How many judgments cite Jagdish Kumar Gulati v. CIT?

39 judgments on BharatTax cite Jagdish Kumar Gulati v. CIT (269 ITR 71), spanning 2010 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Jagdish Kumar Gulati v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 263, Section 119, Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 144B.

Jagdish Kumar Gulati v. CIT

269 ITR 71High Court2004#3096 most cited

What is Jagdish Kumar Gulati v. CIT authority for?

An Assessing Officer (AO) is expected to conduct a detailed inquiry during assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) and should not accept the assessee's claims at face value. A failure to investigate glaring issues amounts to a lack of proper inquiry.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Jagdish Kumar Gulati · CIT · 269 ITR 71 · Section 143(3) · inadequate enquiry · lack of enquiry · assessment order erroneous · non-application of mind · scrutiny assessment · Assessing Officer duty · thorough investigation

Also reported as

139 Taxmann 369

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 263 Section 119 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144B Section 2(24)(x)Section 254(2)

Issues it is cited on

assessment order erroneous inadequate enquiry malabar industrial lack of enquiry erroneous and prejudicial non-application of mind section 263 sundry creditors section 26 scrutiny assessment income-tax officer section 144b

Judgments citing Jagdish Kumar Gulati v. CIT

TECHNOBLAST MINING CORPORATION, RAIGARH,RAIGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 307/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.307/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Technoblast Mining Corporation 19, 2Nd Floor, Krishna Complex, Chaityana Nagar, Raigarh (C.G.)- 496 001 Pan: Aaeft5992Q

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 263Section 36(1)(va)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.307/RPR/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Technoblast Mining Corporation 19, 2nd Floor, Krishna Complex, Chaityana Nagar, Raigarh (C.G.)- 496 001 PAN: AAEFT5992Q ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1 ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ram Tiwari, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 26.06.2…

SHRI UMESH GARG,MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2832/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Agarwal, Hon'Bleasstt. Year: 2011-12 Umesh Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(4), 105, Konark Colony, Meerut Roorkee Road, Meerut (Pan: Afgpg0404B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sanjay Malik, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Surender Pal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

…ent order under Section 143(3) of the Act, it is expected from the AO that he will make a detailed inquiry to find out correct income of the assessee and not blindly rely upon the facts placed by the assessee on their face value [Jagdish Kumar Gulati vs. CIT, 269 ITR 71 (All] Therefore, this issue is being set aside to the file of the AO directing him to investigate the inflow of money from M/s Garg Agencies into M/s A.R Foods and the modus operandi of investment by the assessee into M/s AR Dwelling Pvt. Ltd after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. (d)A perusal of the P&L a/c reveals that a sum of…

PRAVEEN TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2832/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Malik, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 263

SHREE SHYAM BUILDSTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,SIKAR vs. ITO WARD -1, SIKAR

Appeals are allowed

ITA 818/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Poonia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 263

…rein findings by our own High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Ram Singh were followed. 9. Per contra, Ld. DR has relied upon the detailed finding recorded in the order of the ld. PCIT and on the decision in the case of Jagdish Kumar Gulati vs. CIT [2004] 269 ITR 71 (All), Gee Vee Enterprise vs. ACIT [1975]99ITR375 (Delhi) and the decision of CIT Vs. Amitabh Bachhan, CA No. 5009 of 2016 which was also decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Ld. DR referred to para 24 of judgment in the case of Jagdish Kumar Gulati (supra), wherein Hon’ble Court held that when a case is picked up Shree Shyam Buildstructure…

SHREE SHYAM BUILDSTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,SIKAR vs. ITO WARD -1, SIKAR

Appeals are allowed

ITA 815/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Poonia, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 263

M/S POORNACHAND AGRAWAL, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 104/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 104/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Pooranchand Agrawal C/O. Bagadia Enterprises, Near Shiv Talkies, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495001 Pan : Aaifp8483G

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 104/RPR/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/s. Pooranchand Agrawal C/o. Bagadia Enterprises, Near Shiv Talkies, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495001 PAN : AAIFP8483G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1 ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri R.B Doshi, CA Revenue by : Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 20.09.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Pron…

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)

…ders erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Absence of proper inquiry by the AO would render the assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue held in following cases. 1. Jagdish Kumar Gulati vs CIT 269 ITR 71 (All.) 2. Duggar & Co. vs CIT 220 ITR 456 (Del) 3. K.A. Rama Swami Chhettiar vs CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad.) 4. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons discussed above, the assessment order dated 19-03-2021 for the assessment year 2018-19 passed by the AO is held erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest…

M/S MARATHON INDIA LTD.,RAJASTHAN vs. SMT. PRATIMA KAUSHIK, PCIT-1, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed with no order as to cost

ITA 235/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar Jain, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 338Section 80Section 801E

…rroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Absence of proper inquiring by the AO would render the assessment order erroneous as well as projudicial to the interest of the revenue as held in following cases: 1. Jagdish Kumar Gulati vs CIT 269 ITR 71 (Allahabad) 2. Duggal & Co. 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) 3. KA. Rama Swami Chettiar vs CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad) 6. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons discussed AO is held erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue for the purpose of section 263 of the I.T. Act. The said order has been pass…

VISHAL NAGPAL,SAHARANPUR vs. PR.CIT , MUZAFFARNAGAR

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3790/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263

…, the Tribunal was held justified in upholding the revision order of the Commissioner which was passed by the Commissioner who felt that there should be a further enquiry. Reliance is further placed on the following judgments: i. Jagdish Kumar Gulati vs. CIT, 269 ITR 71 (AH.) in which it is held that while framing the assessment under section 143(3), it is expected from the AO that he will make a detailed inquiry to find out correct income of the assessee and not blindly rely upon the facts placed by the assessee on their face value. ii. Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl.CIT, 99 ITR 375 (Del.) in which it was held th…

HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 94/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR

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

…order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Absence of proper inquiring by the AO would render the assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue as held in following cases: Jagdish Kumar Gulati vs CIT 269 ITR 71 (Allahabad) 14 HINDUSTAN SALES INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, JAIPUR VS PR. CIT-1, JAIPUR Duggal & Co. 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) K. A. Rama Swami Chettiar vs CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad) (b) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tara Devi Agarwal vs. CIT [(1973) 88 ITR 323] in which Hon'ble court stated that where a stereotype order is passed, which simply accepts…

OM PRAKASH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 204/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us. In This Appeal The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Saraswat (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

…bsence of such adequate explanation by petitioner – Whether on facts, writ petition was to be dismissed in limine - Held, yes Case law is not remotely applicable upon the facts of the assessee 2. Jagdish Kumar Gulati Whether where Assessing Officer completed 269 ITR 71 (Allahabad) assessment proceedings under section 143(3) 26 OM Prakash Agarwal 2004 and admitted that he could not make proper enquiries as assessment was becoming time- barred, there was valid assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 by Commissioner, and Tribunal, in such a situation, did not commit any error in law in confirming order of C…

RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 263

…rroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Absence of proper inquiring by the AO would render the assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as held in following cases: 1 Jagdish Kumar Gulati vs CIT 269 ITR 71 (Allahabad) 2. Duggal & Co. 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) 3. K.A. Rama Swami Chettiar vs CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad) 9. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons discussed above, the assessment order dated 27-12-2019 for A.Y. 2017-18 passed by the AO is held erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenu…

RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI FOOD INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-1, JAIPUR

ITA 191/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Us On The Following Grounds In This Appeal;

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

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

…hile holding that view the ld. Pr. CIT has relied the judgment of the apex court in the case of Deniel Merchants P. Ltd. & others Vs. ITO. He also relied upon the decision of M/s. Gee Vee Enterprise 99 ITR 375 Delhi High Court, Jagdish Kumar Gulati Vs. CIT 269 ITR 71 (Allahabad HC), Duggal & co. 220 ITR 456(Delhi), K. A. Ramaswami Cehttiar Vs. CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad). 8. On merits the ld. AR of the assessee submitted before us that his detailed submission which is extracted here in below : “Facts: The assessee, a Private Limited Company. The main object of the company is of Manufacturing and Marketing of Dai…

RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JAIPUR

In the result both the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 190/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Deepak Birla (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 263

NEELAM MEDATWAL,JAIPUR vs. PCTI-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 62/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54F

…oneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Absence of proper inquiring by the AO would render the assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue as held in following cases: 1. Jagdish Kumar Gulati vs. CIT 269 ITR 71 (Allahabad) 2. Duggal & Co. 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) 3. K.Am Rama Swami Chettiar vs. CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad.) 1. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tara Devi Agarwal vs. CIT [(1973) 88 ITR 323] in which Hon’ble CCourt stated that where a stereotype order is passed, which simply accepts what the assessee has said in the return and falls to make enquirie…

MAHALAXMI KUNDAN MEENA DIAMOND JEWELLERS P LTD,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JAIPUR

ITA 119/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Avdesh Kumar (CIT)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…rroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Absence of proper inquiring by the AO would render the assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as held in following cases:- 1. Jagdish Kumar Gulati vs CIT 269 ITR 71 (Allahabad) 2. Duggal & Co. 220 ITR 456 (Delhi) 3. K.A. Rama Swami Chettiar vs CIT 220 ITR 657 (Mad.) 12. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons discussed above, the assessment order dated 25-12-2019 for A.Y. 2017-18 passed by the AO is held erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the reven…

M/S. SWAPNA MOTORS PRIVATE LTD.,CUTTACK vs. CIT, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 251/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2010-2011 2011 M/S. Swapna Motors Pvt Ltd., M/S. Swapna Motors Pvt Ltd., Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Friends Colony, Cuttack Friends Colony, Cuttack Tax, Tax, Circle Circle-2(1), Arunodoya Nagar, Cuttack Nagar, Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aafcs 1450 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M.K.Goutam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30 /3/ 20 / 2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 / /4/2022 O R D E R Per C.M.Garg G, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Goutam

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

…can regard the order of the AO as erroneous on the ground that, in the circumstances of the case, the AO should have made further enquiries before accepting the statement filed by the assessee. Further in the case of Jagadish Kumar Gulati Vs. CIT reported in 269 ITR 71 (All), it was held that where the Commissioner found that necessary enquiries were not made by the AO before finalizing the assessment, assumption of jurisdiction u/s.263 by him to cancel the order of the AO was justified. Again in the case of CIT vs Puspa Devi reported in 164 ITR 639(Pat), it was held that where there was failure on the part of t…

M/S MORAL PHARMACEUTICALS (P) LTD. vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 341/LKW/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Moral Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. V. Pr. Cit-2 Mata Parvati Apartment Lucknow Katen Lene Wali Chowk Kalyan East, Maharashtra Tan/Pan:Aagcm8051Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent By: Smt. Sheela Chopa, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 06 10 2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14 12 2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Sheela Chopa, CIT (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW [Through Virtual Hearing] BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Moral Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Pr. CIT-2 Mata Parvati Apartment Lucknow Katen Lene Wali Chowk Kalyan East, Maharashtra TAN/PAN:AAGCM8051Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by: Smt. Sheela Chopa, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 06 10 2021 Date of pronouncement: 14 12 2021 O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, V.P.: This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the Pr. CIT- 2, Lucknow, dated…

RELIANCE LIFE SCIENCES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT-8, MUMBAI

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 533/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.533/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.534/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit - 8 Dhirubhai Ambani Life Sciences Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बिाम/ R-282, Ttc Area Of Midc Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Thane Belapur Road, Rabale, Navi Mumbai-400 701 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcr-7594-L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Nimesh Vora-Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Anand Mohan-Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 07/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 05/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 As Per The Provisions Of Section 263 Of Income Tax Act, 1961, The Revenue Authorities Namely Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax / Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Vested With The Supervisory Powers Of Suo-Moto Revision Of Any Order Passed By The Assessing Officer [Ao]. For The Said Purpose, The Appropriate Authority May Call For & Examine

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan-Ld. CIT-DR

Section 263

…1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “के” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री पवन कुमार गडाले, न्याययक सदस्य एवं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.533/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.534/Mum/2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Reliance Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Pr. CIT - 8 Dhirubhai Ambani Life Sciences Centre, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बिाम/ R-282,…

M/S RADHISHWARI DEVLOPERS P LTD,INDORE vs. PR CIT -2 INDORE, INDORE

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

ITA 493/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jul 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING Assessment Year 2013-14 M/s. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known as R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant PAN :AAFCR1916A V/s Pr. CITO-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant by S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue by Shri S.S. Mantri, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date of Pronouncement 20.07.2021 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M The above captioned appeal f…

Showing 1–20 of 39 · Page 1 of 2