Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT

263 ITR 437High Court2003#634 most cited

What is Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT authority for?

For exercising revisional powers under Section 263, the Commissioner must examine the entire record of proceedings, not merely the assessment order, to ascertain whether the Assessing Officer applied their mind or conducted an enquiry on the issues. The 'record' includes all materials available at the time of examination by the Commissioner.

155

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Hari Iron Trading Co v CIT · 263 ITR 437 · Section 263 · revisional powers · Commissioner · PCIT · entire record · assessment order · lack of enquiry · inadequate enquiry · application of mind

Also reported as

131 Taxmann 535267 CTR 442

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 147Section 148Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 145A(b)Section 151

Issues it is cited on

section 145a(b)section 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 114section 10(37)malabar industrialrevision u/s 263lack of enquiryenhanced compensationinadequate enquirysection 131(1)

Judgments citing Hari Iron Trading Co. v. CIT

SH. RANDHIR SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 494/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS i) 162 Taxman 39 (Mum) (MAG) Anil Shah vs. Asst. CIT ii) 13 SOT 184 (Del) Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vs. ITO iii) 81 ITD 36 (Hyd) Srinivasa Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT iv) 107 Taxman 205 (Mum) (MAG) Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT v) 263 ITR 437 (P&H) Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT vi) 74 TTJ 67 (All) Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT vii) 53 TTJ 432 (Ind) Vidisha Tractors vs. Asst. CIT viii) 34 SOT 241 (Mum) Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT ix) 236 CTR 476 (Del) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers PROPOSITION XI: THAT EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DOES NO…

SURJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 488/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS i) 162 Taxman 39 (Mum) (MAG) Anil Shah vs. Asst. CIT ii) 13 SOT 184 (Del) Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vs. ITO iii) 81 ITD 36 (Hyd) Srinivasa Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT iv) 107 Taxman 205 (Mum) (MAG) Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT v) 263 ITR 437 (P&H) Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT vi) 74 TTJ 67 (All) Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT vii) 53 TTJ 432 (Ind) Vidisha Tractors vs. Asst. CIT viii) 34 SOT 241 (Mum) Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT ix) 236 CTR 476 (Del) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers PROPOSITION XI: THAT EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DOES NO…

SH. PARAMJEET SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 290/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS i) 162 Taxman 39 (Mum) (MAG) Anil Shah vs. Asst. CIT ii) 13 SOT 184 (Del) Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vs. ITO iii) 81 ITD 36 (Hyd) Srinivasa Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT iv) 107 Taxman 205 (Mum) (MAG) Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT v) 263 ITR 437 (P&H) Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT vi) 74 TTJ 67 (All) Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT vii) 53 TTJ 432 (Ind) Vidisha Tractors vs. Asst. CIT viii) 34 SOT 241 (Mum) Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT ix) 236 CTR 476 (Del) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers PROPOSITION XI: THAT EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DOES NO…

DHUNI CHAND HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 289/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS i) 162 Taxman 39 (Mum) (MAG) Anil Shah vs. Asst. CIT ii) 13 SOT 184 (Del) Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vs. ITO iii) 81 ITD 36 (Hyd) Srinivasa Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT iv) 107 Taxman 205 (Mum) (MAG) Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT v) 263 ITR 437 (P&H) Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT vi) 74 TTJ 67 (All) Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT vii) 53 TTJ 432 (Ind) Vidisha Tractors vs. Asst. CIT viii) 34 SOT 241 (Mum) Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT ix) 236 CTR 476 (Del) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers PROPOSITION XI: THAT EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DOES NO…

SH. KASHMIR SINGH SANDHA,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 288/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS i) 162 Taxman 39 (Mum) (MAG) Anil Shah vs. Asst. CIT ii) 13 SOT 184 (Del) Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vs. ITO iii) 81 ITD 36 (Hyd) Srinivasa Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT iv) 107 Taxman 205 (Mum) (MAG) Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT v) 263 ITR 437 (P&H) Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT vi) 74 TTJ 67 (All) Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT vii) 53 TTJ 432 (Ind) Vidisha Tractors vs. Asst. CIT viii) 34 SOT 241 (Mum) Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT ix) 236 CTR 476 (Del) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers PROPOSITION XI: THAT EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DOES NO…

M/S GANESH DASS HUF,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS i) 162 Taxman 39 (Mum) (MAG) Anil Shah vs. Asst. CIT ii) 13 SOT 184 (Del) Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vs. ITO iii) 81 ITD 36 (Hyd) Srinivasa Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT iv) 107 Taxman 205 (Mum) (MAG) Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT v) 263 ITR 437 (P&H) Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT vi) 74 TTJ 67 (All) Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT vii) 53 TTJ 432 (Ind) Vidisha Tractors vs. Asst. CIT viii) 34 SOT 241 (Mum) Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT ix) 236 CTR 476 (Del) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers PROPOSITION XI: THAT EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DOES NO…

SH. ARVAIL SINGH,SIRSA vs. PCIT, ROHTAK

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the respective assessee’s are dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS i) 162 Taxman 39 (Mum) (MAG) Anil Shah vs. Asst. CIT ii) 13 SOT 184 (Del) Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. vs. ITO iii) 81 ITD 36 (Hyd) Srinivasa Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT iv) 107 Taxman 205 (Mum) (MAG) Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT v) 263 ITR 437 (P&H) Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT vi) 74 TTJ 67 (All) Sahara India Mutual Benefit Co. Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT vii) 53 TTJ 432 (Ind) Vidisha Tractors vs. Asst. CIT viii) 34 SOT 241 (Mum) Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CIT ix) 236 CTR 476 (Del) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers PROPOSITION XI: THAT EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DOES NO…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-3, BENGALURU vs. SARAKKI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, BENGALURU

ITA 1992/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 250

…on-application of income. Further, the AO relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of M/s. Agappa Child Centre reported in 226 ITR 211 and the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. AWARE reported in 263 ITR 43 and held that for the purpose of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the word “benefit” is not limited to advantage of pecuniary nature alone but extends to any intangible and indirect benefit also and accordingly the amount which is being treated as non-application of income was calculated below:- Particulars Amount in Rs. Quantum of transaction with pe…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-3, BENGALURU vs. SARAKKI EDUCATION SOCIETY, BENGALURU

ITA 1991/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 250

…on-application of income. Further, the AO relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of M/s. Agappa Child Centre reported in 226 ITR 211 and the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. AWARE reported in 263 ITR 43 and held that for the purpose of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the word “benefit” is not limited to advantage of pecuniary nature alone but extends to any intangible and indirect benefit also and accordingly the amount which is being treated as non-application of income was calculated below:- Particulars Amount in Rs. Quantum of transaction with pe…

M/S. SARAKKI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(EXEMTIONS), BANGALORE

ITA 1974/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 250

…on-application of income. Further, the AO relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of M/s. Agappa Child Centre reported in 226 ITR 211 and the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. AWARE reported in 263 ITR 43 and held that for the purpose of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the word “benefit” is not limited to advantage of pecuniary nature alone but extends to any intangible and indirect benefit also and accordingly the amount which is being treated as non-application of income was calculated below:- Particulars Amount in Rs. Quantum of transaction with pe…

M/S. SARAKKI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3 (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

ITA 1973/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 250

…on-application of income. Further, the AO relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of M/s. Agappa Child Centre reported in 226 ITR 211 and the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. AWARE reported in 263 ITR 43 and held that for the purpose of section 13(1)(c) of the Act, the word “benefit” is not limited to advantage of pecuniary nature alone but extends to any intangible and indirect benefit also and accordingly the amount which is being treated as non-application of income was calculated below:- Particulars Amount in Rs. Quantum of transaction with pe…

SUBHASH JAISWAL ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PCIT BAREILLY, BAREILLY

ITA 100/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 263

…rder u/s 143(3) completed in a haste. No jurisdiction u/s 263\nGoyal Family Trust v. CIT 171 ITR 698 (Alld)\nMerely because the AO's order is brief and cryptic that itself would not be\na case for revision.\nHari Iron Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-263 ITR 437\nA bare perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the Commissioner\ncan exercise powers under sub-section (1) of section 263 of the Act only\nafter examining \"the record of any proceedings under the Act\". The\nexpression \"record\" has also been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation\nso as to include the Commissioner. Thus, it is not onl…

SH. SUKHVINDER SINGH,KANPUR vs. PR CIT, CENTRAL, KANPUR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 190/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…Family Trust Vs. CIT 171 ITR 698 (All): it was held by jurisdictional High Court that merely because the assessment is brief and cryptic that itself would not be a case for revisional under section 263 of the Act. In the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. Vs. CIT 263 ITR 437: Hon'ble High Court held that A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the Commissioner can exercise powers under sub-section (1) of section 263 of the Act only after examining “the record of any proceedings under the Act”. The expression “record” has also been defined in clause (b) of the Explanation so as to include the Commissione…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED , AURANGABAD

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

ITA 1682/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak and Abhay AvachatFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR and Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

…are acceptable to the Assessing Officer do not find mention in the assessment order and it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind as observed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT, 263 ITR 437 (P&H) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eicher Ltd., 294 ITR 310 (Delhi). Therefore, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer had failed to make an enquiry, no further enquiry is necessary and all the facts were before the Assessing Officer. Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that the proposition that the ass…

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
Section 143(3)Section 263

…\nSaw Pipes Ltd. vs. CIT [2005] 3 SOT 327 (Delhi)\n23.\nBrij Bhushan Agarwal vs. CIT (Agra) 2 SOT 811 (2005)\n24.\nCIT vs. Associated Food Products P. Ltd. 280 ITR 377 (MP)\n25.\nGoyal Family Trust vs. CIT 171 ITR 698 (All)\n26.\nHari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT 263 ITR 437\n27.\nCIT vs. Ashish Rajpal 180 Taxman 623 (Delhi) order dated May\n14, 2009\n28.\nAnil Shah vs. ACIT 162 Taxman 39 (Mum) (Mag) order dated\nApril 21, 2006\n29.\nJashn\nBeneficiary\nTrust vs. ACIT 88 Taxman 824 (Jabalpur-Trib.) order dated\nMarch 15, 2017\n30.\nMetro Development vs. Pr CIT I.T.A. No.635/Mum/2022 order\ndated 31/10/2022\n31.\nPr.…

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

…- 1 - ITA No.53 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ITA NO. 53 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1 . THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 5TH FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. 2 . THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, PRESENT ADDRESS, DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KORMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI N, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. TE C…

MMTC LTD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5(1),

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2006[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2025AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Pcit, Plot No. 23, 5Th Floor, Aggarwal Delhi-1, Delhi Corporate Tower Govind Lal Sikka Marg, Rajendra Place, West Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India, 110008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacc0642F

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Bharati, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37

…ld AR on the following decisions:- a. CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) b. CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma reported in 335 ITR 83 (Del) c. CIT Vs. Amalgamations Ltd reported in 238 ITR 963 (Mad) d. Hari Iron Trading Company Vs. CIT reported in 263 ITR 437 (P&H) e. CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd reported in 294 ITR 310 (Del) f. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 8. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we dismiss the preliminary argument of the ld DR that the ld AO had not indicated his mind in the assessment order by stating as to whether any enquiry was made on the issues that…

CLIX CAPITAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Clix Capital Services Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Pcit, Plot No. 23, 5Th Floor, Aggarwal Delhi-1, Delhi Corporate Tower Govind Lal Sikka Marg, Rajendra Place, West Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi, India, 110008 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacc0642F

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar Bharati, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37

…ld AR on the following decisions:- a. CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) b. CIT Vs. Anil Kumar Sharma reported in 335 ITR 83 (Del) c. CIT Vs. Amalgamations Ltd reported in 238 ITR 963 (Mad) d. Hari Iron Trading Company Vs. CIT reported in 263 ITR 437 (P&H) e. CIT Vs. Eicher Ltd reported in 294 ITR 310 (Del) f. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 8. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, we dismiss the preliminary argument of the ld DR that the ld AO had not indicated his mind in the assessment order by stating as to whether any enquiry was made on the issues that…

INDIABULLS COMMERCIAL CREDIT LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), MUMBAI-3, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2844/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2019-20
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 94(7)

…{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH,\nMUMBAI\nBEFORESHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n&\nSHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA No. 2844/MUM/2024\n(A.Y. 2019-20)\nIndiabulls Commercial\nCredit Limited,5th Floor,\nBuilding No. 27, K G Marg,\nConnaught Place, New Delhi -\n110 001\nस्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AABCI5559G\nAppellant/अपीलार्थी\n..\nAppellant by :\nRespondent by :\nDate of Hearing\nDate of Pronouncement\nv/s.\nबनाम\nPr.CIT (Central), Mumbai-\n3, Room No. 1901, 19th Floor,\nAir India Building, Nariman\nPoint, Mumbai 400 021,\nMaharashtra\nRespo…

GENUS POWER INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITTED,NOIDA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTERAL), LUCKNOW

ITA 74/LKW/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow18 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kumar, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.74/LKW/2022 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Genus Power Infrastructures Ltd Registered Office – G-14, Sector-63, Noida-201307. PAN:AACCG1218P (Appellant) v. Pr Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Aayakar Bhawan, 5 Ashok Marg, Lucknow-226001. (Respondent) Appellant by: Respondent by: Shri Praveen Kumar, Adv. Smt Namita S. Pandey, CIT(DR) ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, А.М.: (A) This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Principa…

Showing 1–20 of 155 · Page 1 of 8

...