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 367,368 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.

Max Financial Service Limited, Nawanshahr vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is therefore partly allowed

ITA 121/ASR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Mar 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Deepak ChopraFor Respondent: Smt.Prabhjot Kaur, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DIVISION BENCH, AMRITSAR (VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.L. NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 121 (Asr)/2020 (Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/s Max Financial Services Ltd., The Pr. CIT-I., बनाम Bhai Mohan Singh Nagar, C.R. Building, Rail Majra, Tehsil Balachaur, Model Town Road, Distt Nawanshahr. Jalandhar. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCM1204G "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by: Shri Deepak Chopra, Shri Deepak Aggarwal Shri Rohan Khare Ms.Pratishtha Singh राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by: Smt.Prabhjot Kaur, CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 2…

Shri Atul Kochar, Jaipur vs. Prcit-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 211/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Amrish Bedi (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

…essment, but the same is apparent from the record of the proceedings, the invocation of jurisdiction by the ld. CIT was unsustainable. 10. A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. reported in 343 ITR 329 wherein the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to held as under :- “18. It is in this context that the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2000] 243 ITR 83 / 109 Taxman 66 (SC), had observed that the phrase 'prejudicial to the interest of Revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by…

Deutsche Investments India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 12, Mumbai

Accordingly, the order passed u/s 263 is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3630/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3630/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Ashima Gupta, AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…having been dealt as per the computation of income and relevant notes declared alongwith the financial statement and relevant case laws, it cannot be said that the AO has not applied his mind. He further relied on the decision of ITO vs D.G Housing Projects (343 ITR 329) to submit that Ld CIT has not dealt on merits of the issue to quantify the prejudice caused to the revenue instead of remitting it back to AO for fresh consideration. 18. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We notice that Ld. CIT has invoked provisions of section 263 in this assessment year on the basis that AO has a…

Prakash Pandharinath Bakre, Indore vs. Pr.CIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 272/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…n the case of Lata Phulwani – ITA No. 246/JP/20 wherein the Hon’ble Bench placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ganpat Ram Vishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of D.G. Housing Projects Ltd 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). In view of the above factual and legal position, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263. Thus, the entire such proceedings initiated by the ld. PCIT deserves to the quashed. 10. Per contra, the ld. CIT/DR relied on the order of ld. Pr. CIT and his relevant findings are as under:- “2. The case of the asses…

Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt Ltd. 76, Dhuleshwar Garden, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 941/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54

…n the case of Lata Phulwani – ITA No. 246/JP/20 wherein the Hon’ble Bench placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ganpat Ram Vishnoi 296 ITR 292 (Raj) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of D.G. Housing Projects Ltd 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). In view of the above factual and legal position, ld. PCIT has grossly erred in assuming jurisdiction under section 263. Thus, the entire such proceedings initiated by the ld. PCIT deserves to the quashed. 10. Per contra, the ld. CIT/DR relied on the order of ld. Pr. CIT and his relevant findings are as under:- “2. The case of the asses…

Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3285/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 17(2)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…el also relied on the following decisions:- i) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers, 341 ITR 537 (Del); ii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Del); iii) CIT vs. DLF Ltd., 350 ITR 555 (Del); iv) CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282; v) ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd., 343 ITR 329 (Del); vi) Director of Income-tax vs. Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388 (Del); vii) PCIT vs. Vinita Chaurasia, 394 ITR 758 (Del); viii) Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd., 398 ITR 8 (Del) ix) Shri Abhimanyu Gupta vs. PCIT, ITA No. 771/CHD/2017; x) Narayan Tatu Rane vs. ITO 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mumbai Trib.); xi) Jeewanlal Ltd. vs. Addl. ICT, 108 ITR…

Dhirendra International (P) Ltd., Neemuch vs. Pr. CIT Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

ITA 750/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.632/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Aditya Mundra, 24-HIG, Vijay Nagar, Dewas PAN : AAQPM9678N : Appellant V/s PCIT, Ujjain : Revenue Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Govind Das Mundra, CG-16, Scheme No.74, Vijay Nagar,Indore PAN : AFZPM7956B : Appellant V/s PCIT, Ujjain : Revenue Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Manish Mundra, 104/B, Pathar Godown Road, New Siyaganj,Indore PAN : AAQPM9678N : Appellant Aditya Mundra…

Shri Manoj Mundra, Indore vs. PCIT Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

ITA 637/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.632/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Aditya Mundra, 24-HIG, Vijay Nagar, Dewas PAN : AAQPM9678N : Appellant V/s PCIT, Ujjain : Revenue Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Govind Das Mundra, CG-16, Scheme No.74, Vijay Nagar,Indore PAN : AFZPM7956B : Appellant V/s PCIT, Ujjain : Revenue Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Manish Mundra, 104/B, Pathar Godown Road, New Siyaganj,Indore PAN : AAQPM9678N : Appellant Aditya Mundra…

Shri Manish Mundra, Indore vs. PCIT Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

ITA 635/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.632/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Aditya Mundra, 24-HIG, Vijay Nagar, Dewas PAN : AAQPM9678N : Appellant V/s PCIT, Ujjain : Revenue Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Govind Das Mundra, CG-16, Scheme No.74, Vijay Nagar,Indore PAN : AFZPM7956B : Appellant V/s PCIT, Ujjain : Revenue Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Manish Mundra, 104/B, Pathar Godown Road, New Siyaganj,Indore PAN : AAQPM9678N : Appellant Aditya Mundra…

Shri Govind Das Mundra, Indore vs. PCIT Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

ITA 634/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.632/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Aditya Mundra, 24-HIG, Vijay Nagar, Dewas PAN : AAQPM9678N : Appellant V/s PCIT, Ujjain : Revenue Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Govind Das Mundra, CG-16, Scheme No.74, Vijay Nagar,Indore PAN : AFZPM7956B : Appellant V/s PCIT, Ujjain : Revenue Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Manish Mundra, 104/B, Pathar Godown Road, New Siyaganj,Indore PAN : AAQPM9678N : Appellant Aditya Mundra…

Shri Aditya Mundra, Dewas vs. PCIT Ujjain, Ujjain

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

ITA 632/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.632/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Aditya Mundra, 24-HIG, Vijay Nagar, Dewas PAN : AAQPM9678N : Appellant V/s PCIT, Ujjain : Revenue Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Govind Das Mundra, CG-16, Scheme No.74, Vijay Nagar,Indore PAN : AFZPM7956B : Appellant V/s PCIT, Ujjain : Revenue Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Manish Mundra, 104/B, Pathar Godown Road, New Siyaganj,Indore PAN : AAQPM9678N : Appellant Aditya Mundra…

M/S. Charitra Gold Pvt. Ltd., Ratlam vs. The Pr. CIT, Ujjain

In the result all the appeals of the assessee(s) (i) Shri Aditya

ITA 517/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.632/Ind/2019 Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Aditya Mundra, 24-HIG, Vijay Nagar, Dewas PAN : AAQPM9678N : Appellant V/s PCIT, Ujjain : Revenue Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Govind Das Mundra, CG-16, Scheme No.74, Vijay Nagar,Indore PAN : AFZPM7956B : Appellant V/s PCIT, Ujjain : Revenue Assessment Year 2014-15 Shri Manish Mundra, 104/B, Pathar Godown Road, New Siyaganj,Indore PAN : AAQPM9678N : Appellant Aditya Mundra…

M/S.Srl Diagnostics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner Income Tax-7, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 1528/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri R. L. Negi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1528/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan & Shri SFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, DR
Section 14ASection 263Section 37

…t after making these observations, the Tribunal held that an order passed by the PCIT without showing the claim of the assesses to be incorrect is invalid. Similar observations have been made in the following judgments ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) (para 6) Infinity Infotech Park Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2017] SX TTR (Trib.) 486 Sterling Biotech Ltd. v. PCIT [ITA Appeal No. 2750 (Mum.) of 2015, dated 29-6-2016], 34 I.T.A. No. 1528/Mum/2018 M/s SRL Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. 23. Ld AR further submitted that Ld. PCIT erred in exercising jurisdiction under section 263 in relation to dis- allowa…

Essar Capital Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3759/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Vajresh Consultants Prcit 6, Ltd. (Earlier Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Essar Capital Ltd.), Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40-B, Ridge Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006 Pan: Aabce 7257R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. & Shri Hiten Chande, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263

…efore, it is submitted that the order passed by the PCIT under section 263 of the Act remanding the matter back is without jurisdiction and incorrect. In this regard the Appellant relies on the following judicial pronouncement: b. IIO vs. DG Housing Projects (343 ITR 329) c. Vardhaman industries Ltd. vs. DCIT (82 taxmann.com 118) affirmed by P&H High Court in CIT vs.Vardhman Industries (396 ITR 34) In view of the above, it was submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be termed as erroneous as the PCIT 75 M/s. Vajresh Consultants Ltd. (Earlier known as Essar Capital Ltd.) himself has not f…

Rungta Mines Ltd., Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 1, Kolkata

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

ITA 1326/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy)

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

…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…

Seth Brothers, Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly

ITA 3395/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Sh. C.S. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) I.T.A. No. 3395/DEL/2013 A.Y. : 2008-09 SETH BROTHERS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME SHANTI NIKETAN, VS. TAX, CIVIL LINES, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MEERUT BHAINSALI GROUND, (PAN: AAJFS0123M) MEERUT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. C.S. Anand, Advocate Department by : Sh. H.K. Choudhary, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The background of the case is that the assessment order in this case was passed on 30.11.2010 by the ACIT, Cirlce-2, Meerut, and the…

Deutsche Investments India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 6, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 3665/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2020AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)Section 263

…having been dealt with in computation of income and case laws also mentioned therein, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind. He further relied upon Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of ITO Vs. D.G. Housing Projects (343 ITR 329). 11. Upon careful consideration, we may gainfully refer to provisions of section 263 of the IT Act :- 263. (1) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to…

Amar Singh Chaudhary, Jabalpur vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 28/JAB/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur27 Oct 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Nrs Ganesan&Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 263Section 48

…during hearing, even as their copies not on record, were neither referred to, nor could possibly be responded to by the other side: CIT v. V. Dhana Reddy & Co. [2018] 407 ITR 96 (AP) 13 | P a g e Amar Singh Choudhary v. Pr. CIT ITO v. DG Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del) CIT v. Hindustan Mktg. & Adv. Co. Ltd. [2010] 46 DTR 109 (Del)) Surprisingly, even the decision by the Apex Court settling the law in the matter were not referred to during hearing or met by the other side. The Apex Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) enumerated a four-way test for an order being erroneous, i.e., wrong assumption o…

M/S Mbl Infrastructures Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 427/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.427/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Mbl Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata . 1St Floor, Divine Bliss, 2/3, Judges Court Road, Kolkata – 700027. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccm0564C (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Ram Bilash Meena, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2020 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22/10/2020

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 35DSection 80Section 80I

…essing Officer having erroneously accepted the assessee’s section 80IA deduction claim whereas his section 263 order under challenge has merely restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer for afresh adjudication. Case law ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 319 holds that such a course of action is not permissible in section 263 revision jurisdiction as under: “8. The Tribunal has set aside the order observing that the CIT had not held and come to the conclusion or given a finding that the actual receipt of consideration was more than what was declared in the return. The CIT had not recorded any finding…

Smt. Lata Phulwani, Jaipur vs. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Oct 2020AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Amrish Bedi (CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 54F

…the order of assessment, but the same is apparent from the record of the proceedings, the invocation of jurisdiction by the ld. CIT was unsustainable. A similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 in para 18 as under :- “18. It is in this context that the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2000] 243 ITR 83 / 109 Taxman 66 (SC), had observed that the phrase 'prejudicial to the interest of Revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of R…