How many judgments cite ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd.?

438 judgments on BharatTax cite ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (343 ITR 329), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 263, Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 148, Section 56(2)(viii), Section 57(iv).

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

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquiry section 145a(b)section 145b lack of enquiry section 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 263(1)section 10(37)assessment order erroneous malabar industrial revision u/s 263

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

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

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

ITA 413/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…

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

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

ITA 412/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

Sangram Keshari Samantaray, Bhubaneswar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bhubaneswar

ITA 12/CTK/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida/C.Parida, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CITDR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

…Ltd. Vs. Pr.CIT, ITA No.207/CTK/2018, order dated 17.07.2020; iii) Pr.CIT Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd., (2017) 398 ITR 8 (Del); . iv) Director of Income Tax Vs. Jyoti Foundation (2013) 357 ITR 388 (Del;); v) ITO Vs. DG Housing Projects ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329; vi) Aditi Aggarwal Vs. Pr.CIT, ITA No.21/Chd/2021, order dated 20.09.2021; vii) Sh. Jaswinder Singh Vs. CIT-II, ITA No.690/Chd/2010, order dated 09.03.2012; viii) Shri Sunil Chhagan Bhaybhang Vs. Pr.CIT, ITA No.932/PUN/2016, order dated 07.03.2019; and ix) Raghunath Exporters Vs. Pr.CIT, ITA No.92/Kol/2017, order dated 10.11.2017. 10. It was als…

Majestic Stock Pvt.Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ‘A’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 34/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2011-12 cuke Majestic Stock Pvt Ltd Principal Commissioner of Vs. 24, Santosh Sagar Colony, Income Tax, Jaipur-2 Brahmpuri, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. AAGCM3877J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Gupta (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 94/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

…vs Gabriel India Ltd. [203 ITR 108(Bom),  Moil Ltd. vs CIT [ 81 taxmann.com 420 (Bom. HC)]’  CIT vs. Fine Jewellery India Ltd. [55 texmann.com 514 ] (Bom HC),  A n i l k u m a r S h a r m a [335 ITR 0083] (Delhi HC),  ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Limited [343 ITR 329](Dei HC)],  CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [189 Taxman 0436 (Del.)],  PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No. 705/2017(Del),  CIT V/s. Vika Polymers [341 ITR 537] (Delhi HC),  CIT vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi [296 ITR 0292] (Raj HC),  CIT vs. Jain Constructions Co [257 ITR 0336] (Raj HC),  CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. [ 256 ITR 1 ](…

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 93/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

Amrut Sarovar, Surat vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax(Central), Surat

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in all three assessment years are allowed

ITA 92/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 254(1)Section 263

Royal Western India Turf Club, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed, as indicated above

ITA 640/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Rajesh Kumar ()

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(2)

…T, [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) 11. CIT Vs. Gabriel India Ltd., [1993] 71 Taxmann 585 (Bom.) 12. PCIT Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., DHC-dated 05.09.20 17 13. PCIT Vs. Medicare Ltd., DHC-dated 14.09.2017 14. ITO Vs. D.G.Housing Projects Ltd., [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del.) 15. DIT Vs. Jyoti Foundation., [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Del.) 16. Shri Narayan Tatu Rane Vs. ITO, ITAT-New Delhi-dated 06.05.2016. Brahma Center Development P. Ltd. Vs. PCIT, ITAT-New Delhi- dated 18.12.2019. 7. The learned departmental representative submitted, before the revisionary authority the assessee had made no representation in suppo…

Sukhdev Chayal, Bikaner vs. PCIT-1, Jodhpur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/JODH/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

Section 143(3)Section 263

…g that the AO's order was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Our findings in this regard find support in the following judgments: DIT vs Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329 CIT vs Ashish Rajpal reported in 320 ITR 674 (Del) CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) CIT vs R.K. Construction Co. reported in 313 ITR 65 (Guj) For these reasons, we are of the considered view that the assessment order is not the result of non-application of mind or any inadequate enquiry. We are also of the considered opin…

M/S Vimla Infrastructure (India) Private Limited, Raipur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Incometax-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/RPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 18/Rpr/2021) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT.DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80Section 80GSection 80I

…mself as expected from him to describe the exact nature of error. For this proposition, reliance was placed on the following decisions: (a) PCIT Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (201 7) 398 ITR 8 (Del. HC) (b) ITO Vs. D.G.Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.HC) ITA No. 18/RPR/2021 (M/s. Vimla Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT) A.Y. 2015-16 - 9 - (c) Pr.CIT Vs. M/s.Brahma Centre Development Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.116/2021 & 118/2021 (Del.HC) (Date of Judgment : 05.07.2021) 11. On appraisal of the facts and circumstances of the case and case laws noted above, we find that AO had carried o…

Shir Bajrang Power and Ispat Ltd., Raipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 32/RPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 32/Rpr/2021) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Singh, CIT.DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “RAIPUR” BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 32/RPR/2021) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Shri Bajrang Power and Deputy Commissioner बनाम/ Ispat Limited of Income Tax, Vs. Village – Borjhara, Urla Circle 1(1), Raipur Guma road, Raipur-493221, Chhattisgarh "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCB2944D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Amit Maloo Jain, C.A. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant by : Shri R. K. Singh, CIT.DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : सुनवाई क"…

Aditi Aggarwal, Ambala Cantt vs. Pr.CIT, Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 21/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…b). • CIT Vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes And Others [2003] 262 ITR 354 (Kerala) • M/s Colors Textiles Limited Vs. ITO in ITA No. 1514/Chd/2017 (Chd Trib) order dt. 05/12/2018 • CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del) • ITO Vs. D.G. Housing Project Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del) • City Beautiful Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 554/Chd/2017 (Chd Trib) order dt. 04/10/2018 • PCIT Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. [2017](9) TMI 529 (Del) • CIT Vs. Anil Kumar reported in 335 ITR 83 (Del) • CIT Vs. Atlas Cycle Industries reported in 180 ITR 319 (P&H) • CIT Vs. Sohana Woollen Mills [2008] 296 ITR 238 (P&H…

M/S. Origami Cellulo Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 394/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR-III)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92A(2)Section 92C

…hat the initial order was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the observations and the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd in 343 ITR 329, which is reproduced below: “19. In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has not gone into and has not given any reason for observing that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was erroneous. The finding recorded by the CIT is that "order passed by the Assessing Officer may be erroneous". The CIT had…

Mahabir Prasad, Sarguja vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 54/RPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Pawan Singh(Hearing In Virtual Court) Mahabir Prasad Pcit, Raipur-1 Ajirma, Raghavpuri P.S Raipur Vs Jaynagar, Surajpur, Sarguja Chhattisgarh Pan : Bphpp 3014 E Assessee / Appellant Revenue /Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 263Section 44A

…ollowing decisions:-  Mukesh Jayantilal Kanakhara (2017) 184 TTJ 673 (Rajkot- Trib)  Bodhisattva Chattopadhyay vs. CIT (2929) 185 DTR 89 (Kol- Trib)  CIT Vs Nirav Modi (2016) 71 taxmann.com 272 ( Bombay High Court)  ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del) 8 Mahabir Prasad (A.Y.15-16) 6. On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue supported the order of Ld. PCIT. Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue further submits that the assessment order is silent about the various enquiries conducted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer accepted the return of income declared by the assessee, without d…

Shri Sanjay Agarwal, Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT, -27, Mumbai

ITA 1603/MUM/2020[2016-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2021AY 2016-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar () & Shri Ravish Sood () Shri Sanjay Agarwal The Pr.Cit-27 1001/02 Brindavan Terrace, Vs. Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Deonar Farm Road, Deonar, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400088 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Agepa6776B (Assessee) (Revenue) Assessee By : Dr. P. Daniel, A.R Revenue By : Dr. Yogesh Kamat, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2021

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat, CIT D.R

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

…of Bombay, the CIT cannot seek revision of an order merely because he disagrees with the conclusion arrived at by the A.O. Our attention was also drawn to the judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of ITO Vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del). Relying on the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that a CIT without arriving at a finding that the order passed by the A.O was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue was precluded from invoking his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Further, the ld. A.R relied on the judgment of the Ho…

Nkb Infrastructure (P) Ltd, Rewari vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 263

…n ‘error’ invocation of section 263 of the Act is not in accordance with law. 7 In support of above ratio, the learned Counsel relied on the following decisions: 1. PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express P Ltd 398 ITR 8 (Delhi) 2. ITO Vs DG Housing Projects Ltd 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) 3. PCIT Vs Vinita Chaurasia 394 ITR 758 (Delhi) 4. ITA No. 771/CHD/2017 Shri Abhimanyu Gupta Vs PCIT 5. Narayan Tatu Rane Vs ITO, 70 taxmann.com 227 5. On the contrary, the learned DR referred to Explanation-2(i) below the section 263 of the Act. She submitted that in view of the Explanation which has been inserted by the Finance Act, 20…

M/S Radhishwari Devlopers P Ltd, Indore vs. Pr CIT -2 Indore, Indore

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

ITA 493/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jul 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…so sent which shows that the impugned order was passed by the ld. Pr. CIT without conducting any further enquiry which in itself makes the proceedings void in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 92012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). 14. Further reliance was also placed on the following decisions: S.NO PARTICULARS PAGE NOS. 01 Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd (ITAT Ahmedabad Bench) 01-10 02 Madhusudan Industries Ltd (ITAT Ahmedabad Bench) 13-22 03 Pr Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs Narayan Balmukand 23-35 Dubey [2017 30 ITJ 335 (M.P)] 04 Director of Income Tax Vs Jyoti Fo…

M/S Alimaan Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs. CIT ( Exemption), Mumbai

ITA 1689/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita No.1689 /Mum/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S Alimaan Charitable Commissioner Of Income Trust, 206, Rewa Chambers, Vs. Tax (Exemptions),R. No. New Marine Lines, 617, 6Th Floor, Piramal Mumbai – 400 020 Chambers, Lal Baug,Parel,Mumbai – 400 012 Pan No. Aaata2536P (Assessee ) (Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Firojandhyaruzina, Senior Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit, Cit D.R Date Of Hearing: 28/05/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/06/2021

For Appellant: Shri FirojAndhyaruzina, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, CIT D.R

Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ly because the CIT was not satisfied with the view that was drawn by the A.O. In support of his aforesaid contention reliance was placed by the ld. A.R on the order of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of ITO Vs. D.G. Housing Projects Limited (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del). Further, drawing support from the order of the ITAT, Indore in the case Rakesh Khandelwal Vs. Pr. CIT, ITA No. 204/Ind/2019; dated 29.01.2020, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the CIT in the course of the proceedings under Sec. 263 is obligated to establish by conducting necessary inquiries that the order passed by the A.O is erroneous…

M/S Nilkanth Stone Industries, Valsad vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 386/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon'Ble(Virtual Hearing) आ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.386/Srt/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Nilkanth Stone Industries, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Shop No.A-1/2/3, Nilkanth Of Income Tax, Valsad. Residency, B/H Old Jakarta Nagar, Tithal Road, Valsad. [Pan: Aajfn 5653 K] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओर से /Assessee By Shri Surji Chheda - Ca राज"वक"ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ritesh Mishra – Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2021 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On: 27.05.2021 आदेश /O R D E R Per Pawan Singh, Judicial Memeber: 1. This Appeal Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (Act) By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Valsad Hereinafter Referred As “Ld. Pcit” Passed Under Section 263 Of Income-Tax Act (Act) Dated 27.03.2018, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Vide His Application Dated 16.08.2018 Following Concise Grounds Of Appeal: “1. In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit Has Erred In Initiation Of Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Which Was Without Jurisdiction & The Cit Erred In Holding That The Assessment Order Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue On All Issues Discussed In Revision Order & Has Erred In Setting It Aside For Fresh

Section 253Section 263

…In support of his submission, the ld.AR relied upon the following decisions:  CIT Vs Design and Automation Engineers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. [2010] 323 ITR632 (Bombay HC),  CIT Vs Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537 (Delhi HC),  ITO Vs DG Housing Projects [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi HC),  Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 3858 (Delhi HC.),  CIT – Vs. Leisure wear Exports Ltd., 341 ITR 166 (Delhi HC.),  CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Delhi HC),  CIT vs. DLF Power Ltd. 329 ITR 289 (Delhi HC),  CIT vs. Max India Ltd. 295 ITR 282 (SC),  ITA NO.3206/DEL/2017 Amira Enterprises ltd Vs PCIT,  CIT Vs Arvind Jewellers (2…

Rasna Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Pr.CIT, -3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedasstt.Year 2015-16

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘B’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD (Conducted through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt.Year 2015-16 Rasna Pvt. Ltd. Pr.CIT-3 Ahmedabad. Atlanta Tower Vs. Opp: Sears Tower Panchvati, Gulbhai Tekra Ahmedabad 38001. PAN : AAACW 4408 M (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri P.F. Jain, AR Assessee by Revenue by : Shri Sanjeev Jain, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 23/03/2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 09/04/2021 आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE-PRESID…