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.

Maa Narmada Agrotech and Infrastures Ltd, Indore vs. The PCIT-1, Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 117/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimaa Narmada Agrotech & Pcit Infrastructures Limited Indore -1 Ug-47, Trade Centre, Vs. Kanchan Bagh Main Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aafcm6285 P Assessee By Shri S.N. Goyal & Shri Pranay Goyal, Ars Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.07.2023

Section 139(1)Section 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 Maa Narmada Agrotech and PCIT Infrastructures Limited Indore -1 UG-47, Trade Centre, Vs. Kanchan Bagh Main Road, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AAFCM6285 P Assessee by Shri S.N. Goyal & Shri Pranay Goyal, ARs Revenue by Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 31.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement 11.07.2023 O R D E R Per Vijay Pal Rao, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.03.2…

Indianoil Petronas Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kol-2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 430/KOL/2023[Indi2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Indianoil Petronas Pvt. Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Unit I & Ii Acropolis, Income Tax, Kolkata-2, Vs. 1858/1, Rajdanga Main Road Kolkata. South, Kolkata-700107. (Pan: Aaaci 5573 R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. S. Saini, Advocate & Shri Sonu KumarFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…he assessee. 8 Indianoil Petronas Pvt. ltd., AY: 2017-18 5.5. Ld. Counsel thus, asserted that there is no application consideration for which he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of ITO Vs. D. G. Housing projects ltd. 343 ITR 329. He thus asserted that the impugned order be quashed. 6. Per contra, Ld. CIT, DR placed reliance on the order of Ld. Pr. CIT and submitted that assessee has claimed the expenses in its revised return which was not claimed in its original return as well as in the preceding years. He further submitted that no prejudice is caused to the assessee if…

M/S Rani Sati Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 68

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 85/Kol/2022 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s. Rani Sati Agro Tech Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(3), 20, Maharshi Debendra Road Vs Kolkata Fourth Floor Room No. 10, Burrabazar Kolkata - 700007 [PAN : AABCR2446R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sunil Surana, FCA Revenue by : Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 09/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronounceme…

Barclays Merchant Bank ( Singapore ) Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (International Circle) Range-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse stand dismissed

ITA 907/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Rajesh Meshram

Section 143(3)Section 263

…e case of CITVs. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company (213 ITR 843) iii. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) iv. ITO Vs. DG Housing Projects Limited (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) v. Delhi High Court in the case of Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. ACIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi)” 8. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. During the course of assessment proceedings the assesse has filed detailed note as to how income on foreign exchange contract transactions are in the P a g e | 6 Barclays Merchant Bank (sin…

M/S Roy and Sahani Company, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward 24(1), Hooghly

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 169/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R

Section 143(3)Section 263

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 169/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Roy and Sahani Company Income Tax Officer, Ward-24(1), Boinchee Bilsara Road Vs Hooghly Pandua Hooghly - 712134 [PAN : AAGFR6501F] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23/05/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 12/06/2023 आदेश/O R D…

Kanoi Tea Private Limited, Kolkata vs. P.C.I.T. - 2, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/KOL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R

Section 249Section 253Section 263Section 3Section 5

…records which are available at the time of examination by him and to take into consideration even those events which arose subsequent to the order of assessment. 16.3. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Income tax Officer vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd 343 ITR 329 (Delhi), has held as follows:- “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. Firstly, the order…

Garud Credit & Holding Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 9(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1270/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 1270/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited,.........Appellant D.J. Shah & Co., 2, Elgin Road, Kolkata-700020 [Pan: Aaacg9791P] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-9(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Veekaas S. Sharma, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2023 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 35DSection 68

…'B' Bench Argument:- Before assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 it is necessary for CIT to conduct inquiry – Power coupled with duty PCIT vs. Britannia (2022) 6 NYPCTR The Hon’ble High Court of 231 – 235 Industries Ltd. 1475 (Cal) Calcutta ITO vs. DG Housing (2012) 343 ITR 329 The Hon’ble High Court of 236 – 250 8 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Garud Credit & Holding Pvt. Limited Projects Ltd. Delhi Suresh Chand Writ Petition (Civil) The Hon’ble Supreme 251 – 299 Gautam vs. State of No. 690 of 2015 court of India Uttar Pradesh Argument:- No addition based on perception of culpability PCIT vs. Himachal (2018) 98 The Hon’…

M J Gold Private Limited, Meerut vs. Pr, CIT Ghaziabad, Ghaizabad

ITA 1164/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 217-18 Mj Gold Private Limited Pr. Cit Ghaziabad Shop No.62, Pinki Complex, Vs Ghaziabad Chatta Ali Raza, Neel Ki Gali, Meerut, Up 2500002 Pan No.Aagcm4151K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, Advocate Respondent By Ms. Sarita Kumari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 25/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/04/2023 Order

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…r considered opinion section 263 does not envisage of substution of judgment of the CIT from that of the AO who has passed the assessment order unless the said order is held to be erroneous. Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of DG Housing Projected Limited 343 ITR 329 has held :- “term as erroneous means a wrong / incorrect decision deviating from law”. 11. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gaberiel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 has held as under :- 12. In our understanding of the aforementioned judgment of the Hon’ble High Court an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law.…

V.L Jewellers, Delhi vs. Circle-49(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 836/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.836/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम V.L. Jewellers, Pr. Commissioner Of 2775, 1St Floor, Gali No. 20-21, Vs. Income Tax, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, Circle 49(1), New Delhi. Room No. 1202, 12, Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi. Pan No. Aadfv7989A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

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

…tion of the assessee. Such, decision of the Income Tax Officer cannot be I.T.A.No.836/Del/2022 held to be ‘erroneous’ simply because in his order he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.” 23. In the case of CIT vs. D.G. Housing Projects Ltd., 343 ITR 329 the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as under: - ”12. 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 i…

Shri Manmohan Singh Kapur, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 68/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. No. 66/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Harneet Kaur Juneja V. Pr. Commissioner of Income R/o 216 Lajpat Nagar, Tax-1, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Punjab) [PAN: AJBPJ 4673Q] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 67/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Sukhjit Singh V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Village & P.O. Manik Dheri, Tax-1, Jalandhar Hoshiarpur (Punjab) [PAN: BHAPS 9843P] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T. A. No. 68/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017…

Shri Sukhjit Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 67/ASR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

Smt Harneet Kaur Juneja, Jalandhar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 66/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Balwinder Kaur, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

M/S Shriram Properties Limited, Chennai vs. PCIT-Central1, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 431/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 431/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Ms. Lalitha. RFor Respondent: Shri. S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(vii)

…ess view taken by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable in law it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has passed erroneous order. This view is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs D G Housing Projects Ltd [2012] 343 ITR 329, it has been held that in a case where there is an inadequate enquiry, but not lack of enquiry, again the CIT must give and record a finding that the order/enquiry made is erroneous. An order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, unless the CIT holds and record reasons why it is erroneous. In this case, on perusal of or…

K.R.Overseas Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. PCIT-(Central)-2, Kolkata

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

ITA 185/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

…order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.” 10.9. 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 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…

Credit Suisse (Singapore ) Limited, Singapore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax), Mumbai-2

In the result, appeals by the assessee for 2016-17 and 2017-18 are allowed

ITA 1008/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 1007/मुं/2022 ("न.व.2016-17) आअसं. 1008/मुं/2022 ("न.व.2017-18) Credit Suisse (Singapore) Limited, C/O. Delloite Haskins & Sells Chartered Accountants Llp, 30Th Floor, Tower 3, One International Centre, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Mumbai 400 013 Pan: Aaccc-7328-N ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation) Mumbai-2, 1706, 17Th Floor, Air India Building, ...... ""तवाद"/Respondent Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 038

For Appellant: Shri P.J.Pardiwala Sr. Advocate with Shri. Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT DR and Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. AR

Section 263

…d reliance on the following decisions: (i) CIT vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee , 341 ITR 434(Gawahati); (ii) CIT vs. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company , 213 ITR 843(Raj); (iii) Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT, 67 ITR 84 (SC); (iv) ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Limited, 343 ITR 329 (Del); (v) Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Additional CIT, 99 ITR 375 (Del); & (vi) CIT vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. I.T. Reference No.27 of 2002 decided on 31/07/2017 by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. The ld. Departmental Representative prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. 4. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined…

Credit Suisse (Singapore ) Limited, Singapore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (International Tax), Mumbai-2

In the result, appeals by the assessee for 2016-17 and 2017-18 are allowed

ITA 1007/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri P.J.Pardiwala Sr. Advocate with Shri. Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Ms. Surabhi Sharma, CIT DR and Ms. Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, Sr. AR

Section 263

M/S. Pearl Tracom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-4, Kolkata

ITA 495/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 263

…OL/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 M/s. Pearl Tracom Pvt. Ltd. 13.10. 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. Thalia Akshar Developers, Mumbai vs. Pr. Comm of Income Tax `, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 634/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Us, The Only Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld. Pcit

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…on proceedings u/s.263 of the Act cannot be initiated for ‘inadequate enquiry’ and the same could be done only for ‘lack of enquiry’. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd reported in 343 ITR 329 (Del) and the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nirav Modi reported in 390 ITR 292 (Bom). 3.6. Further, the ld. DR before us vehemently argued that provisions of Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act would come to the rescue of the Revenue and therefore, the ld. PCIT was justified in invoking his revision jurisdictio…

Radha Govind Public Welfare Society, Ramgarh vs. CIT(Exemption), Patna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 66/PAT/2018[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna23 Feb 2023

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, Addl. CIT, DR

Section 12ASection 142Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

…of initiation of proceedings u/s. 263 are mechanical in nature without application of mind by the Ld. CIT. In the course of hearing, Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of ITO vs. D. G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 on the aspect of application of mind by the ld. PCIT on the records of the case. 5. Per contra, Ld. CIT, DR placed reliance on the order of Ld. CIT and submitted that no prejudice is caused to the assessee if the issues raised in the revisionary order are examined by the ld. AO to arrive at fresh conclusion. 7 Radha Govind Public Welfare Societ…

P P Products Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir. 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 179/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Devi Saran Singh, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 263

…38,45,31,057/-. It is placed in the paper book page at 71 and 72. 6.4. In the course of hearing, Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of ITO 7 P P products Pvt. Ltd. AY 2017-18 Vs. D. G. Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 on the aspect of application of mind by the ld. PCIT on the records of the case. This aspect of application of mind by the CIT has been succinctly dealt by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the judgment of DG Housing Finance Co. Ltd. [2012] 20 taxmann.com 587 (Del). 6.4.1. While adverting on the issue, Hon’ble High Court held that the CIT has to c…