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.

Surekha Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. Principal CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 207/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Jul 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT,DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…14 i) CIT vs Reita Biscuits Co.(P) Ltd., 309 ITR 154 (P&H) ii) DIT vs Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388 (Del) iii) Nanda Kishore Agarwalla vs Pr. CIT in ITA No.212/CTK/2017 iv) Pr. CIT vs Kessoram Industries Ltd., 105 CCH 99 (kol) v) ITO vs DG Housing Projects , 343 ITR 329(Del) 9. Replying to above, ld CIT DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry, verification or any other exercise to examine the justification and correctness of the revenue recognition method & calculation adopted by the assessee for Surekha Vatika project. Therefore, ld Pr. CIT was right in alleging the impugned assessme…

The Electro Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT-12, Kolkata

In the result, this assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 806/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. P.M. Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Godara[Assessment Year: 2014-15] The Electro Urban Co- Principal Commissioner Operative Credit Society Ltd., Of Income Tax, Cesc House, Annex Kolkata-12, Building, 1St Floor, Kolkata. Vs Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 001. Pan- Aadat 5699 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sanjay Bhattacharya, Fca. Respondent By Sh. Radhey Shyam, Cit. Date Of Hearing 10.02.2020 Date Of Pronouncement 10.07.2020 Order Per Sh. S.S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Ay 2014-15 Arises Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Passed By The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata-12, Kolkata In M. No. Pcit-12/Kol/263/2018-19/ In Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The “Act”).

Section 143(3)Section 22Section 263Section 57

…ried out necessary enquiries but also he changed the Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Electro Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd. head of its income from “other sources” to business (supra). Hon’ble Delhi high court in ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) hold that the twin limbs of no enquiry or inadequate enquiry and an erroneous decision by the assessing authority stand on a different footing and the CIT cannot simply remand the issue back for afresh assessment qua the latter. 6. We further notice that the issue of the assessment of assessee's income derived from holiday homes claimed…

Shuma Kalra, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 12, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee failed on all five grounds raised before us

ITA 4128/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishishuma Kalra, Vs. Pr. Cit-12, A-28, Ashok Vihar, Phase-1, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaipk8142R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Chaoudhary, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

…n of mind by the ld AO that is conclusively proved by the Pr. CIT. Thus, all these decisions do not come to the rescue of the assessee. c. The impugned case before us is not of „inadequate enquiry‟ but complete „lack of enquiry‟, therefore, reliance placed on 343 ITR 329 and 357 ITR 388 along with host of other decisions are also not helping the case of the assessee. d. Simply looking at the facts of the case, clear-cut conclusion can be drawn without any referring to the judicial precedents, the learned assessing officer did not do what he was mandated to do i.e. to look in to the large deduction under capital g…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The DCIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 57/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…a Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 M.P (vii) Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v/s International Travel House Ltd (2012) ITR 554 (Delhi) 26 ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari (viii) Income Tax Officer V/s D.G Housing Projects Ltd (2002) 343 ITR 329 Delhi (ix) M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Bench Delhi) (x) M/s Narayan Tatu Rane (ITAT Mumbai Delhi) 21. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions :- a. CIT v/s. Software Consultants 341 ITR 240 (Del.) b. CIT v/s. Anil Corporation 213 Taxmann 19 c. CIT v/s. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.) d. CIT v/s. Makal Suta Cotton Co. P. Lt…

Dr. Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The ACIT Cir. 2(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…a Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 M.P (vii) Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v/s International Travel House Ltd (2012) ITR 554 (Delhi) 26 ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari (viii) Income Tax Officer V/s D.G Housing Projects Ltd (2002) 343 ITR 329 Delhi (ix) M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Bench Delhi) (x) M/s Narayan Tatu Rane (ITAT Mumbai Delhi) 21. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions :- a. CIT v/s. Software Consultants 341 ITR 240 (Del.) b. CIT v/s. Anil Corporation 213 Taxmann 19 c. CIT v/s. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.) d. CIT v/s. Makal Suta Cotton Co. P. Lt…

M/S. Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Indore

ITA 355/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bhandari Hospital & Pr. Cit-(I) Research Centre, Gf-21 & Indore बनाम/ 22, Opp. Meghdoot Garden, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aadfb8151A

Section 131(1)(d)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 35A

…aper book of decisions) e. (2004) 270 ITR 157 (MP) CIT v. Mahrotra Bros (placed at page no. 43 to 44 of paper book of decisions) f. (2010) 344 ITR 554 (Delhi) CIT v. International Travel House (placed at page no. 45 to 51 of paper book of decisions) g. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) ITO v. DG Housing Projects ltd. (placed at page no. 52 to 59 of paper book of decisions) h. M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT [ITA No.355/Ind/2017] [Bhandari Hospital & Research Centre] (ITA no. 451/del/2017 placed at pg 60-96 ) i. Narayan Tatu Rane v. ITO (ITA no. 2690/Mum/2016 placed at pg 97-117) Other decisions relied upon- co…

Shri Vinod Bhandari, Indore vs. The Pr.CIT-1, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 350/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Vinod Bhandari, Pr. Cit(1), Indore 21- Gf, Bhandari House, Talkies, Scheme No.54, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) Pan No.Abnpb6240M Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

…a Brothers (2004) 270 ITR 157 M.P (vii) Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi v/s International Travel House Ltd (2012) ITR 554 (Delhi) 26 ITA Nos.350 & 66/Ind/2017 & ITANo.57/Ind/2019 Vinod Bhandari (viii) Income Tax Officer V/s D.G Housing Projects Ltd (2002) 343 ITR 329 Delhi (ix) M/s Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Bench Delhi) (x) M/s Narayan Tatu Rane (ITAT Mumbai Delhi) 21. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions :- a. CIT v/s. Software Consultants 341 ITR 240 (Del.) b. CIT v/s. Anil Corporation 213 Taxmann 19 c. CIT v/s. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del.) d. CIT v/s. Makal Suta Cotton Co. P. Lt…

Smt. Seema Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C. - 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1185/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…since the fact remains that the PCIT has himself passed his order on merits after holding the assessees not entitled for section 54EC relief hereinabove going by the very dates only. Hon’ble Delhi high court’s decision in ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects [2012] 343 ITR 319(Delhi) distinguishes the twin aspects of lack of enquiry and error in judgment at the instance of assessing authority vis-à-vis section 263 revision jurisdiction. Their lordships are of the opinion that once the assessing authority decides the case on merits which is stated to trigger section 263 mechanism in motion, it cannot be held that the sa…

Smt. Puja Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C. - 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1184/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…since the fact remains that the PCIT has himself passed his order on merits after holding the assessees not entitled for section 54EC relief hereinabove going by the very dates only. Hon’ble Delhi high court’s decision in ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects [2012] 343 ITR 319(Delhi) distinguishes the twin aspects of lack of enquiry and error in judgment at the instance of assessing authority vis-à-vis section 263 revision jurisdiction. Their lordships are of the opinion that once the assessing authority decides the case on merits which is stated to trigger section 263 mechanism in motion, it cannot be held that the sa…

Smt. Shalini Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C. - 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1183/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…since the fact remains that the PCIT has himself passed his order on merits after holding the assessees not entitled for section 54EC relief hereinabove going by the very dates only. Hon’ble Delhi high court’s decision in ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects [2012] 343 ITR 319(Delhi) distinguishes the twin aspects of lack of enquiry and error in judgment at the instance of assessing authority vis-à-vis section 263 revision jurisdiction. Their lordships are of the opinion that once the assessing authority decides the case on merits which is stated to trigger section 263 mechanism in motion, it cannot be held that the sa…

Shri Suresh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C. - 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1182/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…since the fact remains that the PCIT has himself passed his order on merits after holding the assessees not entitled for section 54EC relief hereinabove going by the very dates only. Hon’ble Delhi high court’s decision in ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects [2012] 343 ITR 319(Delhi) distinguishes the twin aspects of lack of enquiry and error in judgment at the instance of assessing authority vis-à-vis section 263 revision jurisdiction. Their lordships are of the opinion that once the assessing authority decides the case on merits which is stated to trigger section 263 mechanism in motion, it cannot be held that the sa…

Smt. Mridul Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C. - 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1181/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…since the fact remains that the PCIT has himself passed his order on merits after holding the assessees not entitled for section 54EC relief hereinabove going by the very dates only. Hon’ble Delhi high court’s decision in ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects [2012] 343 ITR 319(Delhi) distinguishes the twin aspects of lack of enquiry and error in judgment at the instance of assessing authority vis-à-vis section 263 revision jurisdiction. Their lordships are of the opinion that once the assessing authority decides the case on merits which is stated to trigger section 263 mechanism in motion, it cannot be held that the sa…

Smt. Seema Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C.- 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1180/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…since the fact remains that the PCIT has himself passed his order on merits after holding the assessees not entitled for section 54EC relief hereinabove going by the very dates only. Hon’ble Delhi high court’s decision in ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects [2012] 343 ITR 319(Delhi) distinguishes the twin aspects of lack of enquiry and error in judgment at the instance of assessing authority vis-à-vis section 263 revision jurisdiction. Their lordships are of the opinion that once the assessing authority decides the case on merits which is stated to trigger section 263 mechanism in motion, it cannot be held that the sa…

Shri Ramesh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C. - 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1179/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…since the fact remains that the PCIT has himself passed his order on merits after holding the assessees not entitled for section 54EC relief hereinabove going by the very dates only. Hon’ble Delhi high court’s decision in ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects [2012] 343 ITR 319(Delhi) distinguishes the twin aspects of lack of enquiry and error in judgment at the instance of assessing authority vis-à-vis section 263 revision jurisdiction. Their lordships are of the opinion that once the assessing authority decides the case on merits which is stated to trigger section 263 mechanism in motion, it cannot be held that the sa…

Shri Manish Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C. - 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1178/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…since the fact remains that the PCIT has himself passed his order on merits after holding the assessees not entitled for section 54EC relief hereinabove going by the very dates only. Hon’ble Delhi high court’s decision in ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects [2012] 343 ITR 319(Delhi) distinguishes the twin aspects of lack of enquiry and error in judgment at the instance of assessing authority vis-à-vis section 263 revision jurisdiction. Their lordships are of the opinion that once the assessing authority decides the case on merits which is stated to trigger section 263 mechanism in motion, it cannot be held that the sa…

Shri Rajnish Agarwal, Kolkata vs. DCIT, C.C. - 2(3), Kolkata

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1177/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L.Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Rajnish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- B/4, 10Th Floor, Satyam 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. Tower, 3,Alipore Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acspa 8482 C] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15 बनाम Shri Manish Agarwal Dcit, Central Circle- Flat-17, 14, Satyam Tower, 2(3), Aayakar Bhawan, V/S. 3,Alipore Road, Kolkata- Poorva, 110, Shanti 700 027 Pally, Kolkata-700 107 [Pan No.Acvpa 7357 F] अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent .. Assessment Year :2014-15

Section 263

…since the fact remains that the PCIT has himself passed his order on merits after holding the assessees not entitled for section 54EC relief hereinabove going by the very dates only. Hon’ble Delhi high court’s decision in ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects [2012] 343 ITR 319(Delhi) distinguishes the twin aspects of lack of enquiry and error in judgment at the instance of assessing authority vis-à-vis section 263 revision jurisdiction. Their lordships are of the opinion that once the assessing authority decides the case on merits which is stated to trigger section 263 mechanism in motion, it cannot be held that the sa…

Charbuja Marmo (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 4749/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

…eous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the Order should have been written more elaborately.” Learned Counsel for the Assessee also relied upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd., (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.) in which it was held that “the A.O. is both Investigator and Adjudicator. If the A.O. fails to conduct enquiry, he commits error and the word ‘erroneous’ includes failure to make the enquiry. In cases, where there is inadequate enquiry but not lack of enquiry, again the CIT must give and record a finding that the Order/Inquiry made is…

Shri Satish Kumar. S/O. Sh. Hans Raj, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4, Hoshiarpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 258/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.संसंसंसं././././I.T.A No.258/Asr/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/A.Y.:2014-15 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" Shri Satish Kumar S/O Hans Raj, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of B-12, Mch-366/13, Billa Income-Tax-1, Jalandhar House, New Jagatpura, Hoshiarpur Pan: Aawpk 0932 D अपीलाथ" Appellant अपीलाथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

…on’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Limited (243 ITR 83); CIT V. Arvind Jewellers 259 ITR 502 (Gujarat), CIT V. Vinod Kumar Gupta [2007] 165 Taxman 225 (P&H), CIT V/s. Max India Ltd. 2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC), ITO V. DG Housing Projects Limited [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del),Ranka Jewellers v. Addl. CIT [2010] 328 ITR 148 (Bombay), CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Delhi) [2010] 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) Narain Singla v. Pr.CIT 62 Taxmann.com 225 (Chandigarh-Trib) , Jivan Kumar v. Pr.CIT [I.T.A.No. 219 & 672/ASR/2016 and others as per his case laws Paper Book. The learned counsel for the assessee submit…

Brahma Center Development Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT-02, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4341/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 263

…er cases by the Tribunal also. In view of this, it cannot be said that the view taken by the Ld. Assessing Officer is an improbable one. In support of his contentions, the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision in the case of ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd., 343 ITR 329, PCIT vs. Modicare Ltd.in ITA No. 759/2016 and DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388. He further submitted that Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act has no retrospective application and it is held so by Mumbai Bench of Tribunal in Shri Narayan Taturane vs. ITO (ITA No. 2690/Mum/2016 and M/s. Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT in ITA No. 3205/…

Kkb Projects Pvt. Ltd, Surat vs. Pr. CIT-1, Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 222/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.222/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S.Kkb Projects Pvt. Ltd., V The Principal Commissioner 408-409, City Centre, S Of Income Tax -1, Surat. Lal Darwaja Road, Near Resham . Bhavan, Surat. [Pan: Aadck 0811 H] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah – Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Shri O.P.Singh – Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…, Vs. PCIT-1, Surat /ITA No.222/SRT/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 been taken by Assessing Officer after making proper enquiry and, thus, Tribunal was justified in setting aside impugned revisional order – Held, yes” in the case of CIT Vs. DG Housing Projects Limited 343 ITR 329 (Del. HC) wherein it has been held that the Commissioner cannot remit the matter for a fresh decision to the Assessing Officer to conduct further enquiries without a finding that the order of Assessing Officer is erroneous –Such finding that the order is erroneous is a condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction under s. 263.” and in the cas…