilised during the assessment proceedings which makes the case fit for applying the provisions of explanation 2 (a) of section 263. • Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs AddI. CIT 99 ITR 375 has clearly 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. 8. Provisions of Explanation 2 of Section 263 (1), are reproduced here under: Explanation 2.-For the purposes of t…

Shree Balaji Associates Pune LLP, Pune vs. PCIT(Central), Pune

ITA 1007/PUN/2024[AY 2018 - 19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

Section 132Section 153ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 43C

…n available with the Assessing Officer has not been utilised during the assessment proceedings which makes the case fit for applying the provisions of explanation 2 (a) of section 263. • Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises vs AddI. CIT 99 ITR 375 has clearly 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. 8. Provisions of Explanation 2 of Section 263 (1), are reproduced here under: Explanation 2.-For the purposes of thi…