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 263Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57(iv)Section 144BSection 10(37)

Issues it is cited on

inadequate enquirysection 145a(b)section 145black of enquirysection 45(5)section 57(iv)section 56(2)(viii)section 263(1)section 10(37)assessment order erroneousmalabar industrialrevision u/s 263

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

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 70/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…Vs Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) (9) CIT Vs Minalben S. Parikh 215 ITR 0081 (Guj) (10) Moil Ltd. Vs CIT 396 ITR 244 (Bom) (11) CIT Vs Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bom) (12) CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (13) ITO Vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del) (14) Gee Vee Enterprises Vs ACIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) (15) CIT Vs Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) (16) CIT Vs Anilkumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) (17) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (18) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) (19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 69/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…Vs Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) (9) CIT Vs Minalben S. Parikh 215 ITR 0081 (Guj) (10) Moil Ltd. Vs CIT 396 ITR 244 (Bom) (11) CIT Vs Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bom) (12) CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (13) ITO Vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del) (14) Gee Vee Enterprises Vs ACIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) (15) CIT Vs Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) (16) CIT Vs Anilkumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) (17) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (18) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) (19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 68/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…Vs Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) (9) CIT Vs Minalben S. Parikh 215 ITR 0081 (Guj) (10) Moil Ltd. Vs CIT 396 ITR 244 (Bom) (11) CIT Vs Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bom) (12) CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (13) ITO Vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del) (14) Gee Vee Enterprises Vs ACIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) (15) CIT Vs Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) (16) CIT Vs Anilkumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) (17) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (18) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) (19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 67/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…Vs Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) (9) CIT Vs Minalben S. Parikh 215 ITR 0081 (Guj) (10) Moil Ltd. Vs CIT 396 ITR 244 (Bom) (11) CIT Vs Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bom) (12) CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (13) ITO Vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del) (14) Gee Vee Enterprises Vs ACIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) (15) CIT Vs Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) (16) CIT Vs Anilkumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) (17) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (18) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) (19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 66/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…Vs Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) (9) CIT Vs Minalben S. Parikh 215 ITR 0081 (Guj) (10) Moil Ltd. Vs CIT 396 ITR 244 (Bom) (11) CIT Vs Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bom) (12) CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (13) ITO Vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del) (14) Gee Vee Enterprises Vs ACIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) (15) CIT Vs Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) (16) CIT Vs Anilkumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) (17) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (18) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) (19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 65/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…Vs Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) (9) CIT Vs Minalben S. Parikh 215 ITR 0081 (Guj) (10) Moil Ltd. Vs CIT 396 ITR 244 (Bom) (11) CIT Vs Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bom) (12) CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (13) ITO Vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del) (14) Gee Vee Enterprises Vs ACIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) (15) CIT Vs Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) (16) CIT Vs Anilkumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) (17) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (18) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) (19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398…

Sureshbhai Balubhai Asodariya, Surat vs. Pr. CIT (Central)Circle, Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 64/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 254(1)Section 263

…Vs Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) (9) CIT Vs Minalben S. Parikh 215 ITR 0081 (Guj) (10) Moil Ltd. Vs CIT 396 ITR 244 (Bom) (11) CIT Vs Nirav Modi 390 ITR 292 (Bom) (12) CIT Vs Gabriel India Ltd 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (13) ITO Vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329 (Del) (14) Gee Vee Enterprises Vs ACIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi) (15) CIT Vs Vikas Polymers 341 ITR 537 (Delhi) (16) CIT Vs Anilkumar Sharma 335 ITR 83 (Delhi) (17) CIT Vs Sunbeam Auto Ltd. (2010) 189 Taxman 436 (Delhi) (18) CIT Vs Kelvinator of India Ltd. (2002) 123 Taxman 433 (Delhi) (19) PCIT Vs Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 398…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. M/S Britannia Industries Ltd

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITAT/211/2022HC Calcutta23 Dec 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 35

…contrary to the law as laid down in several decisions and the tribunal rightly noted the decision in Income Tax Officer Versus DG Housing Projects Limited 2. 1 (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2 (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del) ITAT NO. 211 OF 2022 REPORTABLE Page 10 of 10 14. Thus, for all the above reasons, we find that no questions of law much less substantial questions of law arises for consideration in this…

Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd., Na

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 106/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण,सुरत"यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA No.104 & 106/SRT/2022 (AY 2017-18) (Hearing in Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3rd Floor, PAN No. AADFK 3167 H Vs Income-tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 PAN No. AABCL 1645 A अपील…

K. N. Diamond, Na

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.104 & 106/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner Of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-Tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3Rd Floor, Pan No. Aadfk 3167 H Vs Income-Tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 Pan No. Aabcl 1645 A अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 263

…आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण,सुरत"यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA No.104 & 106/SRT/2022 (AY 2017-18) (Hearing in Physical Court) K.N. Diamond, 5/4299, Ground Floor, Principal Commissioner of Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Income-tax, Valsad, Room Navsari, Gujarat-396321 No. 301, 3rd Floor, PAN No. AADFK 3167 H Vs Income-tax Office, Palak Arcade, Pali, Shantinagar, Labdhi Jewellerd Pvt. Ltd. Tithal Road, Valsad, Soniwad, Bilimora, Dist. Gujarat-396001 Navsari, Gujarat-396321 PAN No. AABCL 1645 A अपील…

P.C. Chandra Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 P.C. Chandra Holding Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit-2, Kolkata P-37A, Nani Gopal Roychowdhury Vs. Avenue, Anada Palit Road, Kolkata- 700014. Pan: Aadcp 0094 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, Fca Respondent By : Shri G. Hukugha Sema, Cit Date Of Hearing : 14.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Pr. Cit, Kolkata-2 Vide Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2021-22/104144167(1) Dated 24.03.2022 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Through This Appeal, The Assessee Has Essentially Challenged The Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax For Invoking The Impugned Revisionary Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Act & Passing The Order Thereunder For Which, The Assessee Has Taken As Many As Eight Grounds Of Appeal Which Are Not Reproduced For The Sake Of Brevity. The Two Issues Which Have Been Considered By The Ld. Pr. Cit For The Purpose Of Invoking The Revisionary Proceedings & Referred In The Grounds Of Appeal Are (I) Deduction U/S 80G Of The Act Amounting To Rs. 20,000/- For Which No Evidence In Support Of Payment Of Donation Is Produced To Ascertain Its Veracity (Ii) Deduction U/S 80G

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

…e ld. PCIT on this issue also. 10. The issue regarding whether the assessment order is erroneous or prejudicial on the ground of insufficiency of enquiry has been dealt by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the judgment of ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del), which has been followed by various co-ordinate benches of the ITAT in various cases. Hon’ble High Court while adverting to the issue held that in cases of wrong opinion for finding on merit, the CIT has to come to the conclusion and himself decide that order is erroneous, by conducting necessary enquiry, if required and necessary before th…

Swaran Financial Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/KOL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

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

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

…nquiry in order to find out as to how the assessment order passed by the AO 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 [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del) in defense of his arguments. Finally the Ld. A.R. submitted that in 7 AY: 2016-17 Swaran Financial Pvt. Ltd. view of the above facts particularly the investigation/enquiry being carried out by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings by calling information from the assessee and also from the lenders u/s 133(6) of the Act and takin…

M/S. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd., Shillong vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Shillong, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 45/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

…s order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.” 24. 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 26 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & Assessment Year:2014-2015 M/s. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited opinion on merits that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Relevant ex…

M/S. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd., Shillong vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Shillong, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 418/GTY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati12 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 263

…s order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard.” 24. 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 26 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 & Assessment Year:2014-2015 M/s. North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited opinion on merits that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Relevant ex…

Virgo Aluminum Ltd., Sirmour vs. Pr. C.I.T., Circle, Patiala

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 438/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 438/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263oSection 80Section 80I

…comes erroneous because such an inquiry has not been made and not because there is anything wrong with the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct." 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…

Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Sirmour vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 453/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Disposed Off.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Goyal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

…order, it was submitted, that the specific decisions relied upon by the ld. PCIT are of no help. Addressing the same, it was submitted, that reliance placed by the ld. PCIT on decisions of the Delhi High Court in the case of DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Delhi) and Gee Vee Enterprises Vs Additional Commissioner of Income-tax (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Delhi). Addressing the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of D.G. Housing Projects Ltd. (supra) it was submitted that the said decision was infact in favour of the assessee as in the facts of the said decision, the issue for considerat…

Sherawali Coal Carrier (P) Ltd, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 441/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. Baranwal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

…e been made for purchase of capital assets on which subsequently, depreciation was claimed as is evident from the depreciation chart. 12. It would be pertinent to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of DG Housing Project 343 ITR 329 wherein the Hon'ble High Court, inter alia, observed as under: “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 inve…

Veer Plastics Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT -4, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/AHD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: ShriA. P. Singh, CIT
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 244ASection 263Section 32(1)(iia)Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.456/Ahd/2020 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Veer Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT-4, 1st Floor, 104, Sardar Patel Ahmedabad Colony, Stadium Road, Navjivan Post, Ahmedabad-380014 [PAN No.AAACV6291P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri P. B. Parmar, C.A. Respondent by: ShriA. P. Singh, CIT Date of Hearing 02.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement 09.11.2022 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE - JM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against…

Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd., Raipur vs. Pr. Commisioner Income Tax-1, Raipur

ITA 55/RPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 55/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Maruti Clean Coal & Power Ltd. Ward No.42, Building No.14, Civil Lines, Near Income Tax Colony, Chhattisgarh-492 001. Pan : Aadcm4810C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. Ananya Kapoor & Ms. Soumya Singh, Advocates. Revenue By :Shri P. K Mishra, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms. AnanyaFor Respondent: Shri P. K Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

…in support of his aforesaid contention had also relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT-6, New Delhi Vs. Modicare Limited, ITA No.759/2016, dated 14.09.2017 and Income-Tax Officer Vs. D.G Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del). The Ld. A.R submitted that as the Pr. CIT in the present case had failed to examine the issue in question, i.e., receipt of amount by the assessee company towards share capital and share premium and had summarily restored the matter to the file of the A.O, therefore, the order so passed by him could not be sustained and was liable to be st…

Bhaskar Arvind Kumar Hingad, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT-24(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 692/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.692/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Bhaskar Arvind Kumar बिधम/ Acit-24(1) Hingad 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Flat No. 1, Ratnakar Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Building, 26 Narayan Mumbai-400012. Dhabolkar Road, Mumbai- 400006. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacph2812F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue By: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-20 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 31.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2014- 15 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VP AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.692/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Bhaskar Arvind Kumar बिधम/ ACIT-24(1) Hingad 601, 6th Floor, Piramal Vs. Flat No. 1, Ratnakar Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Building, 26 Narayan Mumbai-400012. Dhabolkar Road, Mumbai- 400006. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACPH2812F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Vijay Mehta Revenue by: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 29/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date o…