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.

Shree Krishna Builders, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result appeal of the assessee M/s Shree Krishna Colonisers in ITA

ITA 96/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 95/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Colonisers V Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 0, Nemichand Gali, Ganj Para Ward S Pcit, Raipur-I No.5, Ram Sagar Para, Raipur, 492001, Chhattisgarh Pan: Abffs7335G (Ita No. 96/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shree Krishna Builders Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax- 5/425, Nemichand Gali, Ramsagar Para Pcit, Raipur-I Ward, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aacft1716A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of : 14.12.2023 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 133Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 69C

…rder, which resulted into prejudice to Revenue. Reliance on: - - Metacaps Engineering & Mahendra Construction Co. (JV) vs CIT in ITA no. 2895/Mum/2014 dated 11.09.2017, relevant findings at para no. 13 & 14 of order. - ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del.), relevant findings at 16, 17 & 19 of order. DIT vs Jyoti Foundation (2013) 357 ITR 388 (Del.), relevant findings at para no. 5 of order, following DG Housing's case. ix) In view of this, revision order passed u/s 263 is illegal & unsustainable. 5. Objections taken by assessee (i) Detailed, item-wise objections filed with DVO. DVO consi…

Shree Krishna Colonisers, Raipur vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result appeal of the assessee M/s Shree Krishna Colonisers in ITA

ITA 95/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 133Section 133ASection 142ASection 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 69C

M/S Anjanipurtra Nirman Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-4, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 318/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 318/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Anjaniputra Nirman Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 68, Jessore Road Vs 4, Kolkata Diamond Arcade 2Nd Floor, Unit 216 Kolkata - 700055 [Pan : Aacce8659E] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R & Shri P. Sarkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata - 4, (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Pr. Cit”), Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter ‘The Act’) Dated 12/03/2019, For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 147 Days In Filing The Present Appeal By The Assessee. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record By The Assessee Explaining The Reasons For Late Filing Of Appeal. On Perusing The Same, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing This Appeal In Time. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Admit The Appeal For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R & Shri P. Sarkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…is duty bound to conduct an enquiry to reach a conclusion as to how the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld. A.R relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs. D G Housing Projects Ltd. in 343 ITR 329 (Del). The Ld A.R also submitted that the order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. vs. CIT in [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC). The Ld. Counsel finally prayed that in view of aforesaid decisions, th…

Kaustubh Gupta, Meerut vs. Pr. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 1125/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Kaustubh Gupta, 412/3, Versus Pr. C.I.T., Mangal Pandey Nagar, Ghaziabad. Meerut. Pan: Aabcs3651B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Waseem Arshad, Cit/Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.12.2023 Order Per Saktijit Dey, Vice-

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Waseem Arshad, CIT/DR

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

…(i). CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma, 335 ITR 83 (Del). (ii). CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Del.) (iii). Virtusa Consulting Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 442 ITR 385 (Mad). (iv). CIT vs. Neerav Modi, 390 ITR 292 (Bom) (v). ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd., 343 ITR 329 (Del) (vi) Eicher Motor Ltd. vs. CIT, 125 taxmann.com 432 (ITAT Delhi) (vii). CIT vs. Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., 333 ITR 547 (Del). (viii). Meerut Roller flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 420 ITR 216 (All) (ix). CIT vs. Smt. D. Valliammal, 230 ITR 695 (Mad.) (x). CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom) 6. Learned Departmental Representati…

Konsortia Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 220/KOL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 263Section 263(1)Section 28Section 73

…y and failed to record his findings on the issue. The Ld. A.R therefore argued that the order passed by the PCIT to Section 263 of the Act is invalid and void ab-initio by relying on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of D. G. Housing vs. ITO [2012] 343 ITR 329(Del). Further the Ld. A.R submitted that the AO has examined the evidences furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and based on the examination of said evidences he has taken a plausible and possible view which is not against the facts on record and also not against the provisions of the Act. The ld. A.R therefore su…

DCIT Circle-1(1) Exemption, New Delhi vs. India International Centre, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1872/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohare, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Max India Ltd reported in 295 ITR 282 (SC); Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd reported in 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DG Housing Projects Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329 (Del); CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del), among other decisions. 9. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the issues raised by the Id. PCIT is already decided in favour of the assessee on merits and further since adequate enquiries were a…

DCIT Circle-1(1) Exemption, New Delhi vs. India International Centre, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1871/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohare, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

M/S. S.R. Ferro Alloys, Jhabua vs. The PCIT, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 148/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanis.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. Cit, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Abhfs7377Q Appellant By Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09.11.2023

Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.R. Ferro Alloys Pr. CIT, Central 9, Siddheswar Colony Bhopal Vs. Jhabua (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) PAN: ABHFS7377Q Appellant by Shri Sumit Nema, Sr. Adv. & Gagan Tiwari, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement 09.11.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 30.03.2021 of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, passed u/s 26…

Amit Kumar Agarwal, Ranchi vs. PCIT, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 24/RAN/2022[17-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Nov 2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ue. But the ld Pr. CIT has revised the assessment with himself conducting enquiry and stating as to how the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial which is not correct. The ld AR relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of D. G. Housing vs. ITO 343 ITR 329(Del) in defense of his arguements.The Ld A.R also submitted that the order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. vs. CIT in [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC).The Ld. A.R therefore prayed that the order…

Gudia Singhania, Ranchi vs. PCIT, Ranchi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 22/RAN/2022[17-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Nov 2023

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

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

…ue. But the ld Pr. CIT has revised the assessment with himself conducting enquiry and stating as to how the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial which is not correct. The ld AR relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of D. G. Housing vs. ITO 343 ITR 329(Del) in defense 4 AY: 2017-18 Gudia Singhania of his arguments. The Ld A.R also submitted that the order passed by the AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and therefore squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. vs. CIT in [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC). The Ld. A.R…

Sewa Sahkari Sammittee Maryadit, Beed, Mundi Khandwa vs. PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeal by the assesse is allowed

ITA 44/IND/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. Cit-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aaufs0703N Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Ms. Simran Bhullar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30.10.2023

Section 12ASection 138Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sewa Sahkari Sammittee Pr. CIT-2 Maryadit Beed Indore Vs. Beed Mundi Khandwa (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) PAN: AAUFS0703N Assessee by Shri Gagan Tiwari, AR Revenue by Ms. Simran Bhullar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 05.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement 30.10.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.03.2021 of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore passed u/s 263 of the Act f…

Prabhakar Jha, Madhubani vs. Pr.CIT-1, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 178/PAT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

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

…aborate discussion in that regard. 9. In the light of above, we have gone through the record carefully. During the course of hearing, our attention was drawn towards the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO –vs.- D.G. Housing Projects (343 ITR 329). In this judgment, Hon’ble Delhi High Court has propounded that ld. Commissioner cannot remit the matter to the ld. Assessing Officer to decide whether the findings recorded are erroneous. In the present case, the ld. Commissioner harboured a belief that there is a contractual receipt of Rs.15,00,000/- and the ld. Assessing Officer did not make…

Ellora Inratech Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 3, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Mrs. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr.AdvFor Respondent: Shri T. James Singson, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…dicial to the interest of the Revenue by such lapse on the part of the AO. This is the position of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in several cases including CIT .v. Goetze (India) Ltd. (2014) 361 ITR 505 (Del); ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd, 343 ITR 329; CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd., 332 ITR 167 (Del). In this backdrop, a question would arise whether, firstly, the action of the AO is unsustainable in law or not, owing to such assertions on mere inadequacy and secondly, whether the mandate under s.68 of the Act for extent of inquiry by way of cross verification is absolute or left to the discretion…

Jai Salasar Balaji Industries(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 440/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 440/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jai Salasar Balaji Industries (P) Ltd. Acit, Central Circle – 4(1), Kolkata 5, Bentinck Street Vs Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaacj6970D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20/06/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Kolkata -2, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Pr. Cit”) Dt. 28/03/2023, Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Steel. E-Return Filed On 27/10/2018 Declaring Total Income At Nil For The Assessment Year 2018-19. Case Selected For Through Cass Followed By Issuance Of Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act. Details Were Called For In Respect Of The Reason Of Scrutiny Selection. The Assessee Complied By Filing All The Relevant Details & The Same Were Duly Examined By The Assessing Officer & He Came To The Conclusion That The Assessee Was Entitled To The Claim Of Carry Forward Of Loss To 2

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, D/R

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

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 440/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jai Salasar Balaji Industries (P) Ltd. ACIT, Central Circle – 4(1), Kolkata 5, Bentinck Street Vs Kolkata - 700001 [PAN : AAACJ6970D] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri A.K. Tulsiyan, FCA Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 20/06/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 25/08/2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER DR. M…

Bina Gupta, Kolkata vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the different assessees are allowed

ITA 235/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

…is duty bound to conduct an enquiry to reach a conclusion as to how the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld. A.R relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs. D G Housing Projects Ltd. in 343 ITR 329 (Del). The Ld. Counsel finally prayed that in view of aforesaid decisions, the jurisdiction assumed u/s 263 of the Act is invalid and so is the order passed u/s 263 of the Act which may kindly be quashed. 5. The Ld. D.R on the other hand relied heavily on the order of PCIT by submitting that it was found during the investigation by DDIT, Kolkata…

Kusum Gupta, Kolkata vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the different assessees are allowed

ITA 234/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69C

…is duty bound to conduct an enquiry to reach a conclusion as to how the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld. A.R relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs. D G Housing Projects Ltd. in 343 ITR 329 (Del). The Ld. Counsel finally prayed that in view of aforesaid decisions, the jurisdiction assumed u/s 263 of the Act is invalid and so is the order passed u/s 263 of the Act which may kindly be quashed. 5. The Ld. D.R on the other hand relied heavily on the order of PCIT by submitting that it was found during the investigation by DDIT, Kolkata…

India International Centre, Central Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2940/DEL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 India International Centre, Vs Cit(E), 40, Max Mueller Marg, New Delhi. Lodhi Estate, New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaati0660C

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Mohan Prasad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT,DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

…n this regard is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Max India Ltd reported in 295 ITR 282 (SC) ; Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd reported in 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DG Housing Projects Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329 (Del) ; CIT vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del), among other decisions. 9. In view of the aforesaid observations and respectfully following the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that the issues raised by the ld. PCIT is already decided in favour of the assessee on merits and further since adequate enquiries were…

Nahar Colours and Coatinhgs Private Limited, Udaipur vs. Principal Commissioner Ofincometax, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/JODH/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 801ASection 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Nahar Colours and Coatings Vs Principal Private Ltd., Commissioner of G-1, 90-93, Udyog Vihar, Income Tax, Suker, Udaipur Udaipur (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AAACN 6942 K Assessee By Sh. Gautam Chand Baid, CA Revenue By Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR Date of hearing 14/07/2023 Date of 09/08/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by assessee and is arising out of the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ud…

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 279/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

…ITR 83 (SC) 2. Nabha Investments (P) Ltd, vs Union of India [2000] 112 taxman 465 (Delhi). 3. CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 71 Taxman 585 (Bom.) 4. CIT vs Vodafone Essar South Ltd [2012] 28 taxmann.com 273 (Del.) 5.ITO vs D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del.) 6. CIT vs Nirav Modi [2017] 291 CTR 245 (Bom.) 7. Flextronics Software Systems Ltd. vs CIT [2010] 128 TTJ 107 (Delhi) 8. P.C. Puri vs CIT [1984] 18 Taxman 158 (Del) 9. J.P. Srivastava & Sons (Kanpur) Ltd vs CIT [1978] 111 ITR 326 (All.) 10. CIT vs Nirmal Chemicals Works (P) Ltd. [2009] 222 CTR 593 (Guj.) 11. State Bank of India vs ACIT & O…

Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 203/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT

Section 115JSection 263Section 35ASection 36(1)(viia)

…43 ITR 83 (SC) 2. Nabha Investments (P) Ltd, vs Union of India [2000] 112 taxman 465 (Delhi). 3. CIT vs Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 71 Taxman 585 (Bom.) 4.Rajmal Kanwar vs CIT-1, Jodhpur [2016] 182 TTJ 69 (Jaipur Trib) 5.ITO vs D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del.) 6. CIT vs Nirav Modi [2017] 291 CTR 245 (Bom.) 7. Flextronics Software Systems Ltd. vs CIT [2010] 128 TTJ 107 (Delhi) 8. P.C. Puri vs CIT [1984] 18 Taxman 158 (Del) 9. J.P. Srivastava & Sons (Kanpur) Ltd vs CIT [1978] 111 ITR 326 (All.) 10. CIT vs Nirmal Chemicals Works (P) Ltd. [2009] 222 CTR 593 (Guj.) 11. State Bank of India vs ACIT & O…