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.

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. Prcit-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1764/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] & [A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Sr Adv
Section 263

…7 Taxmann.com 175 Price case of CIT (Delhi) /[2012] 345 ITR 451 and Vs Harsh J (Delhi) TDS Punjabi Deducte [2012] 345 d " ITR 451 5. DIT Vs Jyoti Foundation [2013] 38 Taxman.com 180 raised. (Delhi) No (Delhi) follow 6. ITO Vs DG Housing Projects up Ltd [2012] 343 ITR 329/20 queries taxmann.com 587/[2013] 212 Taxman 132 (Del) 7. CIT Vs. Maithan International (High Court of Calcutta) 3 2011-12 No No query Ledger of option 8. Shankar Tradex Pvt Ltd Vs 1. Mala bar Industrial Co. Ltd v. queries price received is PCIT (ITA No. 2999/Del/2017) CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66/243 asked attached ITR 83 (Supreme Court) Rajmandir 2…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. Prcit-16, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1763/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[A.Y 2013-14] & [A.Y 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G.C. Srivastava, Sr Adv
Section 263

…7 Taxmann.com 175 Price case of CIT (Delhi) /[2012] 345 ITR 451 and Vs Harsh J (Delhi) TDS Punjabi Deducte [2012] 345 d " ITR 451 5. DIT Vs Jyoti Foundation [2013] 38 Taxman.com 180 raised. (Delhi) No (Delhi) follow 6. ITO Vs DG Housing Projects up Ltd [2012] 343 ITR 329/20 queries taxmann.com 587/[2013] 212 Taxman 132 (Del) 7. CIT Vs. Maithan International (High Court of Calcutta) 3 2011-12 No No query Ledger of option 8. Shankar Tradex Pvt Ltd Vs 1. Mala bar Industrial Co. Ltd v. queries price received is PCIT (ITA No. 2999/Del/2017) CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66/243 asked attached ITR 83 (Supreme Court) Rajmandir 2…

Olive Hospitals Private Limited, Hyd, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-16(3), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 770/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Olive Hospitals Pvt Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax-4, Pan: Aabco 0749 G Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri D.V.Anjaneyulu Revenue By: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.01.2019 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.:

For Appellant: Sri D.V.AnjaneyuluFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35A

…t be drawn by the Commissioner that no proper enquiry with respect to the issue was made by the Assessing Officer which enabled him to assume jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) has held that the Commissioner cannot remand the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide whether the finding recorded are erroneous without a finding that the order is erroneous and how that is so. 8. We find that in the case before us also, the Commissioner has not examined and decided as to how the order is prejudicial to the intere…

Ramesh Kumar Goyal HUF, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1983/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaidr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar Ito, H.No.467, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar ITO, H.No.467, Urban Estate-II, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005 PAN: ACGPK7006A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar(HUF) ITO, H.No.467, Urban Estate-II, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K. Sampat, Advocate Shri V. Raja Kumar, Advocate Department by : Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 02-01-2019 Da…

Ramesh Kumar, Hisar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Hisar

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1982/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillaidr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar Ito, H.No.467, Urban Estate-Ii, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar ITO, H.No.467, Urban Estate-II, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125005 PAN: ACGPK7006A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ramesh Kumar(HUF) ITO, H.No.467, Urban Estate-II, Ward- 3, Hisar, Hisar, Vs. Hisar Haryana, Pin: 125 005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K. Sampat, Advocate Shri V. Raja Kumar, Advocate Department by : Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 02-01-2019 Da…

M/S. Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 3216/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Advocates &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…rder should have been written more elaborately.” Learned Counsel for the Assessee also relied upon 30 ITA.No.3216/Del./2017 Sri Balaji Forgings (P) Ltd., New Delhi. 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 erro…

Jitinder Singh Chadha, New Delhi vs. Prcit-18, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. Cit-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpc6181D Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit-18, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble Vice President and Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Judicial Member ITA No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. CIT-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABPC6181D Assessee by : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CA Revenue by : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31.03.2018 of ld. Pr. CIT-18, New De…

Maestro Multi State Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 3872/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.-3871-72/Del/2018 (A. Y. : 2011-12, 2014-15) Maestrro Multi State vs ITO, Cooperative Group Housing Ward-39(4), Society Ltd. Delhi New Delhi C/o. Ravi Gupta, Adv. E-6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi PAN : AABAT7650F Assessee by Shri P.C.Yadav, Adv. Revenue by Shri S.L.Anuragi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement 28.12.2018 ORDER PER N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These two appeals filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, New Delhi dat…

Maestro Multi State Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 3871/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.-3871-72/Del/2018 (A. Y. : 2011-12, 2014-15) Maestrro Multi State vs ITO, Cooperative Group Housing Ward-39(4), Society Ltd. Delhi New Delhi C/o. Ravi Gupta, Adv. E-6A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi PAN : AABAT7650F Assessee by Shri P.C.Yadav, Adv. Revenue by Shri S.L.Anuragi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement 28.12.2018 ORDER PER N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These two appeals filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, New Delhi dat…

Alok Kumar Sarkar, Hooghly vs. CIT, Kolkata-8, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 454/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Alok Kumar Sarkar..................………...................................…..……………….…...……..…….............Appellant C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Seben Brothers’ Lodge P.O. Buroshibtala P.S. Chinsurah Dist. Hooghly Pin – 712 105 [Pan : Akkps 9552 R] Vs. Commissioner Of Income-(8), Kolkata...............................................………………...…...........Respondent Appearances By: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Abani Kanta Nayak, Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 6Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 12Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 263(1)Section 40A(3)

…ated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue because the revisionary authority feels and opines that further inquiry/investigation was required or deeper or further scrutiny should be undertaken. In ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329/20 taxmann.com 587/[2013] 212 Taxman 132 (Mag.) it has been observed: '11. The Assessing Officer is both an investigator and an adjudicator. If the Assessing Officer as an adjudicator decides a question or aspect and makes a wrong assessment which is unsustainable in law, it can be corrected by the Commissioner in exercise of 7 Assessment Year :…

Superior Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3301/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…oneous 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 17 ITA.Nos.2269, 2857, 2527 & 3301/Del./2017 M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, M/s. SPJ Hotels Private Limited, New Delhi, M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi & M/s. Superior Buildwell Privat…

M/S. Spj Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2857/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…oneous 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 17 ITA.Nos.2269, 2857, 2527 & 3301/Del./2017 M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, M/s. SPJ Hotels Private Limited, New Delhi, M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi & M/s. Superior Buildwell Privat…

M/S. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2527/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…oneous 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 17 ITA.Nos.2269, 2857, 2527 & 3301/Del./2017 M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, M/s. SPJ Hotels Private Limited, New Delhi, M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi & M/s. Superior Buildwell Privat…

M/S. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr. CIT- 8, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2269/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J.M. & Shri Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…oneous 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 17 ITA.Nos.2269, 2857, 2527 & 3301/Del./2017 M/s. Supersonic Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, M/s. SPJ Hotels Private Limited, New Delhi, M/s. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd., New Delhi & M/s. Superior Buildwell Privat…

Vijaya Bank, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu, Bangalore

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

ITA 1163/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Vijaya Bank, Head Office, Central Accounts Dept. 41/2, M.G. Road, Bengaluru-560 001. … Appellant Pan:Aaacv 4791 J Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Large Tax Unit, Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.Ananthan, Ca. Respondent By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit(Dr). Date Of Hearing : 30/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/12/2018 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee-Bank-Bank, Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Ltu, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short].

For Appellant: Shri S.Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 40

…t to be revised by the ld. CIT, were examined by AO. The ld.CIT, without coming to a concrete conclusion that the addition was warranted, had merely set aside the assessment. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs. D.G.Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329(Del) had deprecated this approach on the part of the ld. CIT in the following words: Page 7 of 9 “16. Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the CIT has to come to the conclusion and himself decide that the order is erroneous, by conducting necessary enquiry, if required and necessary, before the order under Section 263 is passed.…

Motiwala & Sons, New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 17, New Delhi

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

ITA 2756/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Raja Ram Sah, CIT- DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…is incorrect to say that neither proper enquiries were made nor any investigation was made by the Assessing Officer. 23. At this juncture, it would be pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of D.G. Housing Project Ltd 343 ITR 329. The relevant part of the order reads as under: “15. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del), Delhi High Court was considering the aspect, when there is no proper or full verification, and it was held as under:- "We have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on the other side and have g…

Surana Diamond Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 3, Kolkata

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 667/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Surana Diamond Jewellery Pvt. Ltd........................................…………………………………….…..Appellant S.L. Kochar, Advocate 5, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Aalcs 4683 B] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3, Kolkata.....................……………….…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.L. Kochar, A/R & Shri Anil Kochar, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Rai, Addl. Cit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 13Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 28Th, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 263

…Section 263 of the Act. We also find that the ld. Pr. CIT has exercised his jurisdiction on the ground that there was no proper enquiry/verification. 5.2.1. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Income-tax Officer v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi)held as follows:- “Section 263 has been enacted to empower the Commissioner to exercise power of revision and revise any order passed by the Assessing Officer, if two cumulative 8 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Surana Diamond Jewellery Pvt. Ltd Assessment Year: 2013-14 conditions are satis…

Surana Diamond Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 3, Kolkata

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 666/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Surana Diamond Jewellery Pvt. Ltd........................................…………………………………….…..Appellant S.L. Kochar, Advocate 5, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Aalcs 4683 B] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3, Kolkata.....................……………….…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.L. Kochar, A/R & Shri Anil Kochar, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Rai, Addl. Cit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 13Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 28Th, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 263

…Section 263 of the Act. We also find that the ld. Pr. CIT has exercised his jurisdiction on the ground that there was no proper enquiry/verification. 5.2.1. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Income-tax Officer v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi)held as follows:- “Section 263 has been enacted to empower the Commissioner to exercise power of revision and revise any order passed by the Assessing Officer, if two cumulative 8 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Surana Diamond Jewellery Pvt. Ltd Assessment Year: 2013-14 conditions are satis…

Surana Diamond Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 3, Kolkata

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 669/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Surana Diamond Jewellery Pvt. Ltd........................................…………………………………….…..Appellant S.L. Kochar, Advocate 5, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Aalcs 4683 B] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3, Kolkata.....................……………….…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.L. Kochar, A/R & Shri Anil Kochar, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Rai, Addl. Cit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 13Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 28Th, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 263

…Section 263 of the Act. We also find that the ld. Pr. CIT has exercised his jurisdiction on the ground that there was no proper enquiry/verification. 5.2.1. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Income-tax Officer v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi)held as follows:- “Section 263 has been enacted to empower the Commissioner to exercise power of revision and revise any order passed by the Assessing Officer, if two cumulative 8 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Surana Diamond Jewellery Pvt. Ltd Assessment Year: 2013-14 conditions are satis…

Surana Diamond Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 3, Kolkata

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 668/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Surana Diamond Jewellery Pvt. Ltd........................................…………………………………….…..Appellant S.L. Kochar, Advocate 5, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue Kolkata – 700 019 [Pan : Aalcs 4683 B] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3, Kolkata.....................……………….…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.L. Kochar, A/R & Shri Anil Kochar, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjay Rai, Addl. Cit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 13Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 28Th, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 263

…Section 263 of the Act. We also find that the ld. Pr. CIT has exercised his jurisdiction on the ground that there was no proper enquiry/verification. 5.2.1. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Income-tax Officer v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi)held as follows:- “Section 263 has been enacted to empower the Commissioner to exercise power of revision and revise any order passed by the Assessing Officer, if two cumulative 8 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Surana Diamond Jewellery Pvt. Ltd Assessment Year: 2013-14 conditions are satis…