ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd.

343 ITR 329High Court2012#164 most cited

What is ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. authority for?

For exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263, the Commissioner must first find that the Assessing Officer's order is erroneous and unsustainable in law, as this is a condition precedent. An order is not erroneous merely because two views are possible, or if the Commissioner disagrees with the Assessing Officer's permissible view, or to simply remit the matter for further enquiries.

438

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,514 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. · Section 263 · revisional jurisdiction · erroneous assessment order · prejudicial to revenue · condition precedent · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · two views possible · AO's view unsustainable in law · Commissioner cannot remit

Also reported as

20 Taxmann.com 557

Sections most often in play

Section 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57(iv)Section 144BSection 10(37)

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquirysection 145a(b)section 145black of enquirysection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 263(1)section 10(37)assessment order erroneousmalabar industrialrevision u/s 263

Judgments citing ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd.

Bhagat Ram Kaushal, Ambala vs. Pr.CIT, Panchkula

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 277/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 277/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sh. Bhagat Ram Kaushal, Pr. Commissioner Of बनाम C/O Rajiv Goel & Associates Income Tax, Sco 823-824, Panchkula Sector 22A, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Brepk2050A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “A”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 277/CHD/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sh. Bhagat Ram Kaushal, Pr. Commissioner of बनाम C/o Rajiv Goel and Associates Income Tax, SCO 823-824, Panchkula Sector 22A, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BREPK2050A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing though video Conferencing "नधा"रती क ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Rohit Goel, CA राज"व क ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR स…

Sh. Bhagwan Singh, Nabha vs. ITO, Nabha

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1164/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 277/Chd/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sh. Bhagat Ram Kaushal, Pr. Commissioner Of बनाम C/O Rajiv Goel & Associates Income Tax, Sco 823-824, Panchkula Sector 22A, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Brepk2050A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, “A”, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 277/CHD/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sh. Bhagat Ram Kaushal, Pr. Commissioner of बनाम C/o Rajiv Goel and Associates Income Tax, SCO 823-824, Panchkula Sector 22A, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BREPK2050A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing though video Conferencing "नधा"रती क ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Rohit Goel, CA राज"व क ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Vivek Nangia, CIT DR स…

Rajesh Nagaraja Rao Jagdale, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 208/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CA
Section 132Section 143Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 263Section 41(1)Section 56Section 56o

…le in law and the said finding must be recorded. The Commissioner of Income-tax cannot remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide whether the findings recorded are erroneous. Reliance may also placed on the rulings of DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2013] 343 ITR 329 and Vinod Bhandari [2020] 116 taxmann.com 264, Ashok Arora [2017] 88 taxmann.com 678. Considering the above submissions, the Appellant submits that the order passed by the PCIT under section 263 of the Page 6 of 9 Act setting aside the assessment to the file of the LAO needs to be quashed.” 6. On the contrary, the Ld.Sr.AR submitted that the asse…

Shri. Tarsem Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 157/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…54 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 32 taken a plausible view while passing the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v. Vikas Polymers ii) 332 ITR 16 (Del) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iii) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 5.7 It was submitted that section 263 does not permit revision of an order on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 296 IR 238 (P&H) CIT v. Sohana Woolen Mills ii) ITA No. 690/Chd/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 dated 9.3.2012 Sh. Jaswinder…

Sh. Parshotam Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 154/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…54 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 32 taken a plausible view while passing the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v. Vikas Polymers ii) 332 ITR 16 (Del) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iii) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 5.7 It was submitted that section 263 does not permit revision of an order on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 296 IR 238 (P&H) CIT v. Sohana Woolen Mills ii) ITA No. 690/Chd/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 dated 9.3.2012 Sh. Jaswinder…

Priyanka, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 152/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…54 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 32 taken a plausible view while passing the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v. Vikas Polymers ii) 332 ITR 16 (Del) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iii) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 5.7 It was submitted that section 263 does not permit revision of an order on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 296 IR 238 (P&H) CIT v. Sohana Woolen Mills ii) ITA No. 690/Chd/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 dated 9.3.2012 Sh. Jaswinder…

Priya Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…54 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 32 taken a plausible view while passing the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v. Vikas Polymers ii) 332 ITR 16 (Del) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iii) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 5.7 It was submitted that section 263 does not permit revision of an order on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 296 IR 238 (P&H) CIT v. Sohana Woolen Mills ii) ITA No. 690/Chd/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 dated 9.3.2012 Sh. Jaswinder…

M/S Pardeep Ispat(P) Ltd., Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 150/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…54 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 32 taken a plausible view while passing the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v. Vikas Polymers ii) 332 ITR 16 (Del) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iii) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 5.7 It was submitted that section 263 does not permit revision of an order on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 296 IR 238 (P&H) CIT v. Sohana Woolen Mills ii) ITA No. 690/Chd/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 dated 9.3.2012 Sh. Jaswinder…

Shri Rajeev Goyal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.149/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sh. Rajeev Goyal Pr. Commissioner Of Income बनाम M/S R.K. Associates, Tax, Rohtak B.G. Complex Near Ganesh Dharam Kanta, Sirsa -125055, Haryana "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Aibpg7289A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…54 & 157-c-2021 Rajeev Goyal & others 32 taken a plausible view while passing the assessment order. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 341 ITR 537 (Del) CIT v. Vikas Polymers ii) 332 ITR 16 (Del) CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. iii) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 5.7 It was submitted that section 263 does not permit revision of an order on the basis of suspicion, conjectures and surmises. Reliance was placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) 296 IR 238 (P&H) CIT v. Sohana Woolen Mills ii) ITA No. 690/Chd/2010 A.Y. 2005-06 dated 9.3.2012 Sh. Jaswinder…

Concern India Foundation, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT (Exem.) - 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1919/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2022AY 2015-16
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

…details already available in the assessment records by merely directing him to re-verify the same details. In this regard, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Modicare Ltd., in ITA No.759 of 2017; ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd., reported in 343 ITR 329; DIT vs. Jyothi Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388, had uniformly held that the exercise of jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT cannot be outsourced by the ld. PCIT to the ld. AO. In either case, there is a huge difference between ‘lack of enquiry’ and ‘inadequate enquiry’. It is for the ld. AO to decide the extent of enquiry to be ma…

Humuza Consultants, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT-19, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 726/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Humuza Consultants Vs The Principal Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Wokhardt Towers Income-Tax-19, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex Room No. 228, 2Nd Floor, Bandra East Matru Mandir Mumbai-400 01 Tardeo Road, Pan : Aahfh9240E Mumbai-400 007 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jd Mistry & Hiten Chande Respondent By Shri K.K. Mishra (Cit,Dr) Date Of Hearing 07-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07-01-2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi (Am):

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 68

…n the present appeal is neither a case of the ‗lack of enquiry‘ nor ‗inadequate enquiry‘, which gives an authority to the learned PCIT to revise the order. e. He further referred to the decision of the Hon‘ble Delhi High Court in ITO vs DG Housing Project Ltd 343 ITR 329 (Del) and referring to paragraphs 16 & 17 of that order that the matter cannot be remitted for a fresh decision to the AO to conduct further enquiries without finding that the order is erroneous. He submitted that at least LD PCIT should have stated that those are the LD AO has not made the inquiries, which are relevant to the issues. He further…

Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt. Ltd, Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 195/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…relevant objective factors were available from the records called for and examined by such authority " [Emphasis Supplied] • The Ld. PCIT in his order stated that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. reported in [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) distinguished the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi). However, this finding of the Ld. PCIT is not factually correct and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. still holds goods wherein a distinction w…

M/S- Sbep-Gril(Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Principal CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 194/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…relevant objective factors were available from the records called for and examined by such authority " [Emphasis Supplied] • The Ld. PCIT in his order stated that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. reported in [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) distinguished the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi). However, this finding of the Ld. PCIT is not factually correct and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. still holds goods wherein a distinction w…

M/S- Rawat Balaji (Joint Venture), Jharsuguda vs. Prilncipal, CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 193/CTK/2019[204-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.193/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Rawats-Balaji(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aabar 9061 J Tan No. : Bbnr01647 C & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.194/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) M/S Sbepl-Gril(Jv), Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aafas 2639 R Tan No. : Bbns04348 B & आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita Nos.195/Ctk/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Shree Balaji Engicons Pvt Ltd Vs Pr.Cit, Sambalpur At/Po-Belpahar(Rs), Dist : Jharsuguda Pan No. : Aagcs 4292 P Tan No. : Bbns00091 A (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, Ar िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Citdr सुनवाई की तािीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2021 घोषणा की तािीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By Three Different Assessees Against The Order Passed By The Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, U/S.263 Of The Act, All Dated 30.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2

For Appellant: Shri Satyanarayan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80I

…relevant objective factors were available from the records called for and examined by such authority " [Emphasis Supplied] • The Ld. PCIT in his order stated that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. reported in [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) distinguished the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi). However, this finding of the Ld. PCIT is not factually correct and the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. still holds goods wherein a distinction w…

Sudhir Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT -15, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 665/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…that even before the PCIT, the assessee had furnished supporting evidences for claim of deduction u/s 80IC of the Act and the PCIT could have himself examined the claim of deduction as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of DG Housing Project 343 ITR 329. 10. Per contra the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the PCIT. 11. We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. The undisputed fact is that this is not the first year of claim of 100% deduction on substantial expansion. Substantial expansion was done in Assessment Year 2012 which year became initially…

Devaki Kamarajan, Tirupati vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Tirupati

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 117/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Devaki Kamarajan, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of No.19-7-97-A, Rc Road, Income Tax, Tirupati – 517501, Circle 1(1), Tirupati. Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. Pan : Afqpk7350A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya - Ar Revenue By: Shri Ravi Kiran - Dr Date Of Hearing: 21/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/11/2021 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y. 2013-14 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tirupati’S Order Dated 21.01.2019 Passed In Case No.U/S.263/Pcit/Tpt/2018-19 Involving Proceedings Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961( In Short “The Act”). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya - ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kiran - DR
Section 263Section 50C

…a speaking order affirmed by the AO would be taken as an instance of no enquiry for the purpose of assumption of revisionary jurisdiction in 263 proceedings, hon’ble Delhi high court’s landmark decision in the case of ITO Vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del) has drawn a distinction 2 between the cases involving lack of enquiry and wrong opinion on merits recorded by the Assessing Officer. Their lordship hold in Para 17 that when dealing with such an occasion of the Assessing Officer having formed a wrong opinion or finding on merits, the CIT has to come to the conclusion and himself decide tha…

M/S Kay Em Kay Industries, Ludhiana vs. Pr.CIT-1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.27/Chd/2021 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S Kay Em Kay Industries, Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, बनाम 13-H, Textile Colony, Ludhiana Ludhiana

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…is erroneous and that the order is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Hon’ble Court further held that power u/s 263 cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake committed by the AO. In the case of ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd.343 ITR 329 (Delhi) the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that revisional power u/s 263 of the Act is normally exercised in the case of no enquiry and not in the case of inadequate enquiry. In the present case the Ld. PCIT has revised the assessment order on the ground of lack of enquiry or inadequate enquiry, which is contrary to the evidence on record. F…

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 7695/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…dication of the issue in dispute before us. Similarly the decision of Tara Devi Aggarwa] (supra) relied upon by the CIT(DR) is also irrelevant. We may make a reference here to the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of DG Housing reported in 343 ITR 329(Del) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to hold as under: “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 stateme…

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 433/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…dication of the issue in dispute before us. Similarly the decision of Tara Devi Aggarwa] (supra) relied upon by the CIT(DR) is also irrelevant. We may make a reference here to the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of DG Housing reported in 343 ITR 329(Del) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to hold as under: “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 stateme…

Interglobe Aviation Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015 – 16 is allowed

ITA 432/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv.; &For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – D.R
Section 28Section 37(1)Section 40

…dication of the issue in dispute before us. Similarly the decision of Tara Devi Aggarwa] (supra) relied upon by the CIT(DR) is also irrelevant. We may make a reference here to the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of DG Housing reported in 343 ITR 329(Del) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to hold as under: “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 stateme…