(ii) CIT v. DG Housing

343 ITR 239High Court#15665 most cited
6

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2024.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(2)Section 263Section 131(1A)Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

revision under section 263lack of enquirymalabar industrialerroneous and prejudicialnon-application of mindsection 263section 26section 144bsection 143(2)section 142(1)section 147section 148

Judgments citing (ii) CIT v. DG Housing

Kandy Gold Private Limited, Haryana vs. PCIT, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2562/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarm/S Kandy Gold Pcit, Rohtak Private Limited, R R Singla & Co., 106- Vs. 107, Maharaja Agrasen Shopping Complex, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (Appellant) (Respondent) Aadcr4278F

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

…No Inquiry" is different from "inadequate Inquiry" and where the Id. AO makes enquiries as it seems appropriate on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is not warranted. Page3 (ii) In CIT v. DG Housing 343 ITR 239 (Del), it is held that: In case where the allegation is of "proper inquiries" the burden is on the Id. PCIT to conduct further inquiries by himself and he cannot simply set aside the order of the Id. AO for further enquiries. (iii) In Delhi High Court in DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Delhi), it is observed that: "Thus, in cases of…

Sandeep Kumar, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1545/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…(Delhi). "No Inquiry" is different from "inadequate Inquiry" and where the Id. AO makes enquiries as it seems appropriate on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is not warranted. (ii) CIT v. DG Housing 343 ITR 239 (Del). In case where the allegation is of "proper inquiries" the burden is on the Id. PCIT to conduct further inquiries by himself and he cannot simply set aside the order of the Id. AO for further enquiries. (iii) Delhi High Court in DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Delhi). "Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on the merits, t…

Sandeep Kumar, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Faridabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1542/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…(Delhi). "No Inquiry" is different from "inadequate Inquiry" and where the Id. AO makes enquiries as it seems appropriate on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is not warranted. (ii) CIT v. DG Housing 343 ITR 239 (Del). In case where the allegation is of "proper inquiries" the burden is on the Id. PCIT to conduct further inquiries by himself and he cannot simply set aside the order of the Id. AO for further enquiries. (iii) Delhi High Court in DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Delhi). "Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on the merits, t…

Raj Kumar Karanwal, Muzaffarnagar vs. Pr.CIT, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 644/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

…enquiries”, the burden is on the Ld. PCIT to conduct further enquiries by himself and he cannot simply set aside the order of the Ld. AO for further enquiries. For this proposition, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. D G Housing 343 ITR 239 (Del). 12.2 The Ld. AR further submitted that the Explanation 2 to section 263 also cannot help the Revenue as it came into effect w.e.f. 01.06.2015 whereas the case of the assessee pertains to AY 2010-11. 6 13. The Ld. CIT-DR supported the order of the Ld. PCIT and placed on record copy of fresh assessment order passed on 31.03.2022 under secti…

Sh. Mahesh Chugh, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT-2, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT-DR
Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ ‘‘बी च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ बी.’’, च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ च"डीगढ़ बी बी IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ ITA No. 104/CHD/2021 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Mahesh Chug, The Pr. CIT-I, बनाम # 3113, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh-2. VS Chandigarh. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: ACZPC8060H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/…

Ambawatt Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (C), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2552/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Ambawatt Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Vs Pr. Cit (C), Kh 267, 1St Floor, 7Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, Chatterpur Enclave, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Mehrauli, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan: Aagca0991B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Satpal Gulati, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.05.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17Th February, 2017 Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By The Cit, Central, Gurgaon, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30Th September, 2014, Declaring Nil Income. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Compulsory Scrutiny & A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee On 20Th September, 2015. Notice U/S 142(1) Along With A Questionnaire Was Also Issued On 12Th May, 2016. In Response To The Statutory Notices Issued By The Ao, The Assessee Appeared Before Him From Time To Time & Furnished Replies Which Were Kept On Record. The Ao, On The Basis Of Various Details Furnished Before Him, Disallowed An Amount Of Rs.3,91,936/- U/S 40A(3) Out Of Car Repairs & Maintenance & Determined The Total Loss Of The Assessee At Rs.94,25,270/- As Against The Returned Loss Of Rs.98,17,203/-.

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…the allegation is of “proper enquires”, the burden is on CIT to conduct further enquires by himself and he cannot simply set aside the order of the AO for further enquiries. For the above proposition he relied on the following decisions:- a. CIT Vs DG Housing 343 ITR 239(Del); b. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del), c. D.K.Associates in ITA No.5659 of 2016 dated 16.01.2017; 13.5 The ld. Counsel for the assessee accordingly submitted that: a. The order of assessment against which the impugned action of 263 is challenged was barred by limitation and hence the jurisdiction of 26…

(ii) CIT v. DG Housing (343 ITR 239) — Cited in 6 Judgments | BharatTax