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.

M/S Prefect Footwear, Agra vs. Pr.CIT., (Centrl), Kanpur

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 23/AGR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.23/Agr/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Perfect Footwear Pr. Cit (Central), बनाम/ 76, Kailash Vihar Kanpur. Vs. Bye Pass Road, Agra -282005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aarfp-0237-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sushil Maheshwari, Ca – Ld. Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 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 (Central), Kanpur (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Vide Impugned Order Dated 15-03-2021 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 14-12-2018. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, Our Adjudication Would Be As Under. 2. Upon Perusal Of Assessment Order, It Could Be Seen That The Assessee’S Return Of Income Was Selected For Scrutiny. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Notices Were Issued To The Assessee U/S 142(1) On Various Issues Which Were Duly Responded To By The Assessee In E-Proceedings. The Assessment Order Take Note

For Appellant: Sh. Sushil Maheshwari, CA – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

…could also be noted that Ld. Pr. CIT has not recorded any finding as to how the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue which run contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (343 ITR 329). Under these circumstances, the impugned revisionary order is liable to be quashed. We order so. The assessment as framed by Ld. AO stand restored back. 6. The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) 4ाियक सद5 /JUDI…

Shri Princepreetjit Singh, Ranjit Nagar vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Chandrajit Singh, CIT, DR(Virtual)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54BSection 54F

…u/s 143(3) revisionary proceedings are not maintainable. For this proposition we, rely upon the following judgements:  Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC)  CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del HC)  ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del HC) 14 10. In view of above, it is therefore prayed that the impugned order passed u/s 263 may please be quashed. We shall be highly obliged. 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. PCIT. 7. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties and also perused the material available on the record. We find that the Ld. PC…

Hariram Hospital, Alwar vs. PCIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1535/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital cuke The Pr.CIT Vs. Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital (Central ) Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue…

Hemant Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT, Panchkula

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 206/Chd/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Hemant Fabrics Pvt.Ltd., C-95, Mahendru Enclave, G.T.Karnal Road, New Delhi. Vs The Pcit, Panchkula. स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm2810N अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Jain, C.A. Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp Hybrid Hearing Order The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (In Short ‘Cit') Dated 22.03.2023 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Three Grounds Of Appeal, However Its Grievance Revolves Around A Single Issue Namely

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…. The 1d. CIT ought to have first demonstrated as to how reply submitted by the assessee is incorrect and how error lies in the assessment order. Hon'ble D3elhi High Court has considered this aspect in the case of ITO Vs D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. reported in 343 ITR 329. Hon'ble Delhi High Court has propounded that 1d. Commissioner cannot left the issue to the AO to find out where he has committed an error. It is the Commissioner who has to conduct an enquiry and then propound how the assessment order is erroneous. We deem it appropriate to take note of the discussion made by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on this…

Indiabulls Commercial Credit Limited, New Delhi vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2844/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 94(7)

…e was also made to Malabar Industrial Company Limited versus CIT, (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) and decisions of Delhi High Court in Nabha Investments Private Limited versus Union of India, (2000) 246 ITR 41 (Delhi) and ITO versus 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…

Vinay Ramsharandas Agrawal, Nagpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nagpur

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 110/NAG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 143(3)Section 263

…of the Act as "thoroughly" clearly suggests that it is not the case of no inquiry. Degree of examination and the extent thereof cannot be a scope of revision. In the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in ITO v/s DG Housing Projects Ltd., [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del.), the Hon’ble Court held as under:– “Held: Revenue does not have any right to appeal to the first appellate authority against an order passed by the Assessing Officer. S. 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. Fi…

Sant Kumar Suri, Nurpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 336/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44A

…enquiry carried out by AO as to nexus between funds invested in fixed deposits (on which interest was earned) and real estate project undertaken by assessee, no interference is called for by Court-Revenue's appeal dismissed." ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del) Power of Commissioner under s.263 Scope Held, 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 under s.263. CIT…

Sbs Biotech Unit II, Sirmour vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 413/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 801CSection 80I

…ejudice to revenue, so that jurisdiction for the Commissioner is available for remanding the matter for such enquiry - CIT Vs Raja Industries (2012) 340 ITR 344 (P&H). v). Honble Delhi High Court in Income Tax Officer versus DG Housing Projects Limited (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) has observed: "The Assessing Officer is both an investigator and an adjudicator. If the Assessing Officer as an adjudicator decides a question or aspect and makes a wrong assessment which is unsustainable in law, it can be corrected by the Commissioner in exercise of revisionary power. As an investigator, it is incumbent upon the Assessin…

Jarnail Singh, Bilaspur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 395/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 263

…nquiry, it becomes incumbent on the ld PCIT to conduct such enquiry and in support of the said proposition, reliance was placed on the following decisions: • PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P.) Ltd. 398 ITR 8 (Delhi) • ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) • Director of Income Tax Vs. Jyoti Foundation 357 ITR 388 (Delhi) 26. It was further submitted that the application of mind of the AO is evident from the assessment order passed u/s 147 read with 143(3). It depicts that in respect of the major issue for which the case was re-opened i.e transactions in commodity trading, proper inquiry wa…

Jarnail Singh, Bilaspur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 394/CHANDI/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 263

Mohd. Jawed, Bijnor vs. ITO Ward - 3(3), Bijnor

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

ITA 127/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

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…

Mikuni India Private Limited, Alwar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, PCIT

12. In view of the above discussion, we find merit in this appeal, when the assessment order dated 27

ITA 745/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: passing the impugned order, Learned PCIT issued notice to the assessee, as Learned PCIT found that the Assessing Officer, while framing the above said assessment and the making addition, did not initiate penalty proceedings 270A of the Act. Learned PCIT was of the view that penalty proceedings were to be initiated under the said provision on account of misreporting of income, which came to be added by the Assessing Officer to the total income of the assessee company. It being a Transfer Pri

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Agarwal, C.A. (Through V.C.) &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 194C(5)Section 263Section 270ASection 92CSection 94C

…case of CIT vs. Max India Limited [295 ITR 282].  Copy of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (395 ITR 1].  Copy of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. [343 ITR 329]. Herein, as noticed above, the Assessing Officer has nowhere observed, while passing the assessment order that it was a case of under reporting or 10 Mikuni India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT misreporting of income by the assessee company. That is why, the Assessing Officer appears to have closed assessment order, while assessing the total income and re…

A.B. Sugars Limited, Punjab vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 300/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

…prejudice to revenue so that jurisdiction for the Commissioner is available for remanding the matter for such enquiry CIT Vs Raja Industries (2012) 340 ITR 344 (P&H). iv). Honble Delhi High Court in Income Tax Officer versus DG Housing Projects Limited (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) has observed: "The Assessing Officer is both an investigator and an adjudicator. If the Assessing Officer as an adjudicator decides a question or aspect and makes a wrong assessment which is unsustainable in law, it can be corrected by the Commissioner in exercise of revisionary power. As an investigator, it is incumbent upon the Assessin…

A.B. Sugars Limited, Punjab vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 299/CHANDI/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80ISection 92C

Guljeet Kaur Johal, Chandigarh vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 379/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 379/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Guljeet Kaur Johal, Vs. Pcit-1, बनाम H.No. 107, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh Chandigarh 160019 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aklpj8345G अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent (Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rohit Sharma, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2024 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…, it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We further rely upon the ratio of following judgements: (i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. us CIT[2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Del) (iii) ITO vs. DG Housing Projects ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del).” 5. During proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel of the Assessee has filed a written submission which is almost the same as it was filed before the ld. PCIT. The ld. Counsel has also argued on the line of written submission filed by him. 379-Chd-2024 – Guljeet Kaur Johal, Chandigarh 6 6. The ld. DR relied on the order of the PCIT. 7. W…

Mma Offshore Asia Vessel Operations Pte Ltd., Singapore vs. CIT (International Taxation)-3, Mumbai

ITA 2567/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi/Punit Lohiya, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, D/R

Section 142(1)Section 195Section 263

…ll of surmises and conjectures. 14. Assuming yet not accepting that the AO has not conducted proper enquiries, nothing prevented the ld. CIT to conduct enquiries as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi)(HC). The relevant findings read as under:- “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 will b…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore vs. Commander Industries Private Limited, Indore

ITA 24/IND/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 47

…ef that the Assessing Officer has not conducted proper enquires, in so far as the claim of depreciation or good will is concerned. Nothing prevented the Ld. Pr.CIT to conduct enquires as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DG Housing Projects [343 ITR 329], the relevant findings read as under: - "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 prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.…

Dharambir, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 787/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usdharambir Vs. Pr. Cit Village-Nakhrola, Naharpur, C.R. Building, Faridabad, Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. Pan No.Aumpd4924E (Appellant) (Respondent)

…in conjunction with scope of powers available under s. 147 of the Act. 14. Besides, the action of the PCIT seeking revision is grossly contrary to the observations made by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO Vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.), wherein a case of inadequate enquiry and lack of enquiry has been clearly distinguished and a burden albit on somewhat lower pedestal has been placed upon PCIT to conduct some minimum enquiry himself to prevent misuse of revisional jurisdiction. In the instant case, the PCIT could have gathered the apparent facts without any exertion,…

Ganadhipati Construction Private Ltd, Patna vs. PCIT, Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 360/PAT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…s order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.” 18. Apart from above stated broader principles, one more principle needs to be added in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) that the ld. CIT has to examine and verify the issue himself and give a finding on merits and form an opinion on merits that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Relevant extract is reproduced below: Assessment Years: 2017-2018to 2021-2022 Gandhipati Construction Private Limited “In the p…

Ganadhipati Construction Private Limited, Patna vs. PCIT, Central, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing

ITA 359/PAT/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna16 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263