Majinder Singh Kang, Atlas Cycle Industries and CIT v. Mehak Finvest Pvt. Ltd.

52 Taxmann.com 51High Court2014#16001 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 148 Section 143(2)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(b)Section 13(1)(c)(ii)

Issues it is cited on

reason to believe section 133 section 133a notice under section 148 reassessment proceedings section 142 section 143(2)section 13 section 142(1)section 148 section 147 section 143

Judgments citing Majinder Singh Kang, Atlas Cycle Industries and CIT v. Mehak Finvest Pvt. Ltd.

DHARAM CHAND AGARWAL,KANPUR (UTTAR PARDESH) vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPUR- I

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

ITA 358/LKW/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Dharam Chand Agarwal, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 14/75 D Gopal Vihar Civil Lines, Kanpur-I, U.P. Kanpur, U.P. Pan: Aanpa1942L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Pr. Cit, Kanpur-1 On 31.03.2024 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Wherein The Ld. Pcit Has Set Aside The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao On 28.03.2022 Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B For The A.Y. 2016-17 & Directing Him To Pass A Fresh Assessment Order. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Assessment Order U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Dated 28.03.2022, Which Has Been Set Aside U/S 263 Of The Act By The Impugned Order Passed By Pr. Cit, Itself Was Illegal & Was Not Enforceable Due To Various Infirmities In The Initiation & Conclusion Of Re-Assessment Proceedings, The Same Could Not Have Been Subjected To Revision U/S 263 Of The Act & Consequently The Impugned Order Is Bad In Law & Wholly Without Jurisdiction. Without Prejudice To The Aforesaid 2. Because The Pr. Cit Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Holding That The Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2022 Passed By The Assessing Officer, Nfac U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Is Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue & In Setting Aside The Same By Exercising His Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘A’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2016-17 Dharam Chand Agarwal, vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, 14/75 D Gopal Vihar Civil Lines, Kanpur-I, U.P. Kanpur, U.P. PAN: AANPA1942L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue by: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR Date of hearing: 07.10.2025 Date of pronouncement: 31.12.2025 O R D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. Pr. CIT, Kanpur-1 on 31.03.2024 under section 263 of t…

ITO, WARD-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAGHUVIR RETAILERS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1129/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyi.T.A. No. 1129/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Income Tax Officer,………………..……………..Appellant Ward-6(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 6Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Limited,.……….....Respondent Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-700026 [Pan:Aaecr8231M] Appearances By: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Shri Abhisek Bansal, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ITA No. 1129/KOL/2025 (A.Y. 2012-2013) Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member I.T.A. No. 1129/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Income Tax Officer,………………..……………..Appellant Ward-6(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, 6th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 -Vs.- Raghuvir Retailers Pvt. Limited,.……….....Respondent Mandawa Shikhar, 151, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-700026 [PAN:AAECR8231M] Appearances by: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. D.R., appeared on behalf of the Revenue Sh…

SURESHKUMAR JETHANAND RAWLANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 17(3)(4) , MUMBAI

ITA 1054/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R. &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246Section 4Section 5Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.1053 & 1054/M/2024 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Sureshkumar Jethanand Income Tax Officer – Rawlani, 17(3)(4), 272, Abdul Rehman Street, Room No.130, 1st 2nd Floor, Room No.17, Floor, Mumbai – 400 003 Kautilya Bhavan, PAN: AAAPR7913B Vs. C-41 to C-43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai Maharashtra- 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, A.R. Revenue by : Dr. Kishor Dhu…

SURESHKUMAR JETHANAND RAWLANI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 17(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1053/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. Padvekar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D.R. &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 246Section 4Section 5Section 56(2)(vii)Section 80

ARIES EXPORTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1008/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri N.K. Pradhan, Am M/S Aries Exports Pvt. Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner Bhaktawar, 11Th Floor, Of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aacca2924N

For Appellant: Rajesh P. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI N.K. PRADHAN, AM M/s Aries Exports Pvt. Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner Bhaktawar, 11th Floor, of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent PAN No. AACCA2924N Assessee by : Rajesh P. Shah, AR Revenue by : Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR Date of hearing: 07-11-2017 Date of pronouncement : 16-11-2017 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: This appeal by the Assessee is arising out of the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai, [in short CIT(A)] in appeal No. IT-914/13-14/22…

CAIRN UK HOLDING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NEW DELHI

In the result ground No. 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1669/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Percy Pardiwala Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Puri CIT

Section 143(3)Section 144

…eme Court in several decisions, 8. Rebuttal to judicial precedents relied upon by the DRP Cairn U K Holdings Limited V DCIT ( International Taxation) New Delhi A Y 2007-08 P a g e | 66 8.1 The DRP relied on the decisions of CIT v Mehak Finvest P Ltd [2014] 52 Taxmann.com 51 (P&H) and Majinder Singh Kang v CIT [2012] 344 ITR 358 / 25 taxmann.com 124 (P&H) contending that in view of Explanation 3 to Section 147 of the Act. the AO shall be empowered to make additions even to the extent of grounds on which reassessment notice might not have been issued during reassessment proceedings. 8.2 In this regard, the Appel…