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.

M/S Odisha State Police Housing & Welfare Corporation Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. CIT, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 223/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhagaban Panda/D.K.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234CSection 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year :2009-2010 Vs. M/s. Orissa State Police ACIT, Circle 2(2), Housing & Welfare Bhubaneswar. Corporation Limited.,Bhoi Nagar, Janapath, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No. AABCT 7853 N (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Bhagaban Panda/D.K.Mohanty, AR Revenue by : Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 06/06/ 2017 Date of Pronouncement : /06/ 2017 O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order under section 26…

Infinity Infotech, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 329/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Dilip S.Damle, FCA &For Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 35Section 35(1)(iii)Section 35A

…ons and without doing so, the CIT cannot exercise jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. In this regard the ld. Counsel for the assesse placed reliance on the following decisions :- - DIT Vs Jyoti Foundation (357ITR 388) (Bom HC) - ITO Vs D.G. Housing Projects Ltd (343 ITR 329) (Bom HC) - CIT Vs Leisure War Exports Ltd (341 ITR 166) (Del HC) - C.S.E. Ltd Vs CIT (ITA No. 268/K/15) (ITAT Kol) - Crisil Ltd Vs Addl.CIT (142 TIK 62) (ITAT Mum) 10. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the AO in the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act did not call for the books of accounts of the assessee. However in the order of as…

Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT-Cir-8, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3494/MUM/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Procter & Gamble Cit-8, Hygiene & Health Care, Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ P & G Plaza, Cardinal M.K. Road, Vs. Gracias Road, Chakala, Mumbai-400020 Andheri(E), Mumbai-400099 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacp6332M

Section 263Section 80I

…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.…

Sh. Braham Dev Gupta, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2102/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Adv., Sanjiv Jain CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…le in law. An order of remit cannot be passed by the Commissioner to ask the Assessing Officer to decide whether the order was erroneous”. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in this case followed its judgment in the case of D.G. Housing Projects Limited reported in 343 ITR 329. Delhi High Court - 1TO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Limited ii) 343 ITR 329 In this case the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held as under:- “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 cas…

Sh. Gaurav Bhatia, Kotdwar vs. CIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 1730/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Miss S. Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Gaurav Bhatia Vs. The Cit Bhatia Bhawan, Sitapur Devi Road Dehradun Kotdwar (Applicant) (Respondent) (Pan: Afypb 4513 J)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…man 188/25 Taxmann.com 200 [Delhi] (vi) J.K. Synthetics Ltd Vs. CBDT [1972] 83 ITR 335 [SC] (vii) Sirpur Paper Mill Ltd Vs. CWT [1970] 77 ITR 6 [SC] (viii) Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 [Del] (ix) ITO Vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd [2012] 343 ITR 329 20 Taxmann.com 587/[2013] 212 Taxman 132 [Del] Page 12 of 21 14. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, in his rejoinder, referring to the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shantikrupa Estate Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1252/AHD/2015 order dated 09.09.2016 for A.Y 2010-11, drew the attention of the Bench to para 7 of the…

M/S Mewat Grit Udyog, New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1802/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, advocate&For Respondent: Smt.Sulekha Verma, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 263Section 40

…the case of CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC) and the decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (del), Ld. CIT(A) vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd 332 ITR 167 (del), ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Limited 343 ITR 329 (Del), Ld. CIT(A) vs. Leisurewear Exports Ltd 341 ITR 166 (Del) etc. Basing on CIT vs. DLF Ltd 350 ITR 555 (Del), PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd 398 ITR 8 (Del) etc he submitted that where there is inadequate enquiry, but not lack of enquiry, the CIT must record finding that order is erroneous and must establish that error or mistak…

Riverbank Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT -4, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1329/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…ound that the assessment order was erroneous for the reason that deduction for any specific expenditure was wrongly allowed. Relying on the judgments of the Delhi High Court in the case of DIT VsJyoti Foundation (357 ITR 388)&ITO Vs D.G. Housing Projects Ltd (343 ITR 329), the Ld AR submitted that once the assessee had brought before the CIT, the relevant material, information and documents to disprove his charge in the SCN then the CIT could not merely set aside the assessment for carrying out verification of the relevant facts without himself recording factual finding that the assessment was erroneous and there…

M/S Hero Honda Motors Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2148/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh C.M.Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Honda Motors Ltd, Dcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, Circle-12(1), Vs. New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacg0812J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. AK Saroha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 263Section 32Section 37(1)Section 40Section 9

…to remand and direct the Assessing Officer to conduct the enquiry, for this he relied upon the decision Hon'ble Delhi High Court in DIT Vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 which followed the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ITO Vs. DG Housing Project Ltd 343 ITR 329. In the end he submitted that the order passed by the ld CIT in revising the order of the ld Assessing Officer u/s 263 is not sustainable as there is no error in the order of ld Assessing Officer and it is not prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. We would be examining each of the issue rai…

Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT-03, New Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2813/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Smt. Beena A. Pillaii.T.A. No. 2813/Del/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)

…e this preposition: • Rampyari Devi Sarogi vs. CIT reported in (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) • Tara Devi Agrawal vs CIT reported in (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) • Gee Vee Enterprises vs. ACIT reported in (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del); • DG Housing Projects Ltd reported in (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del) • CIT versus Goetz India Ltd reported in 361 ITR 505 (Del) 15. She thus, submitted that it is necessary that the assessing officer examines the factual matrix in the light of the legal provisions. Page 12 of 16 16. We have perused the records placed before us in the light of the submissions advanced by both the sides and the judicial pro…

Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, New Delhi

In the result, impugned order dated 31

ITA 2193/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Anadi N Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chander, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 263

…s Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 2. CIT vs. DLF Ltd. 350 ITR 555 3. CIT vs. Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 4. Jewel of India vs. ACIT 325 ITR 92 5. Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT 263 ITR 437 6. CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 7. ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 8. CIT vs. Nirav Modi 71 taxmann.com 272 9. Oil India Ltd. vs. CIT 138 ITR 836 10. CIT vs. Sashi Theatre Pvt. Ltd. 248 ITR 126 11. CIT vs. Nirma Chemicals Works (P.) Ltd. 182 Taxman 183 12. CIT vs. K. Sera Sera Productions Ltd. 374 ITR 503 13. CIT vs. Salonah Tea Co. Ltd. 62 taxman 51 14. Mrs. Sujata Grover vs. DCIT 74 TTJ 347 7 FIT For PUBLICAT…

M/S Reliance Chemotex Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 715/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Gupta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…ere is no finding in the impugned order by the CIT that order of AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In this regard attention was drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). 13. The ld. DR relied on the order of CIT. According to him the action of the assessee in capitalising the expenditure in the books of account in A.Y.2009-10 is by itself an admission that the expenditure in question was a capital expenditure. It was emphasised by him that admittedly expenditure was claimed in A.Y.2009-10 and therefore i…

Prathama Bank, Moradabad vs. CIT, Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2316/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 2316/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Prathma Bank, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ram Ganga Vihar, Phase-Ii, Moradabad-244001 Moradabad-244001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaajp0988Q Assessee By : Sh. Piyush Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Paramita Tripathy, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.02.2013 Of Ld. Cit, Moradabad.

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Kaushik, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…tional Travel House Ltd. 344 ITR 554 (Del) " CIT Vs Ashish Rajpal 320 ITR 674 (Del) " A2Z Maintenance & Engineering Services Ltd. Vs CIT (2015) TIOL-1894-ITAT-DEL " Sardhana Papers Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (2015) TIOL-2016 (ITAT Del) " ITO Vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del) " Director of Income Tax Vs Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Del) 13 Prathama Bank 10. It was further submitted that the ld. CIT cannot remand the matter to the AO to undertake fresh inquiries which would employ and mean that the ld. CIT had not examined and decided as to whether the order was erroneous or not but had directed the AO to decid…

Shri Bhupinder Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2500/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava:A.Y. 2007-08 Bhupinder Singh Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 10/3, Old Rajinder Nagar, Ward-33(4), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaups 9406 N ( Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Salil Agarwal Adv. & Shri Shailesh Gupta Ca Respondent By : Shri Ravi Jain Cit(Dr).

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain CIT(DR)
Section 144Section 263Section 44ASection 68

…s 143(3)/254. He pointed out that as against the declared income of Rs. 1,11,998/-, the assessee accepted the income at Rs. 1,70,153/-. Ld. counsel further referred to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO Vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del.), wherein it has been held that without recording the findings that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, revision of order could not be allowed. He submitted that no query had been raised by Commissioner on the detailed replies filed before him and, therefore, ld. CIT’s order was contrary to the…

Sh. Surinder Kumar Jain, Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

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

ITA 2481/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Sh. AshishFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Inadequate enquiry cannot be a subject matter and trigger for invoking the provisions of section 263. In order to support our aforesaid view, we draw support from the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ITO v. D. G. Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: "This distinction must be kept in mind by the Commissioner while exercising jurisdiction under section 263 and in the absence of the finding that the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 is not sustainable. In most cases of all…

Arabinda Roy, Hooghly vs. C.I.T Kolkata - Xx, Hooghly

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1367/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2008-09

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…the AO to decide whether the order was erroneous. This is not permissible. A finding that the order is erroneous is a condition or requirement which must be satisfied for exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 [I.T.O. - VS- DG HOUSING PROJECTS LTD. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (DEL)]. The purported action of the Ld. CIT of remitting the issues raised in his show cause notice and without adjudicating the issues to the file of the AO to decide the same de novo cannot be sustained in the instant case. The Ld. CIT had not taken any steps for making any enquiry as regards the issues raised by the assessee in the rejoinder t…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(4), Bangalore vs. M/S Indo American Hybrid Seeds India P Ltd, Bangalore

ITA 1283/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Indo American Hybrid Seeds India Pvt.Ltd. Pb No.7099, 7Th Km, Banashankari-Kengeri Link Road,Channasandra Village, Subramanyapura Po, Bangalore-560001. … Respondent Pa No.Aaaci 4027 J & Cross Objn.No.142/Bang/2015 (In Ita No.1283/Bang/2014) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) (By The Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri S.Annamalai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal,JCIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 11(4), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/s.Indo American Hybrid Seeds India Pvt.Ltd. PB NO.7099, 7th KM, Banashankari-Kengeri Link Road,Channasandra Village, Subramanyapura PO, Bangalore-560001. … Respondent PA No.AAACI 4027 J AND Cross Objn.No.142/Bang/2015 (In ITA No.1283/Bang/2014) (Assessment year: 2009-10) (By the assessee) Revenue by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal,JCIT(DR) Assessee by : Shri S.Annamalai, Advocate. Date of heari…

M/S. Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Hisar vs. ACIT, Hisar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2560/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2009-10 Synergy Waste Management Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, 168, Delhi Rod, Sector 27-28, Hisar. Hisar. (Pan: Aaics9088H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. Shri Ashish Kumar, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Vidharthi, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 80I

…the AO to make a fresh assessment in assessee’s case, which is bad in the eyes of law and on facts. He submitted that this issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ITO v. D. G. Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). Further reliance is placed on the judgment of ITAT Delhi in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. CIT [2015] 60 taxmann.com I.T.A. 2560/D/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 409 (Delhi - Trib.) The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT has alleged that the AO has not made proper enquiries however it is on record that the details of deduction clai…

Tirupati Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 3316/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu Assessment Year: 2007-08 Tirupati Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Cit, Plot No. D, District Centre, Central-Ii, Paschim Vihar, E-2, Jhandewalan Ext. New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aadct5825H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Ved Jain & P. Srivastava, Ca Department By: Ms. Archena S. Awasthi, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 25 .02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 :05.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned Validity Of Revisional Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On Several Grounds.

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain & P. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Archena S. Awasthi, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 263

…said assessment order dated 28.3.2013 has been made available at page Nos. 51 and 52 of the paper book. The Learned AR placed reliance on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2011] 332 ITR 167(SC); ii) ITO vs. Dg. Housing Project Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del.); iii) CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd. [2014] 360 ITR 44 (Del.); iv) CIT vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 166 (Del.); v ) CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing & Adv. CO. Ltd. [2012] 341 ITR 180 (Del.); vi) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537 (Del.); vii) CIT vs. Vodafone Essar South Ltd. [2012] 83 CCH 068 (Del.); viii) Globus Inf…

Al Champdany Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT, Kolkata-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 655/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2016AY 2009-2010

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

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

…this contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Jai Mewar Wine Contractors reported in 251 ITR 785 and that of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO –vs.- D.G. Housing projects Limited reported in 343 ITR 329. 4. The ld. D.R., on the other hand, strongly relied on the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT under section 263 and submitted that in the absence of many issues relevant to the assessment of the assessee for the year under consideration having not been examined by the Assessing Officer as pointed out by the ld. CIT, the order of the Assessing…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Art Beauty Exports, New Delhi

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 924/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, Adv. Sumangla Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 10BSection 10B(2)(i)Section 143(3)Section 263

…rest of the revenue. 25. In this judgement of CIT vs NDTV, their lordships speaking for Jurisdictional High Court also considered and referred to its earlier judgments in the case of Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del) and ITO vs D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del). In the case of DG Housing I.T.A.Nos.2531, 5702, 5703 & 924/D/2014 AYs: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 (supra), after referring to the decision of Sunbeam Auto (supra), it was held that the CIT must come to a conclusion that the order is erroneous and is unsustainable in law. In the present case, the CIT has not satisfied jurisdictio…