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 367,368 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 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.

Divya Creation, Noida vs. Pr.CIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2715/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Divya Creation, Vs. Pr. Cit, Plot No. 97, Nsez, Noida Aayakar Bhawan, A2 D- Block, Sector 24, Noida Pan :Aadfd4879K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 40

…ctor of Income Tax Vs. Jyoti Foundation, 357 ITR 388 (Del.); 4. Decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Pr CIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd 2017-TIOL-1814-HC-DEL-IT; 5. Decision of Delhi High Court in the case of ITO Vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del.); 6. Decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs New Delhi Television Ltd. 2013-TIOL-776-HC- DEL-IT; 7. Decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Pr CIT Vs Modicare Ltd. 2017- TIOL-1946-HC-DEL, 8. Decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs Krishna Caobox (P.) Ltd 372 ITR 310 (All.); 9. Decision of Co-ordinate Bench of D…

Shri Ajaysingh Gajanansingh Gour, Gondia vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gondia

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 398/NAG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur26 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Jayant M. RandeFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Baral

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA no.398/Nag./2017 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) Shri Ajaysingh Gajanansingh Gour 11, Govindpura, Kila Ward …………… Appellant Tirora, Dist. Gondia PAN – AJKPG4029N v/s Income Tax Officer ..…….………. Respondent Ward–1, Gondia Assessee by : Shri Jayant M. Rande Revenue by : Shri R.K. Baral Date of Hearing – 24.10.2018 Date of Order – 26.10.2018 O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, A.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order dated 18th September 2017, pas…

Gumpro Drilling Fluids Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 15, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2868/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Gumpro Drilling Fluids Vs Pr. Cit-15, Private Limited, Room No.517, 5Th Floor, Opp. Karma Stambha, Aayakar Bhavan, Hazarat Compound, Lbs M. K. Road, Marg, Vikhroli (West), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400083 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aadcg2319N "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Ashok J. Patil राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri L.K.S. Dahiya Cit-Dr

Section 120Section 144ASection 263Section 35

…ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.) (para 6), vi. ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329/212 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/[2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi) (para 7), vii. DIT v. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 35 ITR 388/219 Taxman 105/38 taxmann.com 180 (Delhi) (para 7), viii. CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287/59 Taxman 568 (Delhi) (para 8), 17 ix. CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98/70 Taxman 69 (Delhi) (FB) (para 8), x. CIT…

Durgesh Autofin P.Ltd, Bijnor vs. Prcit, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2539/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2539/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Durgesh Autofin P. Ltd., Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Director, Muzaffarnagar-251002 S/O Late Sh. Tejpal Singh, Mandi Kotla, Near Nehru Murti, Chandpur, Bijnot, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd0768P Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rachna Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit, Muzaffarnagar U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 41(1)Section 68

…it was inadequate enquiry, the ld. Pr. CIT could not have discarded a quasi-judicial decision taken by the AO. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2009) 227 CTR 133 (Del.) " ITO Vs D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.) " CIT Vs Shree Manjunathesware Packing & Products Camphor Works (1998) 231 ITR 53 (SC) " DIT Vs Jyoti Foundation (2013) 357 ITR 388 (Del.) " CIT Vs Kamal Galani (2018) 95 Taxmann.com 261 (Guj.) " CIT Vs Jawahar Bhattacharjee (2012) 341 ITR 434 (Gauhati) 24 Durgesh Autofin P. Ltd. " CIT Vs Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj.) " Mala…

M/S City Beautiful Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Pr. CIT-2, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 554/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 554/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S City Beautiful Hotels & Pcit-2, बनाम Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh Sco 471-471, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit AggarwalFor Respondent: Sh. N.D.Gupta, Sr.DR

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

…u/s 263 cannot be invoked for directing further enquiry where necessary and adequate enquiries have already been made by the AO. The following judgments have been relied upon: i) CIT Vs. Ashish Rajpal 320 ITR 674 (Del HC). ii) CIT Vs. DG Housing Project Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del HC) iii) Sh. Pawan Kumar Vs. CIT, ITA No. 435/Chd/2012 dated 19.08.2015 (Chd Trib). iii) CIT Vs. Nirav Modi, ITA No.119/2014 dated ITA No. 554/Chd/2017- M/s City Beautiful Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh 6 16.06.2014 (Bom HC). 3.1.4 As mentioned in the show cause notice, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was require…

Smt Madhu Chhanda Sirkar, Kolkata vs. CIT-Xvii, Kolkata

In the result ITA No.1704/Kol/2011 and ITA No

ITA 1084/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Hangsing, CIT(DR)&

…the AO for making assessment order afresh which according to the ld. Representative of the assessee is without jurisdiction. In support of his argument he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs D.G.Housing Project Ltd. 343 ITR 329 and he thus prayed for quashing of the order impugned before us. On the other hand, the ld. Representative for the department relies on the orders passed by the ld. CIT. 31. We have heard the ld. Representative for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record we find from the order passed by the ld.CIT that he has shifted t…

Smt. Madhu Chhanda Sirkar, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 50, Kolkata

In the result ITA No.1704/Kol/2011 and ITA No

ITA 1704/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Hangsing, CIT(DR)&

DCIT, Circle - 50, Kolkata vs. Smt. Madhu Chanda Sirkar, Kolkata

In the result ITA No.1704/Kol/2011 and ITA No

ITA 1567/KOL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Chowdhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Hangsing, CIT(DR)&

M/S. Megh Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Circle - 13(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 355/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Sept 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Megh Promoters Pvt. Ltd.............................…………………………………...…….………...........Appellant Megh Synergy No. 45, Halls Road Kilpauk Chennai – 600 010 Tamilnadu [Pan: Aakcs 3346 J] Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-13(1), Kolkata....…..…….……..Respondent

Section 263

…27,83,647/-) clearly shows that the expenses are in relation to the repairs and maintenance of the building and DG Set, rent from which is taken under the head “Income from Other Sources”.” 7.1. In the case of Income Tax Officer vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as follows:- “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. In such cases, the order of the Assessing Officer…

Nkg Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, C- 3, New Delhi

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3827/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 263(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HON’BLE PRESIDENT & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 3825 to 3827/Del/2018 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2010-11 M/s NKG Infrastructure Ltd. vs Pr. CIT, 1107, Kailash Building, 26 K.G. Marg, Circle-3, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN NO. AACCN1659D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Sh. Pranjal Srivastav, Adv. Sh. Ashish Goel, CA Revenue by Smt. Shafali Swaroop, CIT DR Date of Hearing 25.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement 05.09.2018 ORDER PER BENCH Aggrieved by the orders dated 26/03/2018 passed und…

Nkg Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, C- 3, New Delhi

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3826/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 263(1)

Nkg Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, C- 3, New Delhi

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3825/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 263(1)

M/S Mittal Export House, Jaipur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-II, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 420/JPR/2018[3013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jul 2018AY 3013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263

…egory of lack of enquiry, then the ld. Pr. CIT cannot exercise his jurisdiction under section 263 for asking the AO to re-do the assessment. This view is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd., 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held 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…

Manoir Petro India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 1, Mumbai

ITA 2626/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Manoir Petro India Limited, Pr. Cit-1 602, B-Wing, Universal Room No.387, बनाम/ Business Park, Chandivali 3Rd Floor, Vs. Farm Road, Off Saki Vihar Aayakar Bhavan, Road, Andheri (East), M. K. Road, Mumbai-400072 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aafcm5210J

Section 263

…ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.) (para 6), vi. ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329/212 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/[2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi) (para 7), vii. DIT v. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 35 ITR 388/219 Taxman 105/38 taxmann.com 180 (Delhi) (para 7), viii. CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287/59 Taxman 568 (Delhi) (para 8), ix. CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98/70 Taxman 69 (Delhi) (FB) (para 8), 19 Manoir…

Late Smt. Giriraj Kaur L/H Sri Ravinder Gill, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 931/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishilate Smt. Giriraj Kaur, Vs. Ito, C/O. L/H Sri Ravinder Gill, Ward-1(2), 861, Mangal Bhawan, Muzaffarnagar Bhopa Road, Muzaffarnagar Pan: Dtppk0005J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT Dr

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…e was not reflected in the assessment order by him, a conclusion cannot be drawn by the Commissioner that no proper inquiry with respect to the issue was made by the Assessing Officer, and enable him to assume jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del) Income Tax Officer vs D G Housing Projects Ltd Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in this case, after considering various judgements on this subject have held that in cases whore tjagp Jj| inadequate inquiry but not lack of inquiry, the CIT must give and;^6ud.a / finding that the order / inquiry made is erroneous. In the cases of wrong opini…

Mahesh Ramkisan Rathi, Nashik vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax - II

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1334/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 72

…irect that further inquiry has to be done. 11. On the issue of no inquiry / inadequate inquiry for invoking the provisions of Sec.263 of the Act, we find that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO Vs. D.G. Housing Projects Limited reported in (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del) has observed as under : “10………the power of Revision under Section 263 of the Act would normally be exercised in case of no enquiry and not in cases of inadequate enquiry. However, even in case of inadequate enquiry by the Assessing Officer, the order of the Assessing Officer could be erroneous in two classes of situation. The first class w…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. M/S. Bundy India Ltd., Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2892/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: The Hon'Ble Gujarat High Court & Further In Order To Keep The Matter Alive, A Second Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Wherein The Order U/S 143(3) Rws 263 Of The Act Dtd. 20.03.2015, Has Been Annulled.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.R

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 40Section 92C

…hereby hold that there was no legal sanctity on the part of Ld. Commissioner to direct the AO to verity and decide afresh this issue. 6. Further, we hereby hold that the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Court pronounced in the case of ITAT vs. DG Housing Project Ltd 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) is applicable wherein it was held that the Ld. Commissioner again remitting the matter for a fresh decision to the AO to conduct further inquiries without a finding that the order of the AO is erroneous is not sustainable. Therefore, we are of the view that the manner in which the Ld. Commissioner has given direction to the AO are not in…

Saigal Sea Trade, Mumbai vs. CIT -18, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2511/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

Section 142(1)Section 263

…ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.) (para 6), vi. ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329/212 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/[2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi) (para 7), vii. DIT v. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 35 ITR 388/219 Taxman 105/38 taxmann.com 180 (Delhi) (para 7), viii. CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287/59 Taxman 568 (Delhi) (para 8), ix. CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98/70 Taxman 69 (Delhi) (FB) (para 8), x. CIT v.…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3609/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.) (para 6), vi. ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329/212 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/[2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi) (para 7), vii. DIT v. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 35 ITR 388/219 Taxman 105/38 taxmann.com 180 (Delhi) (para 7), viii. CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287/59 Taxman 568 (Delhi) (para 8), ix. CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98/70 Taxman 69 (Delhi) (FB) (para 8), x. CIT v.…

Gautam Tube Corporation, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 19, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3608/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 120Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263

…ITR 169/206 Taxman 207/18 taxmann.com 217 (Delhi) (para 4), iv. CIT v. Durga Prasad More [19711] 82 ITR 540 (SC) (para 6), v. CIT v. Precision Finance (P.) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465/[1995] 82 Taxman 31 (Cal.) (para 6), vi. ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329/212 Taxman 132 (Mag.)/[2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi) (para 7), vii. DIT v. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 35 ITR 388/219 Taxman 105/38 taxmann.com 180 (Delhi) (para 7), viii. CIT v. Steller Investment Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 287/59 Taxman 568 (Delhi) (para 8), ix. CIT v. Sophia Finance Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 98/70 Taxman 69 (Delhi) (FB) (para 8), x. CIT v.…