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.

Ge Capital Services India, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for the A

ITA 231/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2697/DEL/2007 & I.T.A. NO. 231/DEL/2012 A.Y. : 2002-03 M/S GE CAPITAL SERVICES ADDITIONAL INDIA, VS. COMMISSIONER OF AIFACS BUILDING, INCOME TAX, 1, RAFI MARG, RANGE-12, NEW DELHI – 110001 NEW DELHI (PAN: AAACG0239L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Sachit Jolly, Adv. Department by : Sh. Sanjit Singh, CIT(DR) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM These are two appeals filed by the Assessee, which are taken up for hearing together. The first appeal ch…

Mumbai District Central Co Op Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1(1), Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3198/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 The Mumbai District Cit-1, Aayakar Bhavan बनाम/ Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. M.K. Road, Mumbai Bank Bhavan Mumbai 400 020 Vs. 207, D.H. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001 (यनधाारयती /Assessee) (याजस्व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaaam3185D यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Amar Gahlot याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri B. Srinivas, Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 22/03/2018

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)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), 17 The Mu…

M/S. Odisha State Police Housing & Welfare Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 21/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kohle, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…, the ld Commissioner of Income Tax could not interfere with such an order u/s.263 for making a fishing or roving enquiry. In this connection, it is observed that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. DG HOUSING PROJECTS LTD(2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del) has held as under: Asse ssment Year : 20 09- 201 0 “20. In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are correct as the Commissioner of Income-tax 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 Commissioner of Income-tax is…

Puja Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur

ITA 440/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Mar 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Prakul Khurana (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Roli Agarwal (CIT)
Section 115JSection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 263

…essment without himself enquiry which is not justified in the eyes of law. In support, reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation [2013] 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) and ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). It was further submitted that a view taken by the ld Pr CIT which is different from the view taken by the Assessing Officer cannot be the basis for invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act. It was further submitted that it is not known to the assessee as to whether statement of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain have been retracted by him or n…

M/S. Rbs Credit & Financial Development Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr.CIT - 3, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1156/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1156/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Rbs Credit & Financial Development Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Pcit-3, Kolkata [Pan: Aabcr 3300 A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 263Section 68

…ourt in the case of CIT vs R.K.Construction Co. reported in 313 ITR 65 (Guj) d) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DIT vs Jyoti Foundation reported in 357 ITR 388 (Del) e) Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329 (Del) 6.3. In view of the aforesaid findings and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the order passed by the ld AO by allowing the changes in inventories of finished goods, WIP and stock in trade as deduction and the same cannot be treated as MTM loss or notional loss and hence cannot be t…

M/S Panchnath Enterprise, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. Commr. of Income Tax-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

Appeals are allowed

ITA 139/RJT/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri M. J. Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar, CIT. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 263

…Officer has taken one of the two possible views in framing the assessment or re-assessment in issue, the impugned jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act is not sustainable. Then comes hon’ble Delhi high court’s judgment in ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Limited (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) defining ambit and scope of revisions proceedings u/s.263 of the Act as under: “10. Revenue does not have any right to appeal to the first appellate authority against an order passed by the Assessing Officer. Section 263 has been enacted to empower the CIT to exercise power of revision and revise any order passed by the Assessing Officer…

Damodar Valley Corporation, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-9, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 401/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2012-13 Damadar Valley V/S. Dcit, Circle-9, Corporation, Dvc Towers Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, (4Th Floor), Vip Chowringhee Square Road,Kolkata-54 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aabcd 0541 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Md. Usman Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 17-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 21-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Dispute The Order Of Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Kolkata Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 12.01.2017 Set Aside The Assessment Order Date30.03.2015 For Assessment Year 2012-13 With A Direction To Re-Do The Assessment In Respect Of Issue Therein. Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, Ld. Authorized Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Md. Usman, Ld. Departmental Representative Appeared On Behalf Of Revenue. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit Was Unjustified In Law In Holding The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Passed For The A.Y. 2012-13 To Be Erroneous In So Far As It Was Prejudicial To The Interest Of

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “B” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Judicial Member and Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2012-13 Damadar Valley V/s. DCIT, Circle-9, Corporation, DVC Towers Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, (4th Floor), VIP Chowringhee Square Road,Kolkata-54 Kolkata-69 [PAN No.AABCD 0541 M] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, FCA अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Md. Usman CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 17-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 21-02-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदे…

Startech Engineers, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 22, Mumbai

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

ITA 3898/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Startech Engineers, Pr. Commissioner Of G-12, Sinhgarjane Soc. Income Tax-22, बनाम/ Maratha Colony, Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Vs. Santracruz (E), Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaxfs3063J "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri D.C.Saboo & Shri Shyam Saboo राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Manjunatha Swamy-Dr

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)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.…

M/S Sadhana Stocks & Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT-4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 759/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43(5)

…duct further enquiry to verify and find out whether the order passed by him under section 143(3) was erroneous or not. In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO- vs.- D.G. Housing Projects Limited [343 ITR 329 ]. 7. The ld. counsel for the assessee further submitted that the issue relating to the assessee’s claim for derivative loss not being the speculation loss was examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and there was no lack of enquiry on the part of the Assessing Officer as alleged by the ld. Principal CIT in h…

Sarda Mines Pvt. Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-05(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 868/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 868/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 40

…he assessee on merit and without giving any more opportunity of being heard to the assessee, which is not permissible in law. In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs D.G. Housing Project Ltd. (343 ITR 329) as well as the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Infinity Infotech Park Ltd. 58 ITR (Trib) 486. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee also raised arguments in support of the assessee’s case on both the issues raised by the Ld. Principal CIT in the notice issued under section 263 in order to show that the claim of th…

Sarda Mines Pvt. Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-05(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 867/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd...............................………………………………………………Appellant 6Th Floor, Circular Court, 8, Ajc Bose Road, Kolkata – 700017. [Pan : Aahcs 2419 R] D.C.I.T., Cir 5(2) Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 69 Appearances By: Shri A.K. Gupta, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Md. Usman, Cit Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 28.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: “1. For That The Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -2, Kolkata (In Short ‘Cit’) Dated 28.03.2017 Is Without Jurisdiction & Illegal As None Of The Condition Precedent For Exercise Of The Power Under Section 263 Of The Act Exists And/Or Has Been Satisfied & As Such The Said Order Is Erroneous & Without Jurisdiction & Liable To Be Cancelled. 2. For That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Was Not In Any Way Erroneous Or Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & As Such The Cit Would Not Exercise Any Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Cit Erred In Holding That The Order Of Assessment Is Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue.

Section 263Section 35A

…he assessee on merit and without giving any more opportunity of being heard to the assessee, which is not permissible in law. In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs D.G. Housing Project Ltd. (343 ITR 329) as well as the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Infinity Infotech Park Ltd. 58 ITR (Trib) 486. 24 I.T.A. No. 867/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Sarda Mines Pvt. Ltd. 10. The learned counsel for the assessee also raised one more preliminary issue while challenging the jurisdiction of the Ld. Principal CIT to exe…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

ITA 2807/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ssessment order passed by Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.” 10 ITA.No.2806 & 2807/Del./2016 M/s. Dayanand, Contractor, V & PO Kharainti, Dist. Rohtak. 4.3. In the case of Income Tax Officer vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd., (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.), in which it has been held as under : “Where Commissioner had doubts about valuation and sale consideration received in computation of capital loss but he had not examined said aspect himself, order of remit could not be passed by Commissioner asking Assessing Officer to decide whether order was erroneous.” 4.4. In the case of Commissi…

M/S. Dayanand Contractor, Rohtak vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

In the result, original

ITA 2806/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Kumar Kamal & Lalit MohanFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 263

…ssessment order passed by Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue.” 10 ITA.No.2806 & 2807/Del./2016 M/s. Dayanand, Contractor, V & PO Kharainti, Dist. Rohtak. 4.3. In the case of Income Tax Officer vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd., (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.), in which it has been held as under : “Where Commissioner had doubts about valuation and sale consideration received in computation of capital loss but he had not examined said aspect himself, order of remit could not be passed by Commissioner asking Assessing Officer to decide whether order was erroneous.” 4.4. In the case of Commissi…

M/S. Amira Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (C), Gurgaon

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3206/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…e view that AO had not undertaken any inquiry, it becomes incumbent on the PCIT to conduct such enquiry. Further in PCIT v. Modicare Limited [ITA No. 759/2017] Delhi High Court has followed its decision in Income Tax Officer v. DG Housing Projects Limited [343 ITR 329], DIT v. Jyoti Foundation [357 ITR 388] and PCIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (supra) to hold that the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act cannot be outsourced by the CIT to the AO and therefore, the CIT cannot direct the AO to provide details of the facts on the basis of which the proceedings u/s 263 could have been initia…

M/S. Amira Pure Foods Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (C), Gurgaon

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3205/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT- DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…hat AO had not undertaken any inquiry, it becomes incumbent on the ld. PCIT to conduct such enquiry. Further in LD. PCIT v. Modicare Limited [ITA No. 759/2017] Delhi High Court has followed its decision in Income Tax Officer v. DG Housing Projects Limited [343 ITR 329], DIT v. Jyoti Foundation [357 ITR 388] and LD. PCIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (supra) to hold that the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act cannot be outsourced by the CIT to the AO and therefore, the CIT cannot direct the AO to provide details of the facts on the basis of which the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act could hav…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3752/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 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.…

Dev Steel, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Navi Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3748/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 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.…

Devang Gandhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 4, Mumbai

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 3747/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Devang Gandhi, Pr. Cit, A/303, Balaji Gardens, Central-4, बनाम/ Sector-11, Koparkhairne, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai-400709 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Abhpg0909N

Section 153ASection 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.…

Standard Chartered Masterbrand Licesing Ltd, Palghar vs. CIT (It)-4, Mumbai

ITA 3325/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: S/Shri Kanchun Kaushal/Dhanesh Bafna/Aliasger Rampurawala/Pratik ShahFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse-DR
Section 115Section 115ASection 115A(1)(b)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263Section 285A

…a case of lack of enquiry and not one of inadequate enquiry,as held in the matter of Vikas Polymers(341 ITR 537).Thus,this is not a case of no inquiry,warranting order under section 263 of the Act.The Delhi High Court in the matter of DG Housing Projects Ltd.(343 ITR 329) has held that the power of revision u/s.263 of the Act would normally be exercised in case of no enquiry and not in cases of inadequate enquiry.It further held as under: “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 would b…

Sonali Jewellers, Cuttack vs. Principal CIT, Cuttack Charge, Cuttack

ITA 162/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack19 Sept 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…istake made by the AO, making the order unsustainable in law. An order of remit cannot be passed by the Commissioner to ask the Assessing Officer to decide whether the order was erroneous.” 12. In the case of Income Tax Officer vs DG Housing Projects Ltd., 343 ITR 329 (Del), Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that “ A distinction must be drawn in the cases where the Assessing Officer does not conduct an enquiry; as lack of enquiry by itself renders the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and cases where the Assessing Officer conducts an enquiry but the finding recorded is erroneou…