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.

International Flavours & Fragrances India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

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

ITA 268/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwalla, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.T

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 801B

…best, the Commissioner may allege inadequacy, which, as settled by judicial precedents, is insufficient to invoke section 263 of the Act. Further he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd, 343 ITR 329 (Del), wherein the Court at paragraph 16 and 17 of the order (page 46 and 47 of the case law paper book) held that: “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…

Gaurav Kumar Arya, New Delhi vs. PCIT -20, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2000/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Gaurav Kumar Arya, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income 3-P, Pocket-4, Tax, Delhi-20, Kondly Gharoli-Ii, Mayur New Delhi. Vihar, Delhi-1100 96 Pan: Airpa0102C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath & V. RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

…ving been enquired into. 5.5 The Jurisdictional High Court has held that a Commissioner's Revision order u/s. 263 of the Act, to be sustainable in law, must identify the error in the order. This is as per the decision in ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329(Del). The observations of the Court in that case at page 34 of the report is noteworthy:- "Thus when the Assessing Officer had adopted one of the courses permissible and available to him, and this has resulted in loss to the Revenue; or two views were possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner of Income-tax…

Rico Auto Industries Limited, Ludhiana vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 703/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) M/S Rico Auto Industries Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 बनाम/ B-26, Focal Point Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Vs. Ludhiana (Punjab)-141010 Ludhiana (Punjab) - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacr-8724-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) (Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. In These Twin Appeals, The Assessee Assails Proposed Revision Of The Assessment Order By Revisionary Authority U/S 263 For Assessment Years (Ay) 2020-21 & 2021-22. Facts Are Stated To Be Identical In Both The Years. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2020-21 Wherein The Assessee Challenges Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) (Virtual) – Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

…by exercising the revisionary power u/s 263 unless the case of error as well as prejudice to revenue is made out by revisionary authority. 11. Our aforesaid view is as per the ratio of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (343 ITR 329). In this decision, it was held by Hon’ble Court that AO is both an investigator and an adjudicator. A distinction has to be drawn between a case where the AO has not conducted any enquiry or examined any evidence whatsoever (“lack of inquiry”) from one (i) where there is enquiry but the findings are erroneous; and (ii) where there is failure to…

Rico Auto Industries Limited, Ludhiana vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 702/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh10 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) (Virtual) – Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 35

Techno Electric & Engineering Company Ltd., Noida, Uttar Pradesh vs. P.C.I.T. - 2, Kolkata

ITA 971/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, &For Respondent: Ms. Nandini Sureka, Ars

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 263

…gineering company Limited; A.Y. 2020-21 exercised by the learned PCIT is invalid and may kindly be quashed. The learned Authorized Representative also relied on the decisions of DIT Vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) and ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). Finally, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that the order of learned PCIT passed u/s 263 of the Act may kindly be quashed as being nullity and invalid in the eyes of law. 07. The learned DR on the other hand relied on the order of learned PCIT by submitting that no prejudice is going to be caused to the assessee as the asse…

Dhl Global Forwarding Freight Shared Services (India) LLP, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (PCIT)-41, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2109/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S Dhl Global Forwarding V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Freight Shared Services बनाम Income Tax (Pcit) – 41, Room (India) Llp No. 541, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 5Th Floor, A Wing 247 Park, To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Lbs Road, Vikhroli West, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai–400083, Maharashtra Mumbai–400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aapfd3128F Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain a/w S.Chaugule, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT-DR)

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40a

…details and ought to have arrived at a firm conclusion as to how the assessment order was erroneous. He cannot relegate this aspect to the AO to find as to how his order is erroneous. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) has held that the Commissioner should have not relegated the point that assessment order is erroneous to the AO himself. In the present case, the ld.PCIT has in para 10 made concluding remarks inter alia stating that “as per the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, I hereby set aside the impugned assessment order with a direct…

Sanjeev Kumar Rana, Ropar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 706/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.706/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Sanjeev Kumar Rana Pr. Cit बनाम/ Vs. 93-Kiln Area, Nangal Ropar Sector -17E (Punjab) 140124. Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aespk-7126-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca)(Virtual) –Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit)(Virtual) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1 (Pr. Cit) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Vide Impugned Order Dated 10-05-2023 Proposing Revision Of An Assessment As Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 12-10-2017. 2. Briefly Stated, The Assessee Was Assessed U/S 143(3) On 12-10-2017 Wherein The Income Of The Assessee Was Determined At Rs.8.79 Lacs After

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA)(Virtual) –Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT)(Virtual) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 68

…ted by revisionary authority only after coming to the conclusion that the earlier finding of the Income-tax Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 9. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (343 ITR 329) held that AO is both an investigator and an adjudicator. A distinction has to be drawn between a case where the AO has not conducted any enquiry or examined any evidence whatsoever (“lack of inquiry”) from one (i) where there is enquiry but the findings are erroneous; and (ii) where there is failure to make proper or full verification or enquir…

Sharmanji Yarns Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ludhiana

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 706/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar (CA) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur(CIT) – Ld. DR

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

…by exercising the revisionary power u/s 263 unless the case of error as well as prejudice to revenue is made out by revisionary authority. 13. Our aforesaid view is as per the ratio of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (343 ITR 329). In this decision, it was held by Hon’ble Court that AO is both an investigator and an adjudicator. A distinction has to be drawn between a case where the AO has not conducted any enquiry or examined any evidence whatsoever (“lack of inquiry”) from one (i) where there is enquiry but the findings are erroneous; and (ii) where there is failure to…

Kush Trading & Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. ITO, Ward - 4(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2452/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Income Tax Officer, Kush Trading & Commerce Pvt. Ward 4(4) Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee Square, C/O Raipur Nuclear Care Center, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kolkata-700069 Ward No.16, Rajpur-492001 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabck2078G Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM Income Tax Officer, Kush Trading & Commerce Pvt. Ward 4(4) Ltd. P-7, Chowringhee Square, C/o Raipur Nuclear Care Center, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kolkata-700069 Ward No.16, Rajpur-492001 West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCK2078G Assessee by : Shri Sunil Surana, AR Revenue by : Shri Raja Sengupta, DR Date of hearing: 17.07.2025 Date of pronouncement: 26.08.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the revisionary order of the Pr. Commissio…

Guru Kripa Associates, Bareilly vs. Pr. CIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 97/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 263

…urisdiction cannot be exercised to order still further inquiries so as to reexamine the veracity of the results of earlier inquiries. Ld AR has also invited our attention to the orders of the Hon Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs DG. Housing Projects Ltd 343 ITR 329 & DIT US Jyoti Foundation ITA. 40-64 No.267/2013, wherein the Courts have held that where a Commissioner feels that the inquiry was inadequate, he must conduct further inquiry to show that the order was erroneous as a result of such inadequate inquiry and cannot simply set it aside for further inquiry by the assessing officer, to find out whether…

Bhagwati Steel Processors, Chandigarh vs. PCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 435/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

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

…tted that the law is fairly settled that if the AO has made inquiries and taken a plausible view, the PCIT cannot substitute his own opinion without conducting an independent inquiry. The following judgments are relied upon: Ο DG Housing Projects Ltd. [(2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del)] - where the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the CIT must record specific findings based on independent examination to invoke Section 263. Ο Reliance Communications Ltd. [240 Taxman 655 (Bom)] - held that absence of discussion in the order does not mean lack of inquiry. Ο Nirav Modi [390 ITR 292 (Bom)), Shashi Bhushan Gupta [202 TTJ UO 3…

Mohd Shahbuddin Khan, Chandigarh vs. PCIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 564/CHANDI/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Jain, CA and Shri Lovesh Bansal, CA

Section 147Section 263

…td. v. CIT (243 ITR 83, SC) – laying down that failure to make inquiries renders the order both erroneous and prejudicial. CIT v. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (342 ITR 74, Gauhati HC) CIT v. Gee Vee Enterprises (99 ITR 375, Delhi HC) ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (343 ITR 329, Delhi HC) 6.5 It was thus submitted that the impugned assessment order was passed in breach of the duty cast on the AO as both investigator and adjudicator, and the PCIT rightly assumed jurisdiction under section 263 to restore the matter for fresh and proper examination. 7. We have heard the rival contention and perused the material available o…

Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation Limited, Khanji Bhavan vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Aayakar Bhawan(Vejalpur), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 651/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 80GSection 80I

…essing Officer was not acceptable to the Commissioner. The relevant paras from the judgement of Hon’ble High Court in case of Principal CIT v. Kamal Galani (supra) are reproduced for the sake of clarity – 16. In case of ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329/[2013] 212 Taxman 132/20 taxmann.com587, Delhi High Court observed that a finding that the order is erroneous is a condition or requirement which must be satisfied for exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The matter cannot be remitted for afresh decision to the Assessing Officer to conduct further enquiries without such a findin…

Anand Boddapaty, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 375/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: CA Kumar Pal TatedFor Respondent: Sri Narender Kumar Naik

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 45Section 54Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.375/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2021-2022 Anand Boddapaty, The PCIT, Hyderabad-4, Hyderabad – 500 034. [vs. Hyderabad – 500 004. PAN ADKPB3810C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : CA Kumar Pal Tated For Revenue : Sri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 05.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09.06.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. : This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 13.02.2025 of the learned Principal Commissioner of Inco…

Bhupendra Sharma HUF, Noida vs. ITO Ward 5(1)(2(3), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 127/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roybhupendra Sharma Huf Vs. Cit(A) Nfac E-9, Sector-41, Noida Delhi – 110001 Uttar Pradesh- 201301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaghb3664P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Raghav Sharma, CA, &For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr

Section 143(3)Section 263

…-- it may be mentioned here that the said case is also a matter of observation on rightful exercise of revisional jurisdictional of Pr. CIT in that specific case and is not a detailed speaking finding on the merits of the case. (b) ITO vs DG Housing Projects 343 ITR 329 wherein it was held that the commissioner cannot remit the matter for a fresh decision to the Assessing Officer to conduct further enquiries without a finding that the order of Assessing Officer is erroneous. Such finding that the order is erroneous is a condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 -- As can be seen clearly from this…

Nature Commercial Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 853/KOL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

…jurisdiction u/s.263 to direct the Assessing Officer to conduct enquiry to verify and find out whether the order passed assessment framed is erroneous or not. In defense of his argument, the ld. AR relied on the decision of ITO Vs. D. G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del.). The Ld. AR, therefore, Page 7 ITA No. 853/Kol/2024 Nature Commercial Pvt. Ltd., AY 2008-09 prayed that since the revisionary jurisdiction as well as the order passed u/s.263 of the Act was invalid and nullity in the eyes of law, all the subsequent proceedings are also invalid. Therefore, the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3…

Ushasree Bandaru, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 529/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.528/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Satyasree Kamineni Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan :Adopk6338C] Circle-5(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.529/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ushasree Bandaru Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax [Pan :Acepb2973M] Circle-5(1) Hyderabad निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri K.C.Devdas, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B.Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/05/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ 21/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per Vijay Pal Rao: These Two Appeals Filed By The Two Related Assessees Are Directed Against Two Separate Orders Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (“Ld.Pcit”) Both Dated 26.03.2024 Passed U/S 263 The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2016-17. Identical Grounds Have Been Raised By Both The Assessees. The Grounds Raised In The Ita No.528/Hyd/2024 Are Reproduced As Under :

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…e AO has conducted an enquiry and the order passed by the AO cannot be held as erroneous for lack of enquiry, then it is incumbent upon the PCIT to give conclusive finding as held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO Vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329, that the order passed by the AO is not sustainable in law. Therefore, as a result, the issue itself is covered by the judgement of Hon’ble High Courts as well as by this Tribunal, then the order of AO cannot be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Ld.PCIT is not sustainab…

Satyasree Kamineni, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 528/HYD/2024[A.Y.2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 May 2025

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

Apurva Natvar Parikh & Co. Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai-6, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

ITA 2646/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, (CIT-DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

…3 ITR 83 (SC) and decisions of Delhi High Court Page 17 ITA No. 2646/Mum/2024 Α.Υ. 2018-19 Apurva Natvar Parikh & Co. Pvt. Limited in Nabha Investments Private Limited vs Union of India, (2000) 246 ITR 41 (Delhi) and ITO vs DG Housing Projects Limited, (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). It has been observed in Nagesh Knitwears Private Limited (supra): "10. Section 263 has been enacted to empower the CIT to exercise power of revision and revise any order passed by the Assessing Officer, if two cumulative conditions are satisfied. Firstly, the order sought to be revised should be erroneous and secondly, it should be preju…

Venetian Ldf Projects LLP, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3533/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

…integrated Solutions (P.) Ltd.: 173 taxmann.com 773 (P&H) - SLP dismissed by Supreme Court in 173 taxmann.com 774 (SC)  PCIT vs. Prabhu Poly Pipes Ltd.: 481 ITR 503 (Cal) - SLP dismissed by Supreme Court in 481 ITR 506 (SC)  ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd.:343 ITR 329 (Del.)  DIT v. Jyoti Foundation: 357 ITR 388 (Del.)  CIT v. Leisure Wear Exports Limited: ITA No.1165/2007 (Del)  CIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd.: ITA No. 705/2017 (dated 5.9.2017)  CIT v. Modicare Ltd.: 759/2016 (dated 20.9.2017)  CIT v. Prithvi Raj And Co.: 199 ITR 424 (Del)  CIT v. O. P. Seth: 201 ITR 635 (Del)  CIT, Mysore…