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.

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 329)

M/S Rockbed Renovators Ltd., Bhopal vs. The PCIT-1, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Indore12 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirockbed Renovators Ltd. Pr. Cit-1 7-A, Panjabi Bagh Raisen Road Bhopal Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aaacr7151G Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari Ar Revenue By Ms. Ila Parmar, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.06.2024

Section 143(3)Section 196CSection 263

…the order of assessment, but the same is apparent from the record of the proceedings, the invocation of jurisdiction by the ld. CIT was unsustainable. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 in para 18 as under :- "18. It is in this context that the Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2000] 243 ITR 83 / 109 Taxman 66 (SC), had observed that the phrase 'prejudicial to the interest of Revenue' has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of R…

Mohammed Gyasuddin, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-30, Kolkata

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

ITA 571/KOL/2020[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2012-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

…order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.” 13.2. 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: “In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has no…

Mohammed Gyasuddin, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-30, Kolkata

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

ITA 570/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 269SSection 271D

…order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.” 13.2. 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: “In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has no…

Gyan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Varanasi vs. ACIT Central Circle-03, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 178/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 175 To 178/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2018-19 Gyan Infrabuild Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of Awlespur, Kandwa Vs Income-Tax (Central), Patna Varanasi - 221006 [Pan: Aaecg0509Mc] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate & Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Even Dt. 26/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. Relevant Content Of The Petition Dt. 08/06/2023 Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “…….. 1. That We Had Received An Order U/S 263 Passed By Id Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Patna On 26.03.2022. 2

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhary, CIT, D/R

Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 263

…s order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.” 17. 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: “In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has no…

Gyan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Varanasi vs. ACIT Central Circle-03, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 177/PAT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 175 To 178/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2018-19 Gyan Infrabuild Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of Awlespur, Kandwa Vs Income-Tax (Central), Patna Varanasi - 221006 [Pan: Aaecg0509Mc] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate & Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Even Dt. 26/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. Relevant Content Of The Petition Dt. 08/06/2023 Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “…….. 1. That We Had Received An Order U/S 263 Passed By Id Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Patna On 26.03.2022. 2

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhary, CIT, D/R

Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 263

…s order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.” 17. 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: “In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has no…

Gyan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Varanasi vs. ACIT Central Circle-03, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 176/PAT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 175 To 178/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2018-19 Gyan Infrabuild Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of Awlespur, Kandwa Vs Income-Tax (Central), Patna Varanasi - 221006 [Pan: Aaecg0509Mc] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate & Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Even Dt. 26/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. Relevant Content Of The Petition Dt. 08/06/2023 Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “…….. 1. That We Had Received An Order U/S 263 Passed By Id Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Patna On 26.03.2022. 2

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhary, CIT, D/R

Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 263

…s order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.” 17. 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: “In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has no…

Gyan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Varanasi vs. ACIT Central Circle-03, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 175/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna13 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 175 To 178/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2018-19 Gyan Infrabuild Private Limited Principal Commissioner Of Awlespur, Kandwa Vs Income-Tax (Central), Patna Varanasi - 221006 [Pan: Aaecg0509Mc] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, Adv. Revenue By : Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeals Are Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Separate & Identical Orders Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Even Dt. 26/03/2022, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015-16 To 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 14 Days In Filing Of These Appeals. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. Relevant Content Of The Petition Dt. 08/06/2023 Is Extracted For Ready Reference:- “…….. 1. That We Had Received An Order U/S 263 Passed By Id Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Patna On 26.03.2022. 2

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Aggrawal, Sr. Adv. & Shri Manish Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Md. A.H. Chowdhary, CIT, D/R

Section 132Section 133ASection 153ASection 263

…s order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.” 17. 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: “In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has no…

M/S Olympus Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1088/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1088/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S Olympus Suppliers Pvt Ltd.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 15/B, Clive Row, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aabco0624Q] Vs. Pcit, Circle-2, Kolkata……….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 13, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 23.03.2015 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. This Is A Second Round Of Litigation Before Us. Earlier, The Assessee Had Filed Appeal Before This Tribunal Against The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit Passed U/S 263 Of The Act, However, The Said Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Along With Three Other Cases By A Common Order Dated 05.08.2016. Being Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Preferred Further Appeal Before The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court Bearing No. Itat/328/2017 Ia No.Ga/2/2017 (Old No.Ga/3184/2017). It Was Pleaded Before The Hon’Ble Calcutta High Court That The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Dismissed Along With Other Appeals, However, The Specific

Section 143(1)Section 151Section 263

…order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.” 13.2. 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: “In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has no…

Ramotar Choudhari HUF, Kolkata vs. PCIT 5 Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1336/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1336/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ramotar Choudhari Huf.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 7Th Floor, R.N 25 Fortuna Tower, 23A N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aanhr9093K] Vs. Pcit-5, Kolkata………….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Pransukha, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 06, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 18.10.2023 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,55,970/- On 21.01.2014. Thereafter, An Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer From Investigation Wing That The Assessee Has

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 263

…order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.” 13.2. 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: “In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has no…

Sriram Enterprises, Patna vs. PCIT (Central), Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 76/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna08 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No. 76/Pat/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Sriram Enterprises,………………………..........Appellant C/O. Nirmal & Associates, Nepali Kothi, Opposite Gasoline Petrol Pump, Boring Road, Patna-800001 [Pan:Aarfs8853J] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Patna,…………………………………..……………..Respondent, Bihar-800001 Appearances By: Shri Nishant Maitin, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Md. A.H. Chowdhary, Cit (D.R.), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 5Th March, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: May 8Th, 2024 O R D E R

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

…s order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard. 8.9. 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 CIT as 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: “In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has not go…

Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 809/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.809/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd….…......................…...……………....Appellant 48/6, Suman Villa, 2Nd Floor, 155, Jessore Road, Kolkata-700055. [Pan: Aabcd1131H] Vs. Pcit, Asansol….....….........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 30.12.2022 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 158 Days. A Separate Application Of Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Wherein, It Has Been Pleaded That After Receipt Of The Impugned Order Of The Pr. Cit, The Assessee, Through Its Director, Shri Deep Kishan Saraf, Immediately Approached One Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, Chartered

Section 253Section 263Section 5

…order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.” 13.2. 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: “In the present case, the findings recorded by the Tribunal are correct as the CIT has no…

G.S.Atwal & Co (Engg) Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kol-2, Kol, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 524/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 524/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 G.S. Atwal & Co. (Engg.) Pvt. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - Ltd. Vs 2, Kolkata 4B, Little Russell Street Kolkata - 700071 [Pan : Aabcg0816E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata -2, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”] Dt. 29/03/2023, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Common Issue Raised In The Various Grounds Of Appeal Is Against Invalid Exercise Of Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act Thereby Passing Revisionary Order U/S 263 Of The Act Dt. 29/03/2023, Setting Aside & Revising The Assessment Framed U/S 143(3)/143(3A) & (3B) Of The Act Dt. 29/03/2021. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 19/09/2018 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.4,24,51,417/-. Subsequently, The Return Was Revised On 23/09/2019 Declaring Total Loss

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, D/R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263

…objective finding on the basis of records before him as to how the order passed by the Assessing Officer is wrong and the said view is in conformity with the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Limited reported in [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del.) 7. Considering the above facts and the ration of law laid down by various Hon'ble Courts, we quash the revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Act and the assessment order dt. 29/03/2021 is restored. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 22nd April, 2024 at Kolkata. (SONJOY SARMA) ACCOUNTANT M…

M/S. Linde India Limited (Formerly Boc India Limited), Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 432/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…he view taken by the AO was wrong thereby rendering the assessment passed him his as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The case of assessee finds support from the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of D. G. Housing vs. ITO [2012] 343 ITR 329(Del) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that it is incumbent upon the PCIT to record an objective findings as to how the issues raised in the revisionary proceedings has rendered the assessment as erroneous. 9.2. In view of the above facts and legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the revisionary jurisdiction has been invali…

Idemia Syscom India Private Limited, Noida vs. CIT(Tp), Delhi-2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 647/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Syali, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT- DR

Section 263Section 92C

…ming the TP order. In our considered opinion, if the ld. CIT(TP) was of the firm belief that the TPO has not conducted proper enquiries, nothing prevented him to conduct enquiries as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi 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. T…

S D Educational Society, Hisar vs. Pr CIT (Exemption), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1179/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. S. Krishanan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 119Section 143(3)Section 263Section 270A

…f the Ld. CIT(E) was insufficient to invoke proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act. The said proceedings would get ignited only when there is an error in the order of assessment. 16. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held in ITO vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 in the context of the power and authority of a Commissioner in a Section 263 of the Act exercise. One cannot better than to quote the Court’s order verbatim in this context: 9 S D Educational Society “Para 16: Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the CIT has to come to the conclusion and himself decide that the order is erroneou…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 49 can be exercised. This proposition stands settled, inter-alia in the following decisions : i) CIT V Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del) ii) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 16 (Del) iii) ITO V D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del); and iv) PCIT V Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. 398 ITR 8 (Del) 13.10 Moreover, as noted, where two views are possible and the AO has taken a view with which the CIT/PCIT does not agree, the assessment order cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 49 can be exercised. This proposition stands settled, inter-alia in the following decisions : i) CIT V Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del) ii) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 16 (Del) iii) ITO V D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del); and iv) PCIT V Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. 398 ITR 8 (Del) 13.10 Moreover, as noted, where two views are possible and the AO has taken a view with which the CIT/PCIT does not agree, the assessment order cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable…

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

…021 A.Y. 2011-12, 2015-16 & 2016-17 49 can be exercised. This proposition stands settled, inter-alia in the following decisions : i) CIT V Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Del) ii) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 16 (Del) iii) ITO V D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del); and iv) PCIT V Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. 398 ITR 8 (Del) 13.10 Moreover, as noted, where two views are possible and the AO has taken a view with which the CIT/PCIT does not agree, the assessment order cannot be termed as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable…

Richa & Co., Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 17, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed partly with

ITA 3341/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaricha & Co. Vs. Jcit B-34, Phase-1, Special Range-17, Mayapuri Industrial Area, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan No. Aaafr0114L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 263Section 40

…CIT vs. M/s Kavin (India) ITA No.213 of 2019 dated 21/4/22 (P&H)-Copy enclosed. 3. ETT Ltd. vs. CIT (2019) 112 Taxmann.com 321 (Delhi). 4. CIT (Dr.) vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 8 (Delhi). 5. ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi). 6. Narayan Tatu Rane vs. ITO (2016) 70 Taxmann.com 227 (Mum). 9. Ld. DR has, however, submitted that there was no error in the findings of the Ld. PCIT. He relied the Instruction No.3/2016 dated 10.03.2016 of CBDT providing for guidelines/implementation of transfer pricing provisions. 10. After taking into consideration the facts and c…

Bhagwati Abhilasha Conventure, Mumbai vs. Circle 26(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1698/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalbhagwati Abhilsha Conventure A/30, Patil Bhuvan, N.S.B. Road, Mulund (West), Mumbai-400080 Pan: Aahfb9198D ...... Appellant Vs. Pcit, Mumbai-41, Circle 41(2)(1) R. No. 541, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(5)Section 263

…taxmann.com 97 6. CIT v. Bhagwan Das [2005] 272 ITR 367. 7. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. vs. DCIT (2019) 111 taxmann.com 353 8. CIT vs. Sunil Goyal (2009) 176 Taxman 184 (Uttaranchal H.C.) 9. Income Tax Officer versus DG Housing Projects Limited (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) 8. We have gone through the case laws relied upon by both the parties and facts of the matter. It is observed that there are judicial pronouncements on both sides and issue is highly debatable. In that circumstance where it was specifically pointed out that assessee is a builder/developer engaged in the business of construction and incom…

ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd.

What is ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Also reported as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing ITO v. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd.

M/S Rockbed Renovators Ltd., Bhopal vs. The PCIT-1, Bhopal

Mohammed Gyasuddin, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-30, Kolkata

Mohammed Gyasuddin, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-30, Kolkata

Gyan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Varanasi vs. ACIT Central Circle-03, Patna

Gyan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Varanasi vs. ACIT Central Circle-03, Patna

Gyan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Varanasi vs. ACIT Central Circle-03, Patna

Gyan Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd, Varanasi vs. ACIT Central Circle-03, Patna

M/S Olympus Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Cir-2, Kolkata

Ramotar Choudhari HUF, Kolkata vs. PCIT 5 Kolkata, Kolkata

Sriram Enterprises, Patna vs. PCIT (Central), Patna

Deepak Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Asansol

G.S.Atwal & Co (Engg) Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kol-2, Kol, Kolkata

M/S. Linde India Limited (Formerly Boc India Limited), Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

Idemia Syscom India Private Limited, Noida vs. CIT(Tp), Delhi-2, New Delhi

S D Educational Society, Hisar vs. Pr CIT (Exemption), Chandigarh

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

M/S Din Dayal Pursotam Lal, Sirsa vs. Pr.CIT, Rohtak

Richa & Co., Delhi vs. JCIT, Special Range- 17, New Delhi

Bhagwati Abhilasha Conventure, Mumbai vs. Circle 26(1), Mumbai