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#3049 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 366,339 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

Kailashchandra Khandelwal, Sendhwa vs. Pr. CIT -2, Indore

ITA 562/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble’ Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Shri Kailash Khandelwal Pr. Cit-2, Prop. M/S. Vikash Krishi Indore बनाम/ Seva Kendra, Bus Stand, Vs. Sendhwa, Barwani (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. Acmpk2991E Appellant By Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Vijay Bansal, Nisha Lahoti, Ars Revenue By Shri S.B. Prasad, Cit-Dr

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 44A

…अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE MANISH BORAD,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON'BLE’ MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Kailash Khandelwal Pr. CIT-2, Prop. M/s. Vikash Krishi Indore बनाम/ Seva Kendra, Bus Stand, Vs. Sendhwa, Barwani (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. ACMPK2991E Appellant by Shri Girish Agrawal & Shri Vijay Bansal, Nisha Lahoti, ARs Revenue by Shri S.B. Prasad, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 8.04.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 30.04.2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: By way of this appeal, the appell…

M/S.Srl Diagnostics Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner Income Tax-7, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by assessee are allowed

ITA 1528/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri R. L. Negi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1528/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridharan & Shri SFor Respondent: Shri Anand Mohan, DR

Section 14ASection 263Section 37

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM & SHRI R. L. NEGI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1528/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) PCIT-7, M/s SRL Diagnostics Pvt. Room No. 315, 3rd floor, Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. बिधम/ Piramal Tower, Annexe, Road, Mumbai-400 020 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AAACT9117E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri V. Sridharan & Shri S. Sriram, ARs by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Anand Mohan, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 18.11.2020 D…

Smt. Shweta Agrawal, Indore vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Indore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 280/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year:2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Shweta Agrawal Pr.CIT 82, Ashok Nagar, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AESPA1653H Appellant by Shri S.N. Agrawal, CA Revenue by Shri Puneet Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 20.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 21.12.2020 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (in short ‘Ld. Pr. CIT’)-2, Indore…

Mahesh Mehta, Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2804/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2804/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Mahesh Mehta, Vs Cit, 2042, Katra Tobacco, Khari Central-Ii, Baoli, Delhi-110006 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Agbpm7320C Assessee By : Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Sh. J. K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.01.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.03.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. J. K. Mishra, CIT DR

Section 132(4)Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Amit Shukla, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 2804/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Mahesh Mehta, Vs CIT, 2042, Katra Tobacco, Khari Central-II, Baoli, Delhi-110006 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AGBPM7320C Assessee by : Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, CA Revenue by : Sh. J. K. Mishra, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 16.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement: 12.03.2020 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT, Central-II, New De…

Gurvinder Kaur Bhatia, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-2, Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 151/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years: 2015-16 Smt. Harleen Kaur Bhatia Pr.CIT-2 144, Pipliyarao, Near Vs. Indore Vishnupuri Colony, A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AMGPB3531P Assessment Years: 2015-16 Smt. Gurvinder Kaur Bhatia Pr.CIT-2 13-14, Aditya Nagar, Near Vs. Indore Vishnupuri Colony, A.B. Road, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) PAN No.AGJPB0037B Assessee by S/Shri Sumit Nema & Shri GaganTiwari, ARs Revenue by Shri S.S. Mantry,…

Harleen Kaur Bhatia, Indore vs. Pr. CIT-2, Indore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee(s) in ITANo

ITA 150/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Years: 2015-16

Section 263

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee ITA No

ITA 2996/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. G. Manjunatha & Shri. Ravish Sood

Section 263Section 263(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(viia)

…prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Hon'ble Chennai Bench of the Tribunal while deciding the case of Rajya Laxmi Mills Ltd held that the AO should have made enquiries, before accepting the claim of the assessee. In another case, Jagdish Kumar Gulati (269 ITR 71) decided by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, the Court has held that the assessment order can be held to be erroneous and prejudicial when passed without proper enquiries. Considering a situation where in the AO did not raise any special query to examine the claim, still the assessment is held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of re…

Mr. Pranjal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-2, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1357/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.H. Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Murari, CIT-D.R

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member Assessment Year 2012-13 Mr. Pranjal Patel, The Pr. CIT, 5, Navavas, Ahmedabad Sabarmati, Ahmedabad Vs (Respondent) PAN: AQAPP5238P (Appellant) Revenue by: Shri Krishna Murari, CIT-D.R. Assessee by: Shri S.H. Talati, A.R. Date of hearing : 28-09-2018 Date of pronouncement : 07-12-2018 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, arises from order of the CIT-2, Ahmedabad dated 28-03-2017, in proceedings under secti…

Durgesh Autofin P.Ltd, Bijnor vs. Prcit, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2539/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2539/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Durgesh Autofin P. Ltd., Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, C/O Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Director, Muzaffarnagar-251002 S/O Late Sh. Tejpal Singh, Mandi Kotla, Near Nehru Murti, Chandpur, Bijnot, Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccd0768P Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rachna Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit, Muzaffarnagar U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act).

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269SSection 271DSection 41(1)Section 68

…prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 412 (All.) " Umashankar Rice Mill Vs CIT (1991) 187 ITR 638 (Ori.) " Jagdish Kumar Gulati Vs CIT 269 ITR 71 (All.) " Gee Vee Enterprises Vs Addl. CIT 99 ITR 375 (Del.) " Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) " Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) " Duggal & Co. Vs CIT (1996) 220 ITR 456 (Del.) " Sh. Virendra Kumar Gupta Vs CIT in ITA No. 2595/Del/2009, order dated 21.01.2011 15 Durgesh Autofin P. Ltd. 13. Accordingly, the Pr.…

Late Smt. Giriraj Kaur L/H Sri Ravinder Gill, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 931/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishilate Smt. Giriraj Kaur, Vs. Ito, C/O. L/H Sri Ravinder Gill, Ward-1(2), 861, Mangal Bhawan, Muzaffarnagar Bhopa Road, Muzaffarnagar Pan: Dtppk0005J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Smt Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT Dr

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…, 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.W.Gee Vee Enterprises vs. AddLCIT, 99 ITR 375 (Del.) in which it was held that it…

Shri Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Meerut vs. ACIT, Meerut

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

ITA 4979/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kamblesanjay Kumar Vs Cit Prop. Tyagi Associates Meerut H-45, Gandhi Nagar, Garh Road, (Respondent) Meerut Aczpk2030M (Applicant) Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Acit H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Circle-2, Gali No. 3, Garh Road Bhansali Ground Meerut Meerut Acapk2030M (Respondent) (Applicant) Acit Sanjay Kumar Tyagi Vs Circle-2, H. No. 45, Gandhi Nagar, Bhansali Ground Gali No. 3, Garh Road Meerut Meerut (Applicant) Acapk2030M (Respondent)

For Appellant: “1. That the impugned

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

…00) 243 ITR 83 (S.C) " CIT Vs. V. N. M.A Rathinasabapathy Nadar, (1995) 215 ITR 309 (Mad) " Swarup Vegetable Products Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1991) 187 ITR 412 (All.) " Umashankar Rice Mill Vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 638-39 (Ori) " Jadgish Kumar Gulati Vs. CIT, 269 ITR 71 (All) " Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Addl. CIT, 99 ITR 375 (Del) " Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (S.C) " Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs. CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (S.C) 7. The Ld. CIT further observed that the A.O accepted the version of the assessee without making any enquiry or verification where as it is very well settled that mere failure to ma…

Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

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

ITA 2725/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

For Appellant: “1. That the impugned

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

M/S Fazal Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2837/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nandita Kanchan, CIT DR

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

…9 (Ori), the Tribunal was held justified in upholding the revisional 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: i. Jagdish Kumar Gulati vs. CIT, 269 ITR 71 (All.) 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 to facts placed by the assessee on their face value. Where the AO complete the assessment proceedings under section 143(3) and admitted that he could n…

Vidyasagar Enterprises LLP, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 13, Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2653/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2653/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Vidyasagar Enterprises Llp The Pr. Comm. Of Income Tax 13 (Formerly Vidyasagar Investments Ayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बनाम/ Private Limited) Mumbai 400020. 6Th Floor, Business Park, S V Road, V. Chincholi Phatak, Malad (W), Mumbai 400064 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcv1066B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhat ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G M Doss

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri G M Doss

Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “एफ” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2653/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/s Vidyasagar Enterprises LLP The Pr. Comm. Of Income Tax 13 (formerly Vidyasagar Investments Ayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बनाम/ Private Limited) Mumbai 400020. 6th Floor, Business Park, S V Road, v. Chincholi Phatak, Malad (W), Mumbai 400064 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AABCV1066B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appe…

CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd

The appeal is disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITA/1691/2010HC Delhi10 Sept 2013

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80H

…ITA 1404/2009 & 1691/2010 Page 1 of 25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 10 th September, 2013 + ITA 1404/2009 & ITA 1691/2010 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI V..... Appellant Through Mr. T.N. Chopra with Mr. Shivendra Kumar Singh, Advocates. versus NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Husnal Syali, Mr. Mayank Nagi and Mr.Anuh…

CIT vs. New Delhi Television Ltd

The appeal is disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITA - 1691 / 2010HC Delhi10 Sept 2013

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80H

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi V vs. New Delhi Television Ltd

The appeal is disposed of, with no order as to costs

ITA - 1404 / 2009HC Delhi10 Sept 2013

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80H

Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi & Ors

Appeal is dismissed

ITA - 504 / 2008HC Delhi18 Nov 2011

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92Section 92CSection 92D

…of the opinion that the High Court has rightly held that the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Commissioner under Section 263(1) was justified.” 6. The Tribunal also took note of the following observation contained in Jagdish Kumar Gulati Vs. CIT, 269 ITR 71:- “It is well settled that if the Assessing Officer fails to make a proper enquiry this is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue vide K.A .Ramaswamy Chettiar Vs. CIT (1996) 220 ITR 657 (mad; Addl. CIT Vs. Mukur Corporation (19978) 111 ITR 312 (Guj); Gee Vee Enterprises Vs.Addl. CIT (1975) 99 ITR 375 (Del);Malabar Industri…

C.I.T vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd

ITA/1165/2007HC Delhi14 Sept 2010

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 260Section 263Section 288Section 80Section 80H

…weak order. The Commissioner, thus, referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income- Tax, 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Allahabad High Court in Jugdish Kumar Gulati vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, 269 ITR 71 set aside the order of the AO with the direction to pass fresh assessment order de novo after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee to represent his case and after making requisite inquiries from the other Government agencies. 4. The Tribunal went into each of the issues which were highlighted by the Commissioner in his order observing…